Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monjin


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Monjin

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

I doubt this firm meets the notability criteria set for companies at WP:COMPANY. AmusingWeasel (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. AmusingWeasel (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm not sure about the quality of the sources I found with my quick search, but if it were up to me, I'd consider it sufficient to indicate notability: ,, KhinMoTi (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The first two definitely don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And the last is straight-up promo  HighKing++ 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Just another mid-tier software company that fails WP:CORP MNewnham (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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. I am unable (for now) to access the single reference in the article but one reference is not sufficient and I am unable to locate any other references that meet the criteria.  HighKing++ 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Searches also find an advertorial summary of the firm's service (YourStory, 2018 (blacklisted so no link here)), their inclusion in sets of HR startups (the Inventiva and Digit pieces discussed above; YourStory, 2018) and in-role citations and pieces written by the company CEO, but I am not seeing anything indicative of more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 19:22, 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.