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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matrak Enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable ROTM tech business. Sources cover it only in the context of funding rounds, no sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Whether a company is subjectively considered ROTM and/or the content focuses on historical business development, neither should be the sole barometer for deletion as they are opinion based. Notability and significant coverage is the benchmark here, and I would challenge that the breadth of independent and reliable citations does meet the standard. Citations include articles from the Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Financial Review which are Australia's equivalent to the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal... highly notable, reliable and independent news outlets. Considering the company is the subject matter of all citations (and not as a trivial mention), that should meet the threshold of significant coverage, satisfying WP:GNG. Granted the article could be fleshed out more, but that shouldn't mean it should be deleted entirely. — NeonRoo (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet of Hapanyc (talk · contribs). JBchrch (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not an unreasonable position to take, by the article creator. But just so there's no misunderstanding, this AfD wasn't moved on ROTM etc. grounds; the nom clearly states that it's because the subject fails GNG/CORP notability. And 'fleshing it out more' would only help if that means adding sources that satisfy notability requirements. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the constructive feedback. I've made further improvements to this article to include additional citations that do not specifically focus on funding coverage. Although I would argue that funding coverage and business history is still information and facts that someone would find valuable. Also note that most of this article was constructed either verbatim or paraphrased from the citations with minimal editorialising to avoid a conflict of interest. NeonRoo (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: NeonRoo (talk · contribs), could you please explain what made you create Matrak Enterprises on 12 April 2021 in the first place? I am asking because before that, the overwhelming majority of your activity on Wikipedia had been the creation and expansion of Latitude Financial Services, which you created shortly after you became autoconfirmed around 16 October 2018. JBchrch (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article's topic does appear to have multiple reliable sources to meet notability requirements. Hapanyc (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hapanyc (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for sockpupettry. JBchrch (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hapanyc (talk · contribs), could you please explain what made you participate in this AfD? I am asking because the overwhelming majority of your activity on Wikipedia prior to this contribution was adding content to Titcoin back in 2015. --JBchrch (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThis article does feature reliable information about Matrak entreprises and is meeting the standard required in WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Bellissen Benac Margaux (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet of Hapanyc (talk · contribs) JBchrch (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, we are honoured to have your first-ever Wikipedia contribution at this AfD. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the last. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most of the sourcing looks like a routine funding coverage, not much to establish notability of the article subject. Good to see this AfD brought some of our editors back from a long sleep. Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a beginning of some sort of sigcov, and it could be debated whether the company as such fits WP:GNG. However, since the article was clearly written by a PR/marketing dpt, it deserves to be WP:TNT-ed. --JBchrch (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your assessment is correct. I only ask that this WP:DP discussion judge this article based on the merits of its WP:GNG / WP:CORP. If it passes, yet the content is considered WP:PROMOTION, then WP:ATD would be the appropriate course of action rather then deletion. NeonRoo (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:ATD (emphasis mine) If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Considering how the article is the written and the suspicious activity going on in this discussion, a deletion is the appropriate course of action. JBchrch (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keeping in mind that I have not stated that I believe the subject to be notable. I have stated that it is arguable. JBchrch (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. While there was some coverage of initial seed funding, it doesn't appear to be enough to create notability. - Aoidh (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promo. Lots of words, with superfluous adjectives and buzzwords like "machine learning", but little substance. Even if it were notable, per WP:TNT it's more likely to reach a better article by starting over again, ideally by someone who isn't an undisclosed paid editor abusing multiple accounts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Idunnox3 (talk) 01:45, 18 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⁺⁺ 13:57, 19 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.