Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reedsy (organisation)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Reedsy (organisation)

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

Does not appear to be notable by way of WP:COMPANY, and feels more than a little promotional/peacocking. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  05:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites,  and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Previous instances were deleted at AfD in November 2017 and in March 2022, with this name variant version created by a new editing account little over a month later. AllyD (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete and Salt. It has been deleted twice before at AfD after considerable analysis of sources. There are a number of sources in the current article which were not analysed previously but they're worse than what we've seen previously. Since this is a company/organization, NCORP guidelines therefore apply and we require references that discuss the *company* in detail and with "Independent Content".
 * This BBC article is a mere mention-in-passing (under a picture) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This is The Guardian relies entirely on information provided by the company and the CEO, Nataf, fails ORGIND. It also only provides a summary of the company - nothing in-depth, failing CORPDEPTH.
 * The Forbes piece is not considered a reliable source as per WP:FORBES. It also relies entirely on information provided by the company and the CEO, fails ORGIND.
 * An Interview with the CEO is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
 * Blog posts are not reliable sources and fails WP:RS, article also relies entirely on information from the CEO, fails ORGIND.
 * Fast Company article includes a few quotes from the CEO but there is no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
 * There's nothing here that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Given this topic's third time at AfD, I recommend the topic is salted to discourage further articles with this company as the topic.  HighKing++ 14:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a very well-done in depth analysis.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:59, 9 May 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.