Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Wide Technology


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Wgullyn  ( talk ) 01:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

World Wide Technology

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

Virtually no coverage of this company in WP:RS and most cited works are routine business actions. The International Business Times citation is the product of a Forbes list indicating commercial success but not significance. Other references are either trade press, press releases, or articles about other companies. Searches turn up little to no mainstream news coverage of this company despite it being around for 30 years. FalconK (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Weak Keep: There shouldn't have been a deletion nom, as there are more reliable sources outside of the page. There is clear indication of notability, including a lengthy Forbes feature by a staff writer, a Webby award, and a rare endorsement by PGA Tour, , , , . It is not a subject of high-importance, but it is notable to some extent. Multi7001 (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree that the Webby and the PGA Tour sponsorship really contribute to notability here. The company seems to have mostly kept its head down after the Webby, so the only thing to say is they won the award.  These kinds of awards generally hint at the existence of notable things, but "developed a really good healthcare app for a hospital" isn't exactly notable.  And they seem to have bought a APGA Tour sponsorship - again, that's really all there is to say about that.  So that's how we get to this article, which is the same kind of size and milestones information that can be written about almost any company indistinctly.  To back up notability, we're left with the recent change in lobbyists (a single event) and a Forbes profile of the founders.  This company keeps such a low profile that, even though it has some of the things that notable companies have, it has a weak to nonexistent claim to notability on its own.  FalconK (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, the subject is not of high-importance and has a weak extent of notability. It barely passes the notability guidelines as a company, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per Multi7001. I contributed to this article via edit requests, and as of this discussion, outside of the quarterly earnings reports in the New York Times and a few mentions in Google Scholar articles/interviews (, and ), I have not been able to find additional coverage that would warrant a strong keep per WP:SIGCOV, but there is enough for a weak keep. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment (refraining from voting due to a company connection): 20th largest private company in the US and the biggest black-owned company in the US Cryout (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The subject is notable to an extent. The Insider Monkey article is not a reliable source. The Forbes page is an indicator that it may be worthy of inclusion, but generally, editorial articles with SIGCOV are more useful to establish notability. And the Black Enterprise is also a similar indicator and was not cited in the page before the AfD nom. The page should remain, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Top x of y lists are generally agreed to be insufficient to establish notability in WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm looking for (and not finding) hard evidence of notability, more than just hints that notability should exist.  Of the latter, there are plenty.  The former are lacking.  FalconK (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 03:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: meets WP:NCORP. –– FormalDude  talk  13:26, 26 January 2022 (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.