Auspex International: Fails WP:CORP .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology ,  and England .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Went into voluntary liquidation in October 2023 according to documents filed at Companies House.  [1] .  No coverage found of this, so assuming this is the same company it suggests Auspex Int.  isn't notable.  Its website appears non-operational.  Attracted some coverage in the wake of Cambridge Analytica: on its formation, BBC [2] and FT [3] Later coverage: Byline Times [4] The company is mentioned in a number of books relating to Cambridge Analytica.  Possible redirect to Cambridge Analytica#Aftermath , if as looks likely, there is insufficient depth of coverage to pass WP:NCORP for a separate article.  Rupples ( talk ) 02:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It is quite unknown for the most part.  Few have heard about it probably.  Rrjmrrr ( talk ) 21:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it easily passes WP:SIGCOV , based on several articles about it in reliable sources.  If it needs to be updated, then that can be done via ordinary editing processes.  Bearian ( talk ) 13:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Cambridge Analytica#Aftermath .  Just found out on examining the sources that three had been posted across by the article's creator from Data Propria , a company also set up in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and were about that company with no mention of Auspex, so not relevant; I've now removed these.  The Data economy source is written by the MD of Auspex, Mark Turnbull and Auspex is only mentioned; the article is about Cambridge Analytica.  The two BBC sources are the same so I've now consolidated and the BBC and Forbes sources are about the company starting up — no follow up coverage of the company has been identified .  This does not amount to significant coverage under WP:ORGDEPTH .  No reporting found of the company's liquidation, so not remembered for its few years of activity, but merely as fallout from Cambridge Analytica.  Rupples ( talk ) 18:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Correction: the only SIGCOV identified so far is the Byeline Times article [5] , but more such sources are required to fulfill the multiple sources requirement.  The book sources are mere mentions of its start up, again in the light of Cambridge Analytica.  Rupples ( talk ) 18:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject is discussed at length in numerous notable sources. -- 2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A ( talk ) 23:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC) — 2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Keep the BBC, FT and Byline Times coverage is enough to pass NCORP – the Byline Times article in particular, published three years after Auspex's founding, is strong evidence of some enduring notability.  – Tera tix ₵ 15:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Cambridge Analytica#Aftermath seem sensible as WP:ATD .  This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  The Keep ! voters don't appear to grasp the criteria for establishing notability - being mentioned in "reliable sources" of being discussed at length in "reliable sources" is not the full extent of the tests.  It is the content of those articles that matter.  The only source that meets our critieria is this Byline Times article , the BBC article acknowledges relying entirely on their website and a Press Release, the Forbes piece relies entirely on information provided by someone connected with the company, both fails ORGIND.  There does not appear to be sufficient sources to meet the criteria.  HighKing ++ 10:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You might have overlooked the FT source, which should satisfy your concerns.  – Tera tix ₵ 12:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  I don't think the FT article passes WP:ORGDEPTH , but more importantly, it's so closely linked with the CA scandal I don't see how it would make sense for coverage to be put on a standalone article.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 08:03, 19 April 2024 (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: no consensus