Registered Agents Inc.: The remaining items mentioned comprise insignificant coverage with only a few cited references focused on the company as the central topic.  Those articles appear biased in part, based heavily on gossip, and show that the company provides business registration services to entities that are the reason for the journalistic coverage due to various criminal allegations associated with them.  However, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents.  An earlier Talk page discussion regarding the page's questionable notability did not attract any substantive comments in support of retaining it, so I am nominating it for deletion.  CapnPhantasm ( talk ) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there has been sustained and an increasing amount of coverage by WP:RSes , particularly by WP:RSPSOURCES .  - Amigao ( talk ) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This separate but closely related deletion discussion may also be relevant here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Keen .  The consensus was to redirect to Registered Agents Inc.  .  - Amigao ( talk ) 01:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Politics , Companies , Internet , Idaho ,  and Wyoming .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources don't have to have to be "focused on the company as the central topic" to 'count' towards notability, but whenever we have sources actually focused on the company, then that is a strong indication of notability.  CapnPhantasm , being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents is a sort of WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument in reverse.   You are saying that their role isn't (in your opinion) important enough to the events of the day to justify all the attention that the sources dedicated to them.   However, we care about whether they got coverage from the world at large.   We do not care whether the reason for their coverage seems important to us.   If the subject got coverage for enabling something, then the subject got coverage.   "Why" or "for what" or "do we agree that they deserved that coverage?" is irrelevant.  WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 17:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the issue is that they got fairly insignificant coverage in passing in articles focused on other topics.  With the majority of mentions being trivial ones, it seems likely that this article would not be supported had all the mentions been positive versus negative.  I do not believe it's an argument in reverse -- without the coverage involving the acquisition of Epik, this would have been too thin to merit a Wikipedia article.  WP:INHERITORG absolutely applies.  CapnPhantasm ( talk ) 03:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Actually, it's not whether the reason for coverage is important to us, but the quality of the coverage and whether it should qualify for inclusion -- simply being mentioned in a number of articles is insufficient.  Aside from the lead paragraph which is about its Epik subsidiary, the other items are piggybacked off of this, with most being fairly trivial mentions in the cited references.  To test whether this should be included, imagine that each of the points currently listed in the History subsection was positive, like "Registered Agents has been the agent of record for Apple corporation, the Pulitzer Foundation, IBM, and Chipotle."  Such an article would likely get speedy-deleted because simply providing services for someone notable does not make your company automatically notable.  There are other articles in the Afd lists right now that are going to get deleted for this very reason.  Neutrality suggests this should be treated exactly as it would be if the coverage were totally positive.  Under Wikipedia:ORGSIG the company does not appear to have had any significant culture, society or business -- it looks as though they supply services just like other registered agent companies.  If this met the test for notability, then we should add in all business registration agent companies mentioned in the same articles.  WmLawson ( talk ) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - After reading through all sources, talk page comments, and comments here, I think the majority of the sources fall into WP:ORGTRIV (single line mentions as registered agent of bad companies; example of something being discussed; or local controversy); the most notable thing the company appears to have done is acquire Epik, a troubled domain registrar with an ugly history, and like the nominator suggested it can't inherit that notability per WP:INHERITORG ; and unfortunately, the most significant source is all about alleged misdeeds/practices which WP:ILLCON says can't be used as a basis for an organization's notability.  Although I do think this page should go, it does, however, seem like the primary editor has gathered sourcing that could be used to potentially enhance and create new aspects of the Registered Agent and Limited Liability Company pages, as the reporting in several of the sources elaborate extensively on the consequences of blindspots in state business formation statutes.  MertenMerten ( talk ) 09:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are cited WP:GREL sources that go well beyond the Epik acquisition and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH .  For instance: " Inside the Shadowy Firm Pushing the Limits of Business Privacy " and " A US Company Enabled a North Korean Scam That Raised Money for WMDs " - Amigao ( talk ) 22:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CapnPhantasm , you previously declared that you have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing for more than one client of NUANCE Agency, an advertising and marketing firm that you listed as your employer.  Any WP:COI to declare here?  - Amigao ( talk ) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (Copying my reply to here as this comment was also cross-posted by User:Amigao on the Registered Agents Talk page.) I no longer work for Nuance, have not for some time, and I have no conflict of interest involved here or anywhere else on Wikipedia.  However, you have now tried to threaten and intimidate me on multiple occasions because I corrected repeated instances of exaggerating information on the Registered Agents Inc. article unsupported by the references, and while you essentially conducted a reversion war about the article's quality assessment rating on the Talk page (while over and over I requested you discuss it on the article's Talk page).  I also see that you've been taken to task for similar activities by a few others according to your Talk page, including a recent warning by User:MarkH21 for a deceptively described/committed edit on the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article.  I'd request that you halt the harassment campaign towards me and ad hominem attempts here or else disclose your own potential WP:COI as your own activities could begin to be seen as some sort of biased activism.  