Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade Secrets (company)


 * 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.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 17:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Trade Secrets (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet Notability Requirements, while searching for references I mostly found social media such as Facebook and LinkedIn or directories of the malls they are in. VViking Talk Edits 22:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Hard to find anything related to the company, Google mostly gives generic stuff related to trade secrets as a whole. I've heard of the company here, they aren't huge, relatively unknown. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  14:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I added a couple of references. There's been a few profiles over the years - the 2013 one in the Financial Post in particular is extensive and in-depth. Perhaps should be moved to Taylor & Colt. Nfitz (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted below the G&M reference is paid content, so I've removed it. That does still leave one very good reference in the Financial Post - but I'm struggling to find a second. I agree though, that the main article (if it's warranted) should be at Taylor & Colt. Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. The reference added by Nfitz is a puff piece based entirely on interviewing company executives (Belotti) and there's no "Independent Content". Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:HighKing. For some reason neither the Proquest Full Text (image) nor Abstract Details indicated the G&M piece was paid content - it's only when going to Page View that it becomes apparent. I've deleted that. Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources in the article don't confer notability upon it; this piece published in The Globe and Mail is a labeled advertisement. This piece doesn't appear to satisfy the RS requirements of WP:BASIC, nor does its official website. The source from Financial Post appears to give significant coverage to Taylor & Colt, but that isn't the same thing as giving significant coverage to the parent company thereof (Trade Secrets) and it doesn't appear to do so independently. We're left with one source that's iffy regarding its applicability, which wouldn't be enough to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Additional searching on the internet does not appear to find WP:CORPDEPTH-compliant coverage, so I can't support anything other than deletion; we need multiple RS, and there isn't strong evidence for this to reasonably be the case. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete essentially per and . Sources available in the article and in searches do not present evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. If anything might be notable here, it would be the parent company. In normal circumstances we should redirect to to the parent but that appears to not be currently possible.   Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 13:19, 8 November 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.