Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theta Global, Inc.

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. RL0919 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Global, Inc.

[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)

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. There’s no WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:SIRS can not be applied and a before search turns up nothing concrete. I see self published sources, user generated sources and other sources that have no reputation for fact checking. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps grounds for speedily? Pure promotion, badly sourced, and guessing it might all be a scam. W Nowicki (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable source about this company and it contains a lot promotional, and covered advertisement.Katobara (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable/independent sources or claim of notability in the article. Brayan ocaner (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long list of buzzwords but no reference provided that this company is actually leading the research in any of those fields. Pichpich (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed; despite the valiant refbombing, there doesn't appear to be a single solid source cited. (If the author wishes to, they are welcome to point to the three best sources providing sigcov, and I'll happily review them.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I smell a paid or promo article. No notability whatsoever. Tons of buzzwords. Over referenced and half the references are generic research papers or definition’s - doesn’t prove the company provides the services listed etc.GeekBurst (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hmm I checked some of these citations and they don't even mention the company. Someone is trying to sneak one through. Zeddedm (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have tagged the article for speedy deletion. Not only is the article very promotional in tone, the edit summary for the article's creation edit reads "As these emerging technologies are important additions to the greater technology sector, able to make helpful upgrades and additions to existing technologies." This appears to be a clear-cut attempt to promote the company via Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I'm not really sure why the CSD had to be declined here; the consensus in this page seems quite clear and multiple editors have noted that the article is entirely promotional, which would make it eligible for G11. It doesn't really make much sense to let the discussion run its course when the outcome is unlikely to change anyway. Even if an argument is made that a snow close is inappropriate, at the very least the article does seem to be G11-eligible and there's no prohibition against speedily deleting an article that's already been AFD'd (and indeed it's a relatively common occurrence). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Letting the discussion continue for its final two days provides a stronger form of consensus than speedy deletion. For instance it would allow G4 in the future. You found the article because someone mentioned it on Discord (same as I did) which is another reason to let this play out. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional content present, sources are not reliable. Timetraveller80 (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2022 (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.