Not logged in | Create account | Login
    Menu

      Authorpædia Trademarks

      Social buttons

      Languages

      Read

      AUTHORPÆDIA is hosted by Authorpædia Foundation, Inc. a U.S. non-profit organization.

    Svetlana Velmar-Janković

    This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

    Adding a new AfD discussion
    Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
    1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
    2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
    There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
    Removing a closed AfD discussion
    Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
    Other types of discussions
    You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
    Further information
    For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


    Purge page cache watch


    Business

    Tax Consulting South Africa

    Tax Consulting South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP. Article appears to be a thinly-veiled puff piece. CoconutOctopus talk 14:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Probfly IT

    Probfly IT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:NCORP, no indication of notability or reliable sources. Pizza on Pineapple (Let's eat🍕) 10:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Soft keep such ICT organisation related topic exist for Bangladesh. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Enoteca Boccaccio

    Enoteca Boccaccio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. A few WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS in Melbourne papers are not enough to demonstrate notability especially given the WP:PROMO tone of a lot of this article. The Herald Sun is dubious as a reliable source, nor is notabily inherited because the restaurant is owned by a prominent local family. Dfadden (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Australia. Dfadden (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete agree with nom, it needs more than restaurant reviews in Melbourne papers, otherwise we'd be creating articles for every restaurant reviewed. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Nom and Libstar appear to be referring to WP:AUD requirement. That requirement gives an example of how small a newspaper would be serving for it to be too small: e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town. Melbourne has a population of over 5 million. The AUD guideline requires at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. It gives an example of regional as "(e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)". The Herald Sun is the biggest newspaper in Australia, and the Herald Sun's reliability concern is about their factual reporting, not about opinions presented about restaurants. The concern wrt opinions there would be that this was undisclosed paid promotion; there is no evidence that is the case here, indeed it is extremely unlikely.
    If you exclude the Herald Sun, there is still The Age which easily meets the AUD requirement. There is plenty of other significant coverage which add up to pass WP:NCORP.[1][2][3][4] The article also doesn't read as having a particularly PROMO tone (It has been described as reminiscent of Italy's streets and piazzas. can be better attributed). It seems like editors think anything that can reflect positively on a business is PROMO. I see BLPs all the time that are far more positive: look at any celebrity FA (e.g. Katy Perry, Oscar Isaac so on.) Sorry this is so long, I really do not understand how the nom perceiving the article to have a PROMO tone would make restaurant reviews in what they describe as "Melbourne papers" not contribute to notability: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as the person who wrote WP:AUD ~17 years ago, Rollinginhisgrave has the correct interpretation. Anyone who wants to learn more about AUD may find Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement or the longer version at User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: per Rollinginhisgrave. I see no major issues with tone. The Herald Sun is a reliable source, especially when they are reporting outside of the political realm. Satisfies NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Rollinginhisgrave, WhatamIdoing even if the sources are valid per WP:AUD, they dont really demonstrate anything other than this place exists and has generally favourable reviews. That sounds pretty WP:MILL. MILL may not be formalised policy, but it is good advice on sensible interpretation of WP:GNG and explicitly says: Some articles not to create based on common sources only are:
    *A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers
    Yes, you can argue that these papers have national circulation, but these WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS are clearly written for a local audience. If this is the standard we accept than any restaurant in a capital city that is reviewed by that city's major newspaper is inherently notable... Giving private businesses wikipedia articles based solely on reviews starts to sound a lot like a WP:TRAVELGUIDE and free publicity does it not?Dfadden (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dfadden, I used small-town vs big-city restaurant reviews as an example at User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement#Examples, and I think you should read it.
    I am confused by your claim that https://www.theage.com.au/goodfood/melbourne-eating-out/first-look-at-the-stately-enoteca-boccaccio-above-balwyn-s-boccaccio-cellars-20230614-p5dgki.html (the source I clicked on) is "clearly written for a local audience". I expected to see something like "a nice little place to visit if you're already in the neighborhood" (a polite way for reviewers to say "not the worst, but not worth a trip"). Instead, the opening sentence says "The D’Anna family has been luring Italians...to Balwyn for 60 years". Traveling from Italy to Balwyn requires 20 hours in an airplane. That's not local. Maybe you made some assumptions?
