Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Add Grup

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. Michig (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add Grup

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

Let's first make it clear that this article is spam; it's created by single-purpose account N.Shimanovsky; a Nikita Kuzmich-Shimanovsky is an employee of Add Grup. Now that's out of the way, let's run down through the sources.

This, this and this are either dead or make no discernible mention of Add Grup.
This and this are from addgrup.com.
This is a directory listing.
This, this, this, this, this and this are press releases.
This is a passing mention.
This is more in-depth, but happens to be written by two employees of Add Grup.
This appears to be a paid promotional piece.

In-depth independent coverage appears non-existent, and I see no convincing evidence of WP:CORP being met, so we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per initial notes -- IamM1rv (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination seems to be correct. There are a small handful of hits on Google News, but there isn't enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the hits look like press releases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I see no reason to believe [1] is not reliable, and it is clearly extensive. This interview shows show notability. Combined with the numerous small and or/not completely reliable sources available, I would say the company is technically notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Timtrent: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am neutral. At WP:AFC our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. I viewed that this was likely to survive (>0.6 probability). I have no detailed comment to make on the article. Fiddle Faddle 20:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 22:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't matter that the article was created by a WP:Single-purpose account, but it does matter that there are no WP:Reliable sources that attest to the WP:Notability of this company. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur almost entirely with the nominator's analysis of the article's sources as directory-type listings, trivial mentions, press releases, otherwise not third-party, or not significant coverage. However, I agree with ThaddeusB that there is no proof that the Logos Press article is a paid promotional piece. (Admittedly, I'm not au fait with the media landscape there, and my Moldovan is rudimentary.) The interview ThaddeusB found might be a useful source of information, but doesn't establish notability because it's a primary source which is mostly the president of the company talking about the company, with little or no independent analysis. Searches turned up no additional sources that would prove notability. With at best one independent, reliable, secondary source, the subject fails to meet WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2015 (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.