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 Rlendog (talk)

Hoverlay[edit]

Hoverlay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized article about a company, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for companies. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on their sourceability -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with the exception of a single brief glancing namecheck of its existence in a very short CBS news story that isn't about it. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be the subject of a lot more media coverage than just one news blurb. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we don't have that. Most of the references are either primary sources from the company website, or mentions-in-passing when talking about one of the company's projects. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:54, 8 February 2023 (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.