Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SKUvantage (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  01:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

SKUvantage
AfDs for this article:


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

Previously soft deleted. The editor who created this article requested undeletion with the reason [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion&diff=1156240739&oldid=1156224423 This is a business with an interesting history and story, with over 50 employees, a market leader and innovator in its field and was acquired in 2021 by Salsify Inc., after 9 years of operating. There is more history to tell. There are many other articles about smaller or niche businesses that are on Wikipedia - not sure why SKUvantage would be singled out for deletion in this way]. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. Nor being over 50 employees. Still fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, and the article is very promotional. Couldn't find anything online besides what's already in the article. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Companies,  and Australia. DreamRimmer (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We have updated this article to remove the promotional aspects. We believe SKUvantage is notable due to the way it has solved the challenge of its industry (product data sharing), leading to its successful acquisition. Pcaronna (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? Are you a representative of the company? LibStar (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, no SIGCOV; we don't keep pages based on whether the subjects are innovative, we keep them based on whether they're notable. AryKun (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood - the intention was to highlight its innovative approach to the market as a reason for it to be referenced by others, and acquired.
 * I have added more citations to hopefully convince you of the notability of this business. It would not have been acquired by a major US business if it was just a "photography business" as Nate suggests below. Over the past 11 years, this business has been instrumental in driving digital commerce in Australia with its B2B technology and services. Pcaronna (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per JML1148  Dancing  Dollar ( let's talk ) 14:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is 2,000 SEO-refined words about a business which is just 'photographer and writer-upper of AliExpress-sold junk'.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You clearly haven't reviewed what the business actually does. SKUvantage is primarily a technology business with photography a complementary service. It would be disappointing to say the least, if editors of Wikipedia take arbitrary decisions based on uninformed views like this. Pcaronna (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, why would you consider SKUvantage any less interesting than the pages you have created for arguably "just another commercial radio station", which have niche audiences, and minimal citations. I don't mean this in a mean spirited way, I am genuinely curious. Pcaronna (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't really care whether the subject of the article is innovative or not, or whether it's interesting. All we care about is whether it is notable, as evidenced by a significant amount of coverage in independent, reliable sources. This means the coverage can't be in press releases, in company magazines, paid coverage, or brief, passing mentions. All of those random radio stations are important to some or the other community, and so have several local newspapers report on them, leading to enough significant coverage for an article. AryKun (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As an aside, since you seem to be affiliated with the company, a word of advice; please don't make an article about yourself or pay one of those wikipedia article companies to make one. If your company is notable enough for an article, someone will make it. We hate conflict-of-interest or paid creations here, and an article that seems promotional is more likely to be instantly deleted because we're sick of them. AryKun (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @AryKun, I think you meant another word instead of notable here? We don't really care whether the subject of the article is notable or not LibStar (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops, yeah, sorry for the typo. Thanks LibStar. AryKun (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can imagine. We won't be doing that. 101.114.73.174 (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Poorly cited (can find nothing better), promotional and fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2023 (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.