    Poking around briefly, I find that the restaurant has won the 2023 "Best Hospitality Interior" from Belle (an Australian architectural/design magazine). That's another national source indicating notability. I'll go add it to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The D’Anna family has been luring Italians... it requires a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS to suggest this is saying people are travelling 20 hours from Italy just to come to this restaurant. Especially given the large Italian diaspora that exists in Melbourne and without anything to support this claim. If someone can cite a review in an Italian paper, sure! Or if there was a report saying a notable Italian person had travelled to Australia just to visit this place, or even stopped in while in town, then that would be evidence to support this claim. In the absence of this, it might as well be editorial hyperbole. And I have re-read your link to AUD examples. It is making a reasonable assumption that because a place has a large population, major newspapers in those markets will only cover businesses which stand out. However, that alone does not make a restaurant notable as it still needs to satisfy the top level criteria at WP:NORG. That requires editors to consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. So apart from the suggestion that people have travelled from Italy and an award for interior design, can you direct me to an article that provides discussion of the cultural, societal, economic or historical impact of this restaurant? An example of this standard being met is Lentil as Anything which was the subject of a book and a television documentary and catered for an International Conference. Also see Colonial Tramcar Restaurant - when it closed, The Age described the event as "A sad day for society", evidenced by support and sadness expressed in the broader community. Dfadden (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, it doesn't require any SYNTH at all. SYNTH requires a minimum of two sources, and we are discussing only the interpretation of a single source. You might credibly say that I'm making a big assumption that the "Italians" who are so lured are being lured from their home country and not just from a hotel down the street. I would have to agree with you: it could be editorial hyperbole. But the ambiguity prevents me from agreeing that this review is "clearly written for a local audience", as you claimed above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Age's Good food guide is a national magazine. A chefs hat rating is akin to a Michelin star in Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly carries some weight and I am not denying this is a very well regarded restaurant. But again, does the hat provide social, cultural, historic or economic significance? I dont believe it does; this is not the only hatted italian restaurant in Melbourne - in fact, its not even in the AGFG top 5 rated italian restaurants in Melbourne[5]: Bottarga in Brighton, Al Dente Enoteca in Carlton are both double hatted and have no articles. Grossi Florentino (double hatted) has an article, which establishes cultural, social and historical significance by virtue of its Murals being classified by the National Trust and WP:LASTING coverage over 95 years. There are 4 other Italian restaurants in Melbourne that received a score of 13 chef hats, above Enoteca Boccaccio's score of 12 and none of them have articles either. So what is so significant about this place that it deserves its own article? Dfadden (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The paragraph of WP:ORGSIG that you partially quote above is about not disfavoring small businesses just because they're small, or over-favoring large businesses because they're big. We have, for example, had people suggest in the past that all publicly traded companies should be automatically notable, or that all companies employing more than n people should be notable; ORGSIG opposes this kind of bias. Editors who are thinking "Who cares, it's just a little restaurant" need to think about whether there might be something else going on – something that might even make them more successful when they search for sources. ORGSIG is not a requirement that organizations must have some cultural significance that is legible to Wikipedia editors; it is not saying that WP:ITSIMPORTANT is a good reason to keep an article. It's trying to get editors away from a knee-jerk "just a little restaurant so it's obviously non-notable" mindset towards "Let's see whether there might be something else going on here."
    The rest of this comment is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bottarga and Al Dente Enoteca are probably notable, even though nobody's written the articles yet. We have many Category:Lists of Michelin-starred restaurants; maybe there should be a list of these restaurants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for engaging in the discussion with well-thought out replies. I'm not at all suggesting that small businesses are less notable than large ones. In fact, I think the example I gave of Grossi Florentino supports that small businesses can indeed be notable. I guess in this case, I have considered your proposition Let's see whether there might be something else going on here and I'm entirely unconvinced that there is anything beyond Enoteca Boccaccio being a restaurant that makes good food and has nice decor. It does sound like a great little restaurant and I'm convinced I would like to eat there. But it's more the the kind of thing I'd expect to read about in a travel or food guide, certainly not an encyclopedia. There does have to be, as you put it, something else going on here that makes it notable otherwise any restaurant with nice decor and a review in a major newspaper becomes apparently encyclopedic content. I don't think that is a good thing for wikipedia. Anyway, I have said far too much on this now, so I will pipe down now and let consensus determine the outcome. Peace. Dfadden (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is the intended meaning of ORGSIG, it should be amended to be clearer. I don't Dfadden was unreasonable in making this reading. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Given debate over the applicability of the guidelines and essays raised in this discussion (WP:AUD, WP:MILL, WP:SYNTH), I think this would benefit from some more discussion and perspectives.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    EClerx

