Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presscription


 * 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. Noone proposing keep dealt with the point made that "this article up for deletion is about a company, not about a specific product, and so the product reviews/articles listed don't show significant, in-depth coverage since they only comment on the products and make no significant mention of the company". Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Presscription

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage in reliable sources - there's coverage of the market, and some brief mentions and press releases. There's coverage in blogs etc, these aren't typically detailed information about the company, and aren't reliable sources (especially considering their all probably being paid for). Overall, fails GNG and NCORP  Alex Noble    - talk  20:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There is unpaid coverage for the company and products in Forbes, The Independent, and The Telegraph which are all notable publications. Unclear how that fails GNG Jana Fisher    - talk  22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   Alex Noble    - talk  20:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   Alex Noble    - talk  20:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. I think it just meets notability with the rather positive reviews (several paragraphs) in Forbes, and The Independent,, though I can't see what it says in The Telegraph, (though I can see it's featured in the photo), which are all top-tier sources IMO. I think it barely qualifies but it should be a stub at this point and should be cleansed itself of any COI! —МандичкаYO 😜 02:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , references that establish notability must contain significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The Forbes reference is a review of the product and contains zero information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Independent article fails for the exact same reason. The Telegraph article is little more than a mention-in-passing and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 14:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the first source is from Forbes Sites. This is a section that is not covered by general Forbes editorial policy and is often a place for marketing agents. It is roughly equivalent to a company press release in terms of independence and reliability. --MarioGom (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH to establish notability. PenulisHantu (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Amisom (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete None of the references are about the company or provide significant in-depth coverage on the company. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . 18:37pm, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , per what. You might want to see What does "per" mean?  Alex Noble    - talk  19:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per and . Not enough significant coverage. Other than the articles listed above, all the other sources I've seen also seem like routine announcements (see again WP:CORPDEPTH). Regardless, I want to reiterate a point made above that this article up for deletion is about a company, not about a specific product, and so the product reviews/articles listed don't show significant, in-depth coverage since they only comment on the products and make no significant mention of the company. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. No significant coverage in reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 23:18, 10 March 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.