Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelogica


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Nelogica

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Brochure article.  scope_creep Talk  12:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep I wrote the page. It seems to me that it meets the primary criteria in WP:NCORP: there is substantial coverage of the subject (whole articles about it, sources are cited in the page, e.g.     ) in multiple reliable sources completely independent of the subject and of each other, such as Zero Hora, Exame, O Globo and Endeavor_(non-profit) (see aforementioned links). The coverage spans at least 4 years (2019-2022). Seems enough? Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That coverage is completely routine and fails various parts of WP:NCORP. For example the first ref is an interviews, failing WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND. The refs are woeful for this startup. It is not coverage, its routine press-release fodder. The rest are the same including the non-rs blog.   scope_creep Talk  20:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. The first link is not an interview, although it contains interview questions. The other links are not press releases by the subject of the article, they are independent articles on national newspapers and national magazines. The "blog" one is a specialized column in a newspaper, if that doesn't count well there are various other articles... Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 22:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - company seems to meet NCORP; the article is reliably sourced to multiple independent publications. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I note that you don't explicitly comment on whether the sources contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND and instead only refer to "functional independence". Can you take another look?  HighKing++ 17:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Draftify, seems to fail WP:NCORP as it stands.  scope_creep's   source assessment is correct in that the sources presented so far are either not independent or trivial. I did look for better sources, and while i did not find WP:SIGCOV, there are enough mentions in reliable sources for me to believe that this is a potentially notable company. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What ones exactly? Please present them so we can evaluate them per WP:THREE.   scope_creep Talk  23:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I repeat that I don't believe that this meets WP:NCORP yet, but it seems to have more legs to stand on than the standard crypto start-up. There is this educational text book that uses the company's data throughout. I couldn't see anything in the preview but I would expect there to be some elaboration around the source of the data. There is this paper that evaluates the company's software, and there is this paper in a peer-reviewed journal that is based on data from the company. Not WP:SIGCOV but enough to suggest potential. SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Lets examine the references in the article and the ones above:
 * Ref 1: Linkedin. Non-RS
 * Ref 2: Por que a Nelogica pode se tornar uma das primeiras fintechs brasileiras de impacto global? An interview with the founders during an conferences. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Ref 3: EXCLUSIVO: Nelogica avaliada em R$ 2,9 bilhões em rodada com Crescera e Vulcan Press-release. Routine coverage. Valuation. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Ref 4: Conheça o JBZ, a joia da Faria Lima de Porto Alegre Description of a building, their corporate HQ. Non-notable.
 * Ref 5: Doesn't resolve the url correctly, but its a share listing cite, showing the company share prices. Doesn't indication notability.
 * Ref 6: O segredo dos traders que nenhum consultor te conta The secrets of traders that no consultant tells you. A listing of advanced tools for trading. Their software.
 * Ref 7: Requisitos para instalação do Profit em seu computador Requirements for installation of Profit on your computer. How to install the software. Non-RS.
 * Ref 8: Learning to operate on Profit Mobile Non-RS
 * Ref 9: "Começaremos operação nos EUA, e talvez na Europa, ainda neste ano", diz CEO da Nelogica A press-release to state they are starting operation in Europe.

Here you have an interview with the founders, several press-releases, company manuals and 3 non-rs links. The references above are no different. The whole things fails WP:NCORP. There is not single secondary source amongst the lot of it. Its all advertising and PR.  scope_creep Talk  23:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC) I believe the analysis above is partially flawed. **Ref 1** is for the number of employees only, how is the company itself not a reliable source for that? **Ref 2** for instance is not an interview with the founders during conferences, it's an long article about the company history, which *includes* an interview. This has already been pointed out in this discussion before, but ignored by the OP of this request. As for **Ref 3** I am not sure what the OP means by "press release" in this case (I do not understand the significance of the term in this context). The company received significant funding (billions) in a series from VCs and other funds and the ref is a specialized website covering it and also talking about the company history. This was not the only source to cover this event, OP failed to mention, a national magazine. This event received more coverage than is mentioned in the article, as it was not necessary as there were already reliable sources for it, but for completion here is more sources that covered this event found in a quick search:  Ref 4 is indeed about the building, and used to reference that only... The rest of the analysis I would say is correct, it's press coverage spawning several years of various topics related to the company (starting operation in Europe, etc) from multiple reliable sources, including national newspapers and magazines (e.g. ). Some refs are indeed technical details used to reference some parts of the article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete As per the analysis above, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, a point conceded by SailingInABathTub above also.  HighKing++ 17:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - I do not have much to add here, just going through some old discussions still open and trying to add to the consensus where appropriate. The reasons for deletion have been discussed in detail by several users now and I agree that the lack of secondary sources means the criteria at NCORP cannot be established. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the references above:
 * Ref 7 above fails WP:CORPDEPTH, company valuations. It from a press-release.
 * Ref 8 is a press-release annoucing an acquisition. Acquisitions are routine coverage that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. From a press-release.
 * Ref 9 Nelogica, owner of Profit platform, is valued at $2.9bn, says website Press-release. fail WP:CORPDEPTH
 * Ref 10 More acquisition news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

All of it is driven by press-releases and all of primary.  scope_creep Talk  10:01, 20 July 2022 (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.