The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Non-notable ROTM tech business. Sources cover it only in the context of funding rounds, no sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
* Keep Whether a company is subjectively considered ROTM and/or the content focuses on historical business development, neither should be the sole barometer for deletion as they are opinion based. Notability and significant coverage is the benchmark here, and I would challenge that the breadth of independent and reliable citations does meet the standard. Citations include articles from the Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Financial Review which are Australia's equivalent to the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal... highly notable, reliable and independent news outlets. Considering the company is the subject matter of all citations (and not as a trivial mention), that should meet the threshold of significant coverage, satisfying WP:GNG. Granted the article could be fleshed out more, but that shouldn't mean it should be deleted entirely. — NeonRoo (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet of Hapanyc (talk · contribs). JBchrch (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.Considering how the article is the written and the suspicious activity going on in this discussion, a deletion is the appropriate course of action. JBchrch (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)