Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabis (company)


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Nabis (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

no indication of notability. Advertisement of a Cannabis company. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH JeepersClub (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As the author of this stub, I would like to oppose its deletion. I believe that Nabis meets the notability guideline; the company has been profiled in mainstream media such as Business Insider, Reuters, Forbes, and TechCrunch, each of which is footnoted in the stub.
 * These sources provide significant coverage of the company beyond a mere trivial mention. Here are two examples: https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickdaso/2020/11/04/nabis-raises-10m-to-take-the-cannabis-industry-to-a-new-high/?sh=ff0290a38729 (this is a journalistic news article, not sponsored content) and https://www.businessinsider.com/nabis-cofounders-california-cannabis-distributor-microsoft-facebook-engineer-2021-5.
 * The second sentence of the stub says, "The company is one of the largest business-to-business distributors of cannabis in California." What makes California important? According to https://www.businessinsider.com/marijuana-cannabis-distributor-nabis-raises-23-million-series-b-california-2021-6, it's the biggest cannabis market in the U.S.
 * Thank you for your consideration. FishAndChips36 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The CSD was appropriate. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Nominator of this AfD is a blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, This article has been listed three times for deletion, yet consensus remains elusive. The nominator has been blocked. The arguments I articulated, both here and on the Talk page, have not drawn a response. And I have added numbers to the article itself. It has now been more than 14 days, so I respectfully propose that the article be allowed to stand. If objections remain, the Talk page is active and available. Thank you for your consideration. FishAndChips36 (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The company distributes beer and Italian cookies? Looks like a fake company, based on the links in the article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, regrettably. I'm here despite strongly disagreeing with all the other "delete" !votes and wanting to !vote "keep". Given a credible claim of significance being present when it was tagged via "one of the largest business-to-business distributors of cannabis in California" and a reasonable claim to meeting the general notability guideline, it is very clear that the CSD was not appropriate, contrary to what above claims. As for 's claim of a "fake company", perhaps they're confusing the company with Nabisco?As for the merits, it unfortunately does not meet the companies guideline. Prior discussions from the community found that Forbes contributor sources are generally unreliable, while there is no consensus for the reliability of TechCrunch and Business Insider. Given that and the fact that the coverage in Reuters and the Wall Street Journal is not significant (a few sentences), the company is not sufficiently notable. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your candor and specifics, Sdrqaz. Whereas others assert, you explain. I appreciate that greatly. (P.S. I too was mystified by the notion of a "fake" company.) FishAndChips36 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not yet a notable company. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 18:53, 16 September 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.