This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Purge page cache

watch

Userssio Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not enough sources to pass WP:NCORP. This company has only been active for one year and has received no coverage from reliable sources. Badbluebus (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and India. Badbluebus (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilley's Dallas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should add that Gilley's Dallas is not related to the earlier, famous Gilley's located in Pasadena, and has nothing to do with the movie Urban Cowboy. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - Gilley's might be a lot of things, but lack of notability is not one of them. Urban Cowboy was filmed in the original Pasadena location. It was based In Pasadeba Texas 1970-1990. I think they closed the Pasadena location and are now operating out of Dallas since 2003. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Even says on their website the current Dallas location opened in 2003 and has kept the spirit of the original Gilley's alive. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Trade Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are not far different from the ones used in the founder's article analysed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelly Agbogu. They're either clearly sponsored posts or pieces that are purely WP:ROTM.

This is a clearly sponsored post. This is a WP:DOGBITESMAN.

Notability also isn't inherited, so this WEMA bank backing (this one too), Sterling Bank's backing, Access Bank's backing, are either lacking bylines and/or lack substantial coverage of the subject.

This fails WP:INDEPENDENT and is, of course, a WP:DOGBITESMAN.

This fails WP:INDEPENDENT and also lacks substantial coverage.

Nothing to really look at here.

And this CNN piece, as I said earlier, that Reading this piece makes it clear that it is not entirely independent of the subject. The phrase "Courtesy Nelly Agbogu" at the end suggests that she is the source of this information, implying that either she provided it directly or the information is being shared with her permission or acknowledgment, that While the publication is reliable, we can't rely on a piece that fails WP:INDEPENDENCE, and that either way it does not provide the WP:SIGCOV on the subject that we need on Wikipedia.

This is also an unbylined unreliable piece. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibadan Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP and undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, and Business. Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Germany, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was not paid to contribute this article. Debbchia (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A clear Merge target to Jerome Sydenham, the founder. This could have been taken care of with a merge tag. Chubbles (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Certified Professional Managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod with 1 source added which doesn't appear to meet reliable sources. Still fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Education, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to go with delete. Even after finding the listing on the university's site, I still can't quite figure out what this is. I checked Guidestar for the non-profit information, and it seems pretty minor. I find it listed in websites where it is essentially advertising. Search turns up the usual Facebook etc. No independent sources that I can find. Lamona (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operational intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

18-year-old article that reads far more like an essay, is devoid of sources or further reading materials, has no substantial improvements over the years. Effectively unsalvageable even though the term itself is notable and important. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This doesn't look bad enough to justify WP:TNT to me. The subject trivially meets WP:GNG, as the nomination notes. Per WP:ATD, the existing content can be stubbified in favor of deletion if improvements are not forthcoming. Suriname0 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless someone comes forward to try to rescue this mess, I'm afraid that it's better to start over. Ping me if you're making a real effort. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD is not a substitute for cleanup. Nomination indicates the term is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While I agree with the sentiment that the term itself is notable and important, the problem is the term's broadness. It's not a specific thing, like a book. It's possible to write prose describing this term in different ways. The definition may be substantively different from person to person, industry to industry. I'd argue that due to the lack of any sourcing to support it's current definition that the current state of the article is functionally WP:OR. In this way, while WP:N dictates that The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article <...> does not indicate that a subject is not notable... editors are strongly encouraged to... consider the possibility that sources may still exist, I think the encyclopedia is benefited more with deletion and allowing an interested editor start from scratch (and some sources). I toyed with the idea of trying to find a source to swap to a Keep vote to stubify, but I admit I don't believe I have the research skill for such a non-specific term. —Sirdog (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gitomer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am not sure if he is notable. Most of sources seem to be either primary or only tangentially related to him. I am unsure whether he meets WP:CREATIVE; points 3 and 4 are relevant. I am not sure if the attention he got was critical and whether his work has been covered in enough periodical articles. (I see [1], but not much more.) Even if The Little Red Book of Selling had made him notable, he would seem to be a bit too BLP1E-ish, as the rest of the coverage is more-or-less trivial or primary. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, United States of America, and Florida. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see plenty of good sources. I remember the incident that lead to his being banned from the airline, so BLP1E doesn't apply. There are issues with the article, but they can be resolved through ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noritsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a vintage article from 2005 when Wikipedia was more interested in articles of almost any standard rather than those which show verified notability. Acknowledging the old saw that AfD is not cleanup, this article requires either a strong dose of WP:V which is almost entirely absent, or deletion because any pass of WP:NCORP is not verified. WP:HEY is a sensible outcome. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Japan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Health and fitness, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: i found these sources Yahoo Finance, These The Nikkei sources (which is paywalled) 1 2, Sankei Shimbun, Reuter JP. There is some others. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article as it is indeed needs more RS to secure its place in the article space, also noticed a lot of the sections like the subject's History lacks citations. Though I would still vote for it's keep due to the subject's significance for its contributions in realm of Automation in the Field of Photography("Developed the RF-20E, an advanced automatic monochrome film processor. Succeeded in automating the film development process for the first time in the world."), Not opposed to DraftifyTo save article, while it's being buffed up if the current Sources cited lacks WP:V, to add, found a relevant source from one of the sources already cited, it's Part 1 of the "The founding family that fired the entire management team may sell Noritsu Koki to a foreign company (Part 2) | Tokyo Report

