Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SYNQ (Company)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SYNQ (Company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Standard directory style promotional stub created by a declared paid contributor (in accordance with the TOU). Despite the TOU compliance, the firm does not meet local en.Wiki policies and guidelines towards inclusion, namely it does not meet the general guideline in WP:N when read in light of the guidelines in WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP. Sourcing is your standard PR stuff: TechCrunch and the like: coverage is pretty clearly lacking in intellectual independence thus making it fail our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sources are not up to standards for encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 22:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:NCORP. Not up to scratch, fails all the criteria. DrStrauss talk 21:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Before you vote, consider whether this article measures favorably against any in this List of Y Combinator startups. Rhadow (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AfD is about whether the existing article meets our inclusion standards, not about whether we have other articles that are not as good as it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you TonyBallioni -- My comment was not intended to change the outcome on the subject article, but to remind myself and others that the same standard needs to apply to existing articles. Thanks. Rhadow (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, not a problem. The reason that OTHERSTUFF comparison is often problematic for companies is that NPP is a filter where often things do slip through the cracks. We have upwards of 7000 articles created a week, so there are going to be similar articles in Wikipedia that probably shouldn't be. The better comparison would be to look at recent AfDs of similar subjects and see how we are dealing with corporations like this. I think taking that into account, we are being pretty consistent in our standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- just a directory-like listing; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2017 (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.