Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softswiss


 * 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! 06:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Softswiss

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

Software company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - insufficent coverage in reliable sources that meet the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software,  and Belarus. AllyD (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note the earlier No consensus AfD when the title had different capitalisation: Articles for deletion/SoftSwiss, though that discussion seems to have featured WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and assertion of notability rather than identification of specific strong sources to influence the present discussion. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article on a firm which provides casino site software. Searches find interviews with the founder about crypto prospects and multiple similarly-worded recent announcement-based items about the company's recent performance which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Inclusion of this company in articles describing the difficulty of continuing to operate under conditions in Belarus and consequent relocation of staff is interesting but does not contribute to notability of any particular firm itself.  AllyD (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Looking at the sources (aside from PRIMARY sourcing and trivial trademark info), none meet the criteria as follows:
 * Bloomberg which is clearly marked as a Press Release, fails ORGIND
 * Forbes in 2020 is an interview with the CEO in relation to problems in Belarus, no "Independent Content" and nothing in-depth about the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
 * Patch.com profile posted in "Neighbour News", not a reliable source, fails WP:RS.
 * Another Forbes 2020 article about problems in Belarus at that time, another interview with the CEO, again no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
 * Forbes article from 2021 after companies had left Belarus, another interview with the CEO, no "Independent Content", also fails ORGIND
 * None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability and I do not believe that the article on the CEO Ivan Valeryevich Montik meets notability criteria either.  HighKing++ 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 HighKing++ 17:19, 29 March 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.