Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontar


 * 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) 12:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ontar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:MarkZusab with the following rationale " I believe notability may possibly exist and this article could be improved. Feel free to take to AfD. I may do it myself if necessary.". I am afraid this is nonetheless just a wisful WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. My WP:BEFORE on GScholar/Books/News failed to find any coverage that's in-depth and independent. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- Definitely doesn't require its own Wikipedia article and after looking for sources I don't believe there are any which can be used as citations. As a relatively new editor of Wikipedia I found the page linked by the nominator (Signpost Op-Ed) interesting and think that there is definitely no reason to keep this article.ECW03 (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nominator's reason for deletion, but disagree that the rationale for deprodding was "a wisful WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES". I never stated, or even thought, that I was "confident that sources exist". I stated that notability and sources could "possibly" exist and that I felt this article should be taken to AfD. I never claimed that sources establishing notability existed or asserted claims without proof, which is what WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES states. MarkZusab (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an essay about an argument to keep an article. This doesn't apply here, as I (the deprodder) never argued that the article should be kept (or that sources must exist). I just wanted it to go to AfD for broader community input instead of a PROD, which would result in significantly less people deciding the fate of an article. MarkZusab (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- another faintly promotional article about a company sourced only to its own website. I can't find anything better. This sort of thing is exactly what PROD was designed to deal with. Reyk YO! 08:02, 12 April 2019 (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.