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. czar 19:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaido (company)[edit]

Kaido (company) (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)

Searching for sources, I am not finding anything demonstrating that WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH are met. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I hope I'm responding to this in the right place. If I'm not, please let me know the correct place to move this to.

I believe that Kaido does have significant notability. There are three reasons I think this.

1. The guidelines state that the subject should have received "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I believe that there are multiple examples of this coverage including:

• http://www.midlandsbusinessnews.co.uk/kaido-wins-eit-health-award/ (An article by a local newspaper)
• http://birmingham.livingmag.co.uk/kaido/ (A full company profile by a UK-wide magazine)
• http://www.bqlive.co.uk/innovation/2016/05/12/news/kaido-secures-50-000-investment-to-launch-new-software-2408/ (An article on the company raising finance from a well known local news publication).

While I appreciate that this is on the lower-end of the scale of notability compared to many articles, I believe it does meet the threshold.

2. The coverage ranges in time over 3 years which fits with the guidance in WP:GNG that "notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time"

3. The company is growing strongly and has now over 150 companies, city councils and NHS Trusts using its software. While there are not yet citeable sources for this information, I believe that the page will grow in its references and its usefulness to the public over the coming months.

Thanks for taking the time to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihid (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: My reading of the available sources (including those listed above) is that they are a mix of local coverage and routine announcements of funding and awards that are not intrinsically notable. While these demonstrate that this is a company going about its business, I don't see the coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, especially WP:CORPDEPTH. Of the three references mentioned by Ihid, the first is a non-notable award announcement excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH, the second is an anonymous writeup from a magazine with no list of editors, and the third is a capital transaction announcement excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH. The company can qualify for an article when there are enough high-quality sources in the future, but that's not the case right now. — Newslinger talk 09:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the analysis of sources above, they fail the criteria for establishing notability. I am unable to locate any sources that do, therefore topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 20 October 2018 (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.