Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doist (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not cite any actual sources that could be relevant for notability.  Sandstein  09:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Doist
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously deleted, now recreated but still fails WP:NORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with the nomination rationale. I want to note that it says "It employes 40 people in more than 20 countries". This doesn't make sense because the only number which is more than 20 that 40 can be divided by is 40 itself.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair the source says more than 40 people.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Storm nominated this article for deletion 2 years ago and Storm created the article again in 2019?--SharabSalam (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it is a unique (remote) company, and for which coverage exists. The company is already known for some notable softwares. I will try to add more sources. Störm   (talk)  14:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed my vote because I feel that one of their apps is notable in google play and has more than 10 million downloads .--SharabSalam (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep If sources are added. I believe the subject of notable enough to have some RS, it just needs to be added in. Puddleglum  2.0   15:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it just me? Or are you saying, as it currently stands, the subject is not notable but you believe that if some other editor finds good sources (but not you, you can't find any), then it will be notable? And that's your sole reason for !voting to Keep?  HighKing++ 15:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: If an article is nom'd for deletion by someone and recreated by that person without reasoning that in many ways is a concerning thing; as it avoids in my view an unethical avoidance of attribution. This creation was in fact a somewhat untypically article for this creator; and the creator has nominated better for deletion themselves so there might be questions if this article was created in expectation it might be sent for deletion.  There are possibilies WP:RS may exist for article retention and if so I have objection to WP:REFUND of the deleted article of perhaps  might indicate if a histmerge is possible.  Thankyou.86.158.216.81 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This article's history is entirely independent of the previous version and so no merge (in reality it would just be the opposite of revision deletion) is necessary. All the edits on the page now are properly attributed to the editors who've done them - the previous version of the article being quite different. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.