Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAVEX Global


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

NAVEX Global

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's no evidence of notability in the article or references, this is all one big ad. Nothing there establishes notability, certainly not the only 3 independent sources, local newspapers/companies. ɱ (talk · vbm  · coi) 00:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Company worth 1/2 $ billion, important in Oregon and world economy, with sources. Take complaints about style of writing to the Talk page. -- do ncr  am  03:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A half billion is barely anything in terms of company worth, no evidence of importance in the "world economy", and this article is written like an ad and doesn't give any truly unique or encyclopedic information establishing notability. This is very relevant here. ɱ  (talk · vbm  · coi) 04:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as whatever there may be here, my searches found nothing better and the current article is still questionable. Nothing else convincing for solid independent notability of an improvable article. Notifying for analysis.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though I did find one additional reference--an interview in a WSJ blog: . But we really ought to decide these by size of company as an option to the GNG, because, frankly, all it would take to include even insignificant companies is a few of us switching to argue that such interviews and purely financial coverage are sufficiently RSs for notable .  Which statistic and what value   we pick might be an issue, (eg they have only $200 million revenue, but they were sold for $500 million)  but we could have  a fuzzy zone. Just for example, for US non-financial companies such as this,  No for <$100 million revenue, maybe for 100-500, yes for >500. We'd still have to decide the maybe, such as this firm would be,, but at least it would take care of the two ends of the spectrum.  DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:17, 2 March 2016 (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.