Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zugara (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__. Star  Mississippi  16:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Zugara
AfDs for this article:


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

Some days ago, tried to nominate this article for deletion, but ended up editing a previous nomination for a previous article at this title. Their rationale follows:

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts.

This is mostly procedural on my part; I offer no opinion or further comment beyond noting that this has been tagged as, among other things, a possible WP:CORP failure since 2012.  WC  Quidditch  ☎   ✎  11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software,  and California.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is this company not noteworthy for inclusion when other similar advertising/technology companies such as The Barbarian Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Barbarian_Group) and AR software companies such as Metaio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaio) and Total Immersion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Immersion_(augmented_reality) seem to be fine? MHSzymczyk (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @MHSzymczyk That is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not a valid argument. If you can show significant coverage in reliable sources, that would be much more convincing. Toadspike   [Talk]  12:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Previous relist has not cleared things up. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: The Venture Beat articles are RS, they're mentioned about the virtual dressing rooms in the NY Times article. The virtual dressing room seems to have gotten traction, I'd say we have just barely enough to pass. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree the VB website is RS but which one of the stories meets GNG/NCORP? There are 4 stories, I can't figure out which one you might be referring to, for me the all fail either/or CORPDEPTH/ORGIND. The virtual dressingroom details are all derived from their Press Release on their patent grant. The NYT article mentions the company once, because it included a quote from the company's CEO. Fails CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Article is REFBOMBED so I won't provide a source analysis but if anyone feels there are sources that have been overlooked or missed, please link below and indicate which page/paragraph contains content that meets GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not enough significant coverage at this time. The results of internet searches are either self-published, blogs, and mere brief mentions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2024 (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.