Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

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:

Edit this page 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.
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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Business

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Asbury

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After almost 14 years, the articles claims of notability are not backed up by the reliable and verifiable sources that would be required, nor was I able to find anything meaningful in a Google search that could be added. The article is an orphan and there appear to be no meaningful connections to any other article that would help flesh out a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The South Florida Business Journal is fine, not impressed with the other source in the article. Otherwise, I can only find mentions of his company, hiring employees or the like. Not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 merge‎ to The Times#Related publications. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times Top 100 Graduate Employers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:N. I don't think it is worth a section in The Times article. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Times#Related_publications, agree not notable in its own right but a sentence here would suffice. Orange sticker (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested seems fine, it's a part of the overall Times umbrella. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. ✗plicit 11:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G-Worldwide Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Again, this article is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NCORP unless scrutinized closely. Critically fails WP:ORGCRIT, There is not even a single source from the article or WP:BEFORE to establish any context of notability. Being a nominee of The Beatz Awards is not significant enough to make it presumptively notable. Over all, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Business, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom, none of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed that this fails NORG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Star Mississippi 17:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Business Network

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, nothing is reliable. First reference is also about us page of this company, which cannot be considered reliable in any way. Youknow? (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Singapore. Youknow? (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be focusing on the Singapore organization only, when most of the Google News coverage I see is for the United States organization(s). Maybe it doesn't need to be deleted, but rearchitected to cover the PRIMARYTOPIC. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

del insufficient independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 16:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maksud Agadjani

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable promotional article. It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Azerbaijan. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per absence of reliable sources. BD2412 T 14:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh dear. Hard delete. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wildly promotional and does not pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and promotional content.Sideriver84 (talk)

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.

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 redirect‎ to Bollywood Hungama. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Hungama Style Icons

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable award show sourced mainly to the parent company Bollywood Hungama. Sources I find are all unreliable or just verification of winners. Would redirect but we know how that goes so suggesting a redirect as an WP:ATD here in case full deletion is not in order. CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, Politics, Business, Fashion, Sports, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bollywood Hungama. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no independent and reliable sources for the event itself on the web, Google News, Google Books, Yandex etc. Since there is a lack of independent, reliable sources with SIGCOV, the article fails WP:GNG and the supplementary essay WP:NAWARDS. However, a redirect could be made to Bollywood Hungama and a brief mention could be added there for the award. The Night Watch (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bollywood Hungama: Unable to find the necessary coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalentEgg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for speedy deletion in September 2021. Article unchanged since then but does not meet WP:NORG. Orange sticker (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, and Canada. Orange sticker (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Most of the sourcing focuses on interviewing the founder and contains no "Independent Content" beyond what has been provided by the company and/or execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia's Kitchen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An orphan article. Getting 2 reviews in the Melbourne press really isn't a big claim for notability as per WP:AUD. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Cambodia, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rodell, Besha (2022-08-30). "Cambodia's Kitchen brings a taste of Cambodia to the CBD". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  This review appeared in both The Sydney Morning Herald's Good Weekend magazine and in The Age here. The review notes: "My worry is that many of the dishes that really set Cambodian cuisine apart aren't represented here. I was hoping to find amok, or nom banh chok, a fragrant fish, coconut and noodle soup. ... But there are vast differences between Cambodia's Kitchen and many of the other nearby quick-service noodle joints. Everything here is made in-house, including the beef balls and fish cakes, things that almost universally come from a packet."
2. "Australia Travel: Best places to eat in Melbourne". The New Zealand Herald. 2022-11-20. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "I love discovering cuisines that are under-represented back home and Melbourne offers plenty of that. Cambodia’s Kitchen is the only Cambodian eatery in the central city and when I visited, it was well-patronised by Khmer-speaking customers. The noodle soups are signature here, and I was chuffed with my pick of beef noodle soup – a thick and aromatic broth packed with a very generous serving of slow-cooked succulent chunks of beef shin as well as tendon, tripe, and housemade bouncy beef balls."
3. Monssen, Kara (2022-11-16). "Cambodia's Kitchen review 2022: Chinatown newcomer behind city's great-value lunch spot". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The review notes: "Linna and brother Ivanra keep it simple at their Russell St restaurant. Think 44 seats inside a ho-hum dining room, flanked either side with decorative awnings and ornamental wicker lamp shades overhead. A soundtrack of Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift buzzes from the speakers. The menu has photos of each dish and is printed out and slotted into a plastic display folder."
4. Sweet, Frank (2023-06-30). "Melbourne's best hot pots". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The review provides 167 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If there’s a hot pot you’re yet to try on this list, it’s probably this one. Fairly new to the scene having opened in 2022, Cambodia’s Kitchen is still regarded as a well-kept secret among hot pot lovers and multiculturally adventurous foodies alike. The cosy Russell St restaurant serves authentic classic Cambodian fare, a rich noodle soup (kuyteav) being undisputedly the star of the entire operation and what many street vendors in Phnom Penh typically sell for breakfast."
5. Curran, Libby (2022-08-18). "Cambodia's Kitchen Is the New CBD Restaurant Paying Homage to Classic Cambodian Fare". Concrete Playground. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The review notes: "Here at Cambodia's Kitchen, the Huns' long-held family recipes and use of traditional techniques deliver an accurate reflection of what's being cooked up on the streets of Phnom Penh. Linna's menu draws plenty of inspiration from her own mother's and grandmother's cooking. The signature Cambodian rice noodle soup is the hero offering — a pork broth base loaded with minced and sliced pork, pork liver, and homemade beef balls, fish balls, fish cake and pork loaf."
  - Here^{Internet Archive} is Concrete Playground's editorial policy. Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:
    1. Its editor is Samantha Teague.
    2. "Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"
    3. "All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."
    4. "Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."
    5. "Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."
    6. "All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."
    7. "We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."
    8. "Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."
    Concrete Playground is cited as a source by a number of books, which also supports its being reliable. Here are the publishers and links to the books that cited Concrete Playground: Academic Press (1), Johns Hopkins University Press (1), Routledge (1 and 2), Taylor & Francis (1), and Text Publishing (1).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cambodia's Kitchen to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources mentioned in the comment above are more than enough for notability, easily passes GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.