Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeular


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Timeular

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A before search shows the organization doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The NY Times sources both show an error code. The other sources used are not even relevant in demonstrating notability of the organization or are not related to the organization. This article is also borderline G11 eligible and at most this is definitely bare notability. The awards they claim to have one are negligible seeing as they are non notable awards. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

All the other articles are related to the organization by primary media sources which demonstrate notability. TechCrunch is a leading tech publisher and has written 3 articles on the company. Regarding the awards, these are notable within the EU. In summary, I believe the inclusion of this organization demonstrates value to Wikipedia. DarkerAngels (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Thanks for your comments. Regarding the New York Times article displaying an error code, maybe could you try again as the link is valid.
 * Keep has significant coverage from major publications, NY Times, GQ, TechCrunch, Wired and Inc. Don't think this should be nominated at all. Meets WP:GNG.Webmaster862 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A recent RfC has agreed that GNG is not the applicable guideline for determining which sources may be used to establish notability. The applicable SNG is WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you clarify what RfC you are referring to? Adumbrativus (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On the WP:N Talk page - here.  HighKing++ 14:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. TechCrunch is a famous bad NCORP source. The listing of outlets where the company was mentioned is unsustainable. Notability needs to be established in the article and it doesn't look like it's possible to establish it. Weight in the article is on the coverage itself, not so much the company. Information in the article needs to be supported by sources, not a listing of references supported by a short promotional text. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:26, 11 February 2021 (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.