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. Sandstein 11:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time To Know (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)

WP:CORPDEPTH not met - no independent references about this company. I'm not convinced the article isn't a chimera of two (non-notable) companies of the same name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In seconds I found two solid references to the company. I am sure there is much more that can be added. In my opinion, a start-up financed by one of the richest investors in Israel, founder of Amdocs is inherently notable.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, because notability is not inherited. Hug^syrup 08:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:as WP:NOTADVOCACY said, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.Hispring (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification Under what criteria is this rated as "a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing"? We have purposely removed all words which could be construed as "promotional", sticking to the facts of the matter only. I would welcome clarification.--Larryesbee (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can add many more references to this company, founded by one of Israel's major industrialists, and the main investor behind the "Be'reshit" moon landing project. Please clarify the comment: "I'm not convinced the article isn't a chimera of two (non-notable) companies of the same name." Thank you. --Larryesbee (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification Under what authority can an independent editor make changes to an article that are totally inaccurate and actually misleading? What remedy do we have against this? Can we appeal or request this editor to revoke his/her comments? --Larryesbee (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All editors act under the same 'authority', which is that Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit. Your first remedy is to follow the cycle of reverting changes once with a clear explanation, and then discussing any further dispute on the talk page. Yes you can request the editor to change their edits, the best place is on the talk page of the article in question, although you could also speak to them on their own talk page. If that fails, there are other options including an WP:RFC Hug^syrup 08:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it comes down to whether the sources available are sufficient to meet WP:ORGCRIT. They must be significant, multiple, reliable, independent, secondary. Of the three sources currently in the article, two are actually about the founder and mention this company only in passing, so I argue they fail on depth and significance. The third is significant, probably reliable (I'm always a bit unsure how reliable these business puff-pieces are despite being in a reliable paper), independent and secondary. But what I'm not seeing is multiple sources to this level of quality, and my own search shows little else beyond what is already in the article. The article was also clearly, and openly, edited by the organisation's marketing team in the past, and I rather suspect continued WP:COI and possible WP:UPE editing, although that doesn't in itself make the article non-notable. Hug^syrup 08:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hugsyrup's analysis of the sources. Number 57 18:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Haaretz, Forbes, The Marker and Globes are all reliable sources, and I am certain more can be found if anyone spent some time on it. No hype or advertising that I can see. Only simple statements of fact.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • • So with a bit of work, I have just added several more references and reorganized the entry. STEM is a global trend these days, so why delete information about a company that is addressing it? --Geewhiz (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • !Vote struck as you have already !voted above. Number 57 18:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

color:#FFE">Hug]]^syrup 08:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification I don't understand how this article fails in this respect. All the sources are reliable, independent, well-know publicly respected publications. Please explain further.

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.