Special Coverage2008-07-04 09:28" ,here-https://www.data-max.co.jp/2008/07/post_1771.html let me know how the this goes.Villkomoses (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mortar (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article fails WP:GNG. It does not talk about why MORTAR is a significant or noteworthy organization. It also lacks high-quality sources. It has only been mentioned a couple of times in some relatively obscure articles from CNN, Politico, and other news. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. The subject of the article fails to meet WP:NORG. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A2Z Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 13:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Exports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP due to lack of independent in-depth sources. Imcdc Contact 13:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 13:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The article relies mainly on self-published or promotional sources--Loewstisch (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a Fortune Global 500 company with $30 billion in revenue. A preliminary Google search brings up results with analyst commentary [2] [3] and independent reporting [4] [5]. I encourage the nominator to provide evidence of following WP:BEFORE rather than simply copy-pasting the same nomination statement on every AfD. Yuvaank (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A company with $30 billion in revenue is going to have sources, including concerns about its performance, e.g. "Reliance, Ola, Rajesh Exports miss battery storage targets, lead to sharp cut in scheme's budget allocation" (The Economic Times), "Non-bailable warrant issued against Rajesh Exports MD" (Business Standard). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plandora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT; no independent, significant coverage could be found. This article was originally about a non-notable project management application, but it appears to have been recently hijacked by a different software application also named "Plandora". Neither application meets WP:NSOFT so it should just be deleted. dePRODed in 2011 by the article's creator. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Software, and Singapore. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I wasn't able to find SIGCOV for either of the pieces of software. The original subject has some passing mentions, mostly in older sources comparing different open source project management tools, but I wasn't able to find anything approaching SIGCOV. The new subject (the travel software) appears to be very clearly non-notable. MCE89 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to keep and revert to this diff. Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The lead of the first version of the article said:

  Plandora is an open source tool to manage the software development process. It can be useful for teams that have problems with resource bottle-necks, parallel projects, workers in several projects at the same time, critical deadlines and project documentation demands.

  As the nominator noted, the article was "recently hijacked by a different software application also named 'Plandora'". The lead of the hijacked version of the article says:

  Plandora is a web-based travel planning application that transforms social media content into personalized travel itineraries. Developed by TBA.LABS PTE.LTD., Plandora streamlines travel planning by allowing users to capture inspiration from Instagram and TikTok, automatically extract key details, and generate editable, visually engaging itineraries.

  I was unable to find significant coverage for either of the software applications. Both do not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep and revert to this diff per the significant coverage found by HyperAccelerated below. Thank you for finding those sources! Cunard (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Given how much software gets discussed in books, which in fairness far too many editors overlook when it comes to computing topics, it was a very bad sign when a books search immediately leapt to an 18th century work by Johann Christoph Beer (1638–1712). I concur with the above. No in depth sources for either one to be found. The older piece of software, whose creator was coincidentally the same name as the Alberto.pereto (talk · contribs) who wrote the original article, showed promise, but the supposed academic coverage in Brazil turned out to be a list of merely namechecked pieces of software given as examples of tools. Uncle G (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert to this diff. I don't think the travel application is notable, but the project management software has been the subject of several studies: see here, here, and here. It's not a lot, but I do believe that collectively this establishes that this meets WP: GNG, albeit barely. I think we should revert procedurally, because we can disambiguate pages rather than hijack them, but since this AfD is open, I do worry that reverting now might confuse other people who want to participate in this AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources aren't really studying Plandora, they're using it as a testcase for the actual tools they're studying. I can't extract any significant coverage from these sources that can be used in the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still counts as WP: SIGCOV. The threshold is "more than a trivial mention". These papers give software quality metrics about the code of Plandora, which is more than a trivial mention. You might find the content of these sources uninteresting, but the question we're here to discuss is whether significant coverage exists, and IMO the answer is clearly yes. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated Significant coverage should address the topic directly and in detail. These sources only indirectly cover Plandora, since the coverage focuses on evaluation of their experimental tools rather than evaluation of Plandora. In the first two sources, the coverage of Plandora is nothing more than raw data, which is definitely not significant. The third source contains more mentions, but it still isn't coverage of Plandora itself, it's coverage of whether the authors' SQL translation mechanism works on an example database. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of these experimental tools produce metrics about Plandora. That is significant coverage, because these metrics give detail beyond a trivial mention. The papers are primarily about new tools, but significant coverage does not necessitate that the subject be the main topic. I also disagree that any of these papers even present "raw data"; that argument might apply if the papers consisted of large copy-pastes of Plandora source code. What is happening is that the authors are describing their methodology in detail and then describing the application of that method to analyze Plandora's codebase. It does not matter whether that analysis is automated or manual -- the presence of this analysis alone establishes significant coverage. In any case, thanks for reading the sources, but I don't think we're going to reach agreement on this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your perspective, even though we disagree. Thanks for the discussion! Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've looked at the three papers linked above, it looks like only the first one has real sigcov (about five paragraphs describing Plandora in the Usage Examples section). The other two papers only use Plandora to test various other things. The second paper only gives some statistics, it is unclear to me whether these are their experimental data or actually innate to Plandora. The third paper describes in great detail what the researchers did to Plandora but not what Plandora is or does. In my opinion, the latter two papers don't count towards the GNG. The last revision of the article before the hijacking doesn't have any good sources either, so I land on the delete side here. Toadspike [Talk] 07:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The usage section in the first paper doesn't even describe Plandora; it describes the authors' code analysis tool and briefly mentions the Plandora source code as an example input. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NSOFT. The current iteration of the article doesn't even assert notability at all - just mere existence. -- Y not? 22:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]