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.
I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I can find no coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 12:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill business. Hzh lists a number of references and states that there appears to be significant coverage but fails to mention that the references rely extensively on interviews with company officers or a VC that invested in the company, company announcements and even a passing mention in relation to discouraging people from eating shark-fin soup. None of the references are intellectually independent, all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have misunderstood WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Nowhere do they say no interviews, independent means independent sources, and that include interviews conducted by the independent sources. WP:ORGIND covers press releases and other work published by the company itself or promotional material done on behalf on the company, while WP:CORPDEPTH cover trivial coverage based on brief, routine or simple reports of the company, or mere quotations from the company's personnel. If they read those sources, they are nothing of the sort, this Sin Chew article [12] (try Google translate if you cannot read it) for example is quite an extensive article of which any quotation forms only a part of article. The "shark fin" thing is a campaign partly organized by the company, hardly a passing mention (there are sources in 3 different languages). They are different kinds of sources, some cover various aspects of the company, others mention it as one of the significant new online companies in Malaysia. Hzh (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it is you who appears to misunderstand the meaning of "independent" in the context of "independent sources". "Independence of sources" is interpreted to mean that people, independent of the company, published a non-trivial non-routine work that focuses on the subject. WP:ORGIND does a good job explaining how GNG is to be interpreted in the context of notability of companies/organizations. Another useful interpretation is that a source must be "intellectually independent", not just corporately independent. Determining whether a reference is non-trivial and non-routine requires examining the article for non-trivial and independent opinions/interpretations in relation to the company. The references you've provided show none. The references simply repeat what they've been told and assign facts and opinons to the company or their officers or related partners. You may be of the opinion that "interviews by unconnected publishers" meets the criteria for establishing notability, but ORGIND specifically excludes "any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it", "any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly", "other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people" and WP:CORPDEPTH excludes "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". Hard to see how a "story" (such as the sinchew reference) which is based on a study performed by the Nuren Group and which relies on Nuren Group personel to rely and interpret the facts can be considered "intellectually independent". The reference is chock full of "facts" attributed to Nuren Group and nothing to demonstrate any independence. The entire article references Nuren Group data and peppered with their message. All this reference (and the others for that matter) demonstrates is that Nuren has a marketing department. HighKing++ 20:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean by a source must be "intellectually independent", given that the term you put in quote "intellectually independent" is nowhere to be found WP:ORGIND. It looks to be your interpretation of what is not written there, whatever it is that you may mean. I am not sure how you can misunderstand what is meant by any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it or any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly, something written by an independent journalist is none of these things. It is not for you to make random claim about the lack of independence of what a journalist writes. Presumably you also want to claim that a journalist in China (in addition to others) is not independent by putting the company as one of the noteworthy new companies. The point about using quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources is about the triviality of the coverage (spinning a few quotes into a story) which is clear from the examples given of routine and trivial report, not applicable when the coverage is extensive. Hzh (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lets just agree to disagree. I provided a comprehensive explanation of the meaning of "intellectually independent". Nowhere did I state that it is contained in WP:ORGIND (although recent discussions indicate it may find its way in there shortly) but you've chosen to create a strawman argument on the issue of it not appearing in ORGIND rather than debate why the phrase "intellectually independent" consisely encompasses what is intended by ORGIND. Similarly, your interpretations of those guidelines are different to mine (and also different to the interpretations expressed on multiple AfDs by multiple other editors) - but hey, that's fine, that's why we have an AfD process, everyone gets to have their say. All I can do is provide clear explanations for my interpretations when asked and that is what I've done. HighKing++ 11:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot discuss this based on a vague idea that you have invented rather than something specifically stated in the notability criteria. Anyone can make claim as to what WP:ORGIND means, but if it is not actually stated, then it is a pointless argument. (BTW, when something appears within quotation marks, it may mean it is something quoted from somewhere else. Unless you are using it as a scare quote, which would make what you said very nonsensical, or a personal special usage, which makes the reference to WP:ORGIND odd as you are admitting it is something you made up yourself. Read quotation mark on its use so you can avoid making groundless accusation of straw man.) Hzh (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lol - as I said, we'll agree to disagree, but I don't accept your attempts to put your words in my mouth or to create disputes based on your attempts to re-interpret something that is written in clear English and easily understood by native English speakers. I love your assertion that there's apparently only two reasons to use quotation marks as a way of starting another strawman argument, I found it amusing and it made me laugh. For clarity, in that situation I used it to "extract" the phrase so that my explanation was clear - obviously a failure on my part as I made assumptions on comprehension levels of readers. If you have the inclination, you might check the Talk page on WP:NCORP or historical AfDs - you'll find that the term "intellectually independent" is not my invention and is used by made editors - especially those that are experienced AfD editors. I also *love* that you then try to tell me that somehow I admitted "intellectually independent" was something I made up myself. Sure ... probably more groundless accusations of straw man though. Anyway, lets wait to see what other editors have to say on the sinchew story and the other references - who knows, maybe the phrase "intellectually independent" might even pop up again? At least this time you'll know what it means! HighKing++ 14:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't argue based on what someone else had said, we argued based on notability guidelines and deletion criteria. If you are assuming others might understand what you write based on what other people had written somewhere else you'd be mistaken, particularly when you were referring specifically to WP:ORGIND and nowhere else. If your argument is actually based on other people's usage and argument, then that is worse, because you are admitting you are not arguing based on WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP themselves, but on other people's interpretation and argument. It may explain why you put forward arguments such as interviews being invalid and "intellectually independent" which are not actually found in notability and deletion criteria. Hzh (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaannnnnddddd ... here we go again. Nope, not going to engage with you if you keep puting words in my mouth and tell me this is what I said/meant. I've explained clearly the reasoning for my !vote. Rather than produce better references or use policy/guidelines to argue, you're just trolling. My !vote stands. HighKing++ 00:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- just a directory listing for a nn company. Raised $2M which is an insignificant amount. Sources offered above are not convincing: passing mentions, routine news, etc. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Money raised is not one of the criteria in WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. WP:CORPDEPTH clearly describes what kind of works might be considered "routine", and multiple non-trivial sources have been given that does not fit these descriptions in WP:CORPDEPTH. Better explanations of what you said to be "routine news" might be in terms of the criteria set out in WP:CORPDEPTH and how the sources would fit those "routine" descriptions would be helpful. It is otherwise just a random claim not supported by WP:CORPDEPTH. Hzh (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing. Störm(talk) 13:16, 7 February 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.