Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nucleus Research


 * 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. There is consensus that the sourcing is not adequate to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Nucleus Research

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:PROMO. There are hits in RS (e.g.,, , ), but not WP:SIGCOV. Tagged for notability for nine years. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 10:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * keep: There have been definitely some wp:promo. I have tried to fix the same and removed under-referenced info and promotional tone. Except the reference 1 (press release), others are reliable source, also it passed wp:sigcov. --Mamushir (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for removing the promo! I disagree with you on the WP:SIGCOV point, though; of the refs, only looks like SIGCOV to me, and it appears to be a trade journal. Thanks, in any event, for your !vote on a nom that's been stalled for quite a while :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I have passed by this and thought to fix before voting. I kinda agree with you on wp:sigcov now, but have given these references ROI, CNN and Marketwatch and the article was very old, I thought to give a benefit of doubt. I am free to reconsider my vote when others will mark theirs. Why can't I can except the first among them be you? --Mamushir (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of 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. Articles that quote research from this company aren't considered for notability as we require a reference to actually provide in-depth details on this company. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons given by HighKing. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and highking, this seems to be a pretty clear fail of WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:12, 16 September 2020 (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.