Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equilar, Inc.


 * 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. A reasonably clear consensus. Some of the deletion arguments are terse, but the nomination is a very good one and High King's argument to keep has been rebutted by K.e.coffman.  A  Train talk 07:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Equilar, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating article for deletion. In my opinion the subject of the article does not meet WP:NOTE. Third party information concerning the subject is limited, and the articles' current sourcing is poor. One source is attributed to the CEO and founder of Equilar, two sources   require registering and logging in to view. The most notable sources cited by the article are both from the New York Times. Both articles  cite Equilar's research and findings, but provide only a small amount of information about the company, nor do the articles concern Equilar itself (they cover other topics.) In my view, notability has not been established. I would gladly cite Equilar as a source, but do not believe it's inclusion furthers the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete WP:NOTYELLOW &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  07:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  09:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I can't find any sources that pass WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 12:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep In my opinion, the NYT articles meet the criteria for establishing notability and the pionline article also meets the criteria (which I don't need a login to see). The article could do with some fleshing out. -- HighKing ++ 16:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  13:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, something called Equilar was speedily deleted last year as unambiguous advertising. That article was created or edited by two accounts including User:RKDOT. This article was created by the similarly named (it seems to me) User:ABATQ. The two accounts are not editing currently. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- just a directory listing on a subject of no significance. NYT coverage is trivial and in passing, insufficient for establishing independent notability of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2017 (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.