    AfDs for this article:
    EClerx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like quarter-wise revenue targets, share prices, share buybacks, domestic & overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Mastek

    Mastek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, share price, profit/financial reporting, merger, demerger capacity expansion, overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, the way the article is written feels like it’s mainly trying to promote or advertise something. Wikipedia:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Billy Bob's Wonderland

    Billy Bob's Wonderland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable restaurant (formerly a ShowBizz pizza location, now independent) that does not appear to have any SIGCOV outside of local media profiles. nf utvol (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Entertainment, and West Virginia. nf utvol (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: "Local media profiles" appears to be an inaccurate description. Several of the cited sources are news stories, not profiles, and at least two of the news sources are non-local: USA Today is a national news source, and while WOAY-TV is from West Virginia, Oak Hill, West Virginia isn't local—I live just a few miles from the restaurant, though I've never been there, and we've never gotten WOAY in this area; our local ABC affiliate is WCHS-TV. Oak Hill isn't part of the local area; it's more than 90 miles away. The coverage looks like what you would expect for a local attraction, and is more than you'd see for some that meet the minimum standards for notability. The fact that it was once part of a chain—many years ago, apparently—does not make it non-notable as an independently-operated restaurant with a distinctive identity. P Aculeius (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The USA Today article doesn't mention Billy Bob's Wonderland at all. I think the WOAY and WCHS coverage still would fall under local interest stories. The DCist article is the only one that really would satisfy non-local coverage, and I am not sure that passes the reliable sources test. nf utvol (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I see what you mean about USA Today. Perhaps this could be solved by merging into Showbiz Pizza. The fate of restaurants that "divorced" from the chain but still maintained the basic concepts and show seem relevant, and since the parent article has major sources, there shouldn't be any issue with using local sources to describe the fate of one such restaurant in one or two short paragraphs. If others are documentable, they can be added too, and a section containing them could be trimmed accordingly, but for now I think some of this content could go there. P Aculeius (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rajinder Gupta

    Rajinder Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Completely promotional article, paid contribs and the company he founded doesn't even have it's own article so there's no use having his. If some one searches his company's name this article doesn't pop up. The article has total 1500 views and is a stub from 10 yrs ago saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 09:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. From my observation, the article is not at all promotional and adheres to WP:NPOV. The article also has multiple reliable sources and thus passes WP:BIO. The absence of an article of the company he established is not a reason to delete this page. Same goes with the pageviews and class of the article. Warriorglance(talk to me) 11:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Three sources are generic profiles and don't provide in-depth coverage of the subject, and the final one just links to the most recent issue of Hindustan Times. All sources I could find online are, if anything, about Trident Group more than Gupta. Cortador (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak keep: The Padma Shri award seems notable. There is a limited amount of sourcing that confirms the win. [6] is typical of more recent coverage tha feels promotional. Also come coverage about the cricket association [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus yet.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- From my point of view, the person is presumed notable since he has received a award by Govt. Of India as per WP:ANYBIO, by searching him, I found that their are multiple reliable sources with significant coverage on subject which confirms it's notablity. Since, we are discussing on person not on its organization, so it's not a valid point to delete as his established company doesn't have a article. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective

    Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Nothing much on the page to suggest the notability criteria have been met and I'm not finding much else to consider. WP:NJOURNAL is an essay and a bit opaque but I'm not seeing anything there that this journal unambiguously fits for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    To add: the editor that worked on this page also worked on a number of other journals from the same publisher. Which seems a bit suspicious (of COI editing) given they didn't seem to do anything else in their editing history. JMWt (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Journal is indexed and fairly well-ranked in SCOPUS. Keep per WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: To discuss whether Scopus is sufficient for notability
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 11:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Toadspike, your comment reads like an unbolded Redirect. Can you please clarify your view on a potential target?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @OwenX Thank you for relisting. Yes, I think this article should be redirected and I listed two potential targets in my comment. I have now bolded the word "redirect" to make this clearer. However, my main concern is the noting the questionable reasoning of NJOURNALS and discussing whether this article should exist, not pushing for a specific outcome/ATD – I suppose I'd also be fine with a merge or delete. Toadspike [Talk] 18:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Although we generally don't consider ESCI as sufficiently selective as required by NJournals (and inclusion in JCR in this case therefore is of only minor importance), inclusion in Scopus is generally considered to indicate notability. --Randykitty (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Credit: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Business

    Explore other authors