Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezbob (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ezbob
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Largely unsourced and promotional. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Maduant (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Just another mid-tier software development company MNewnham (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies,  and United Kingdom. Maduant (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete a lot of redlinks and very few articles that link to it Nagol0929 (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've checked only first 2 sources of 8, but if The Telegraph writes about you (and it's not a trivial mention), it still means something. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Of these 8, 1 is paywalled, 1 no longer exists and only 1 appears to be a direct report about the company. The rest are about other companies that Ezbob have associations with. MNewnham (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references (including those in The Telegraph) are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc.  HighKing++ 16:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NCORP.   scope_creep Talk  23:06, 13 March 2023 (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.