Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relode LLC


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Relode LLC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are several companies with similar names, however none of them are notable afaict. Everything is just basic funding announcements, passing mentions and nothing in depth. Praxidicae (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree with this about notability. I created this article after reviewing this section of WP:NCORP (and not in exchange for reimbursement--so not advertisement or COIN):


 * When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products, though articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable per WP:NOTADVERTISING.


 * From what these sources show, Relode's getting noticed in local media and recruiting media, and as a startup it looks like it could have a big impact there. It's a smaller company, comparatively, to others that have a presence on Wikipedia, but I don't think that makes it inherently not notable.


 * What about these pieces that focus solely on this company? Or is there a number limit to how many article need to mention a company? I'm still new to creating articles on Wikipedia but follow startups and have started creating articles for ones I find interesting, and thought this range of articles over a 3 year period would qualify this one for notability.
 * Tennessean
 * Nashville medical news
 * Recruiting Daily
 * Nashville Post


 * FrankieCP (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sock Blocked From user's Talk page, clocked by administrator - ✅ to both accounts seem intent on promoting various subjects on Wikipedia  HighKing++ 18:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Should Draft:Relode be considered as bundled with this, then? It was created by the master. Bri.public (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep since sources already provided, such as The Tennessean, Nashville Post, The Bismarck Tribune, etc, are enough for subject to meet WP:NCORP. This is a start up that's past the WP:TOOSOON hurdle. -The Gnome (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh...that sourcing is still poor. It's all hyper local and not otherwise independent coverage (interviews, press releases, puff pieces are not the type of sources we require to establish notability.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Praxidicae. I'll let other editors opine on your assessment of extant sources as "poor." Me, I'll just provide some details about them.
 * The Tennessean, which is evidently not some "hyper local" source unless Tennessee has shrunk in size, has an article, written by Holly Fletcher, that profiles the company's, i.e. its field ("...uses web and mobile software to list jobs that take referrals from agents"), finances,  operations, and prospects. That's a bona fide proper & reliable reference in any book.
 * The Nashville Post interview is not the only thing they have published about Relode. There are at least two more reports on the company (here and here) that testify to its Wikinotability.
 * The article in The Bismarck Tribune, which is "the primary daily newspaper for south-central and southwest North Dakota", again hardly a small area, seems like a fair presentation of the company and not ike a "press release". But this is a subjective call.
 * Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Any company can get its name into papers. However, WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT require significant, independent, multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Crunchbase profiles, regurgitated press releases, and staff interviews in local press just aren't enough for this organisation to have an article yet. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The references in the article fail the criteria for establishing notability. Some references such as the ones in The Tennessean might appear to meet the criteria but are, in fact, based on company announcements of funding, fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - as a WP:NCORP failure. Coverage of the topic is lacking the nessesary depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) to establish the subject's encyclopedic notability, and per HighKing's point above several of the regional sources cited are based on WP:PRIMARY information. In addition, the tone of some of the cited sources (like Could “eBay meets recruiting” fix healthcare recruiting? and Recruiting company aims to help find nurses) is clearly speculative and thus inappropriate for an encyclopedia, per WP:CRYSTAL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 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.