Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LivHOME


 * 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.  JGHowes   talk  13:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

LivHOME

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. None of its claims of services are cited, and everything below the lead reads like an advertisement: "augment its strategic, national growth efforts", "enrich the lives of LivHOME clients". While I can't read the full WSJ article, the first 4.5 paragraphs mention nothing about it, and the business journal just writes about the aquisitions, not about the company itself or what they've done. Catholic Online is not reliable, and the archived 'advance web' page mentions LivHOME once, about the author. No sources indicate notability, and websites that mention it all seem to talk about it's acquisitions. Of the websites on google that talk about it, none are reliable, and some are self-published. WhoAteMyButter ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 03:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 03:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * pinging NemesisAT since they objected to the previous PROD, so they might want to join in. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 03:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous PROD.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, agreed that the article was/is too promotional, but I feel it is notable thanks to the additional sources I've added. I've also deleted some spammy links. I don't see why Home Health Care News should be considered unreliable. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Company has since re-branded to "Arosa". My search for sources was not comprehensive, I imagine there is scope for expansion thanks to all the acquisitions the company has made. NemesisAT (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as follows:
 * Home Health News relies entirely on a company announcement, no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
 * HomeCare Magazine is a press release, fails WP:ORGIND
 * Bizjournals is based entirely on a company announcement, no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
 * Home Health Care News is based on an interview/PR by the company in relation to the companies "grant program", no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
 * Home Health Care News next reference is based entirely on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
 * Market Intelligence reference is a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
 * WSJ reference contains a quote from a co-founder and also relays a story by an employee. There is no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
 * Catholic reference is a Press Release, fails WP:ORGIND
 * Having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium  14:08, 15 August 2021 (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.