Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shofur

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!} 18:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shofur

[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)

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about 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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded.

While there's lots of "coverage", most of it is derived from PR and announcements (fails ORGIND). Others lack in-depth information about the company. None of the references listed meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate anything that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Its like its written for 2008. Its unbelievable. I can see about 8 press-release in the first two blocks of 20 refs without opening them. Its unbelievable. The references are absolute junk. We can go through the references if need be, but its heading for the out door. scope_creep^Talk 10:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ~~as with CharterUP, which was had involvement by the same COI/paid-for editor, and is about a very similar business,~~ it is a corporate puff piece that doesn't establish the notability of the subject. Pieces like these are a cancer on Wikipedia that need to be brutally excised 10mmsocket (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check your facts @10mmsocket. The edit log on this article will very clearly show that I have had 0 involvement in the creation or edits on this article. Michellecharterup (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleary, Mr. 10mm is referring to Mlevy1010 (talk · contribs), who was operating with an undisclosed COI for both companies. Quite a bit of problematic editing and advocacy there. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mixup I'm afraid - I thought that paid-for editor Michellecharterup was the same person as paid-for editor Mlevy1010 and that the former had done more paid-for work that she had admitted to. I am happy to admit I was wrong. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2023 (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.