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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cassida Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Borderline G11 eligible article on a non notable organization despite their bogus notability claims in the article. A WP:BEFORE search shows they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus WP:NCORP isn’t met. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure why Celestina007 removed the G11 Speedy. This does require a fundamental rewrite, and it is also UPE. AFD'ing this is just a make-work project that amounts to WP:BOGOF if we spend time assessing and fixing the paid editor's work.--- Possibly (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — @Possibly, Simple, I believe it is G11 borderline eligible but not irredeemably promotional, furthermore using the AFD method would come in handy(G4) when the article is invariably re-created in the future. Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I will buy that. Naked promotion of coin and bill counters Those preformed wrappers made it much easier to wrap and roll coins. In addition, beyond recognizing Pennies, Nickels, Dimes and Quarters like C100 does, it also recognizes Dollar Coins. really gets me.--- Possibly (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly, I perfectly understand your thought process but from my experience, in dealing with COI/UPE if an article is created by either of aforementioned, using an AFD is always the best approach, so in future when they eventually re-create, which you can bet that they would since there’s a vested interest, we would easily just zap it away with a G4. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that now, thank you.--- Possibly (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:ARTSPAM that I came close to deleting under WP:G11, but it is not "totally promotional." (I have a higher threshold for CSD than some.) It does not have sufficient coverage in terms of breadth or depth to meet WP:CORP. Routine mentions mixed with company related sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail required to establish notability. Articles listing the best n bill or coin sorters isn't sufficient. Msnicki (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's advertising.--- Possibly (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might also note that a search found things like this (note the "publish PR" link) but no RS.--- Possibly (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but really no need to list in that many categories. Graywalls (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls, insofar as they apply, you are to notify all potentially interested groups. Celestina007 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As a creator of this page, I would like to state that unfortunately I didn't know about the mandatory requirements to disclose an affiliation. I respect Wikipedia's policies and I will be as neutral as I can. We at Cassida are not here on Wikipedia to promote stuff, we simply want Cassida to be present on the most well known encyclopedia. I disclosed on my talk page that I am being paid for editing for Cassida. Is there anything else that needs to be done to prevent this page from being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassibri0615 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassibri0615, as of now? unfortunately nothing, they aren’t a notable organization and until they are, the article cannot be retained on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassibri0615: The deletion rationale is not the status of the creator, though as you've noticed, it rankles many. Subject does not meet WP:CORP, the inclusion requirement for organizations. Creating articles is hard. My first attempts were deleted as well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, plus it reads like an advertisement. Mmmmm, I sure hate it when corporations hire people to edit Wikipedia with their COI... AdoTang (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Meh I've seen one (1) PAID editor created article that made me want to stand up and cheer. Unfortunately, many cannot make the change from advocational to encyclopedic writing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I actually did search for sources, but it looks like they paid to publish press releases via Parity media, and those releases have taken up all my patience of digging through to find sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:CORP Devokewater 13:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 6 April 2021 (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.