Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiftboard (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiftboard

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Questionable notability Amigao (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Internet, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A couple of reliable sources on the article, seems to meet WP:NORG. A couple of hits in the news section of Google too. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the references pass the WP:SIRS test? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks notable, but the reliable sources are questionable, and there may not be enough of them. Hookiq (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any of the sources passing WP:SIRS. UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find myself concurring with UtherSRG regarding the quality of sourcing and the lack of them meeting WP:SIRS. Taking away the clearly evident primary sources, which alone equate to a third, many of the rest are news posts written or sponsored by the company themselves (e.g. this, this, this and this are clearly not entirely independently written/published). The others suffer in a similar way, or are interviews with the new CEO, with a passing mention on the company which is not the focus of the article. There also seem to be a minimal amount of hits on google news, an indicator this may not be as notable as the article would suggest. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 18 May 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. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 22 May 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.