Makosi Consulting: KH-1 ( talk ) 01:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  KH-1 ( talk ) 01:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Why would you want to delete this page instead of helping improve it??? Is this how we are going to grow pages and the movement??  Valid and reliable sources has been provided here, the company has wonawards in America and ranked highly.  This page must stay!!  There are worse pages that this under you runny noses. .  But You doing fokol.  Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by MollelwaFahaSaBasotho ( talk • contribs ) 06:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing useful about the sources, see below.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Accountancy SA ?  ?  Unknown The Silicon Review ?  ?  Unknown businesswire press release ?  ✘ No Crain's New York Business Crain partnered with the accounting firm Anchin Block & Anchin to verify the financial documents submitted by companies.  ~ It is one line of a table ~ Partial Top Employers Institute Top Employers Institute is a certifying body Little information given ✘ No Mail & Guardian Author is the CEO of the Top Employers Institute Opinion piece, by an expert.  Reliable for statements of opinion ~ Three paragraphs ✘ No Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe, 1 May 2022 Newsletter one line ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Source Evaluation Table.   I have attempted a source evaluation table for the sources in the article, and another source I found (Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe, 1 May 2022 Newsletter).   Does anyone have an opinion on how independent the in-depth articles in the trade journals Accountancy SA and The Silicon Review are likely to have been?  -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the source analysis.  I'd say the AccountingSA piece is an advertorial, and The Silicon Review is primarily an interview.  Neither source contributes towards GNG. - KH-1 ( talk ) 03:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per source table above, not much of anything else found for sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : not notable per source analysis above + my own ref check.  FYI, Silicon Review is pay-to-play and therefore not independent.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:31, 10 August 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.

Discussion outcome: delete