CapnPhantasm ( talk ) 23:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You probably should consider reviewing WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS .  - Amigao ( talk ) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You might consider this yourself.  And, it is not casting aspersions, as anyone can review the history of the article to see that I have accurately described what you were doing.  Desist with giving me "advice" while you keep flouting Wiki guidelines.  CapnPhantasm ( talk ) 02:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Administrative note : I accidentally deleted this page when I intended to relist it - I have reversed the error and would ask another admin to take any future administrative actions here, as I am now involved due to my mistake.  Apologies to those involved in the discussion!  — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Wired, Reuters, Washington Post and Wyoming News Service (a statewide consortium whose work is published in individual papers) sources all clear the bar for WP:NCORP .  The sources support this topic being covered in a standalone page with no need to merge into other subjects.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria apply.  This Wired article and others such as this also contain sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet the criteria as well as the Washington Post article .  If the article is not kept, a redirect to Epik as per ATD should be established.  HighKing ++ 16:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there is a problem with multiple sources essentially reporting upon what they do not find -- they imply someone (an employee) does not exist, but cannot prove a negative. Other articles involved are specifically focused on other topics/entities, but the reporters are stymied by being unable to see who the company owners are because of how registered agents legally function -- it is clear that if they could see company ownership directly they would not mention the registered agent at the end of their search.  If this is the main thrust of the mentions of this company along with other registered agent companies in the same articles, then this is insufficient despite the typical reliability of the sources involved.  The Wired articles read as biased, hearsay, and inherently speculitive -- again, this is not sufficient.  Those were ealier cited in an Afd discussion on the supposed notability of the Dan Keen article (this article was cited earlier above - he was purported to be the company owner), but were ultimately deemed by consensus as insufficient for this purpose because they were full of hearsay and too speculative to be depended upon whilst the company's attorney stated categorically he was not the owner.  If the Wired articles were indeed too undependable for use establishing notability for the Dan Keen article, they are insufficient for propping up a thin article on Registered Agents, too, for the very same reasons.  Some of the arguments here seem to be at the level of "they are mentioned in a number of reliable sources, so that is enough to merit a Wikiped article."  This isn't so -- the mentions themselves have to be sufficient.  Else, we would likewise have an article about Chris Xu who is the founder of Shein and who is mentioned in a great many articles from reliable sources.  Like Xu, being mentioned is not enough in of itself - the coverage has to be reliable, substantial, and significant enough to assert notability.  Some of the ICIJ article merely reiterates the same content from the Wyoming article, so multiple paragraphs are less than what is being suggested.  It likewise reports upon not being able to establish that an employee existed or not.  Collecting a bunch of trivial mentions, regardless of coming from august sources, does not seem sufficient basis to keep.  As another mentioned earlier, if the source facts were all positive ones with the same level of insignificance/triviality, this article would not stand as it would appear thin puffery that does not meet the hurdles of household name status or marginal notability.  It may be that some are motivated to keep out of some sort of latent activism, but neutrality suggests that if this was not sufficient for similar levels of mentions casting a company in a positive light, it should not be sufficient for a company in a negative light either.  WmLawson ( talk ) 04:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We're not dealing with articles that don't exist, per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST .  (If Chris Xu is notable, then someone can make an article about him.)  We're dealing with the straightforward question of whether RAI is notable.  I've read the sources (all mentioned in my !vote above) and I consider them reliable, and they are certainly significant coverage.  By the way, I ! voted "delete" in the Dan Keen AfD because the sourcing didn't support notability for a standalone article for him.  I think it absolutely does on this subject.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 13:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "...not dealing with articles that don't exist..." is a straw man argument as the point was that a subject could be mentioned in many sources, but each of the mentions are insufficient to establish notability, and a quantity of mentions does not add up in itself to notability.  Xu was just an example of this because the coverage about Shein frequently mentions him or talks about him, but the main thrust of those articles is not him .  Regardless, you previously argued the coverage was WP:NSUSTAINED which should also apply here as the majority of sustained coverage (if we would call it that for articles where the company is not the main subject and nothing is particularly proven/established in the articles being cited about the company) is primarily from this spring, and it is hard to understand why you discount the Wired articles earlier but now consider them sufficient for this purpose.  As the earler Afd comments demonstrated, the Wired articles have severe deficiencies as mentioned by BBQboffin , voorts and Otr500 such as not meeting SIGCOV as a number of the articles are a series of collaborations by the same authors/organizations which does not meet GNG as separate sources, and the articles are based off of questionable sources only while making utterly trivial statements that cannot possibly meet encyclopedic notability by focusing almost solely upon statements from apparently disgruntled employees with no verification ("micromanagement", "shifts in mood", "dresses modestly... wearing shorts and flannel shirts..", "passive aggressive approach with staff", "described as inappropriate", "misogynistic..", etc).  Wired may often reflect journalistic integrity and be typically reliable, but for this topic depending on those articles for virtually anything gives undue weight to a clearly biased couple of articles from the same authors, which is why they weren't accepted for a biography article.  The intro section of the article also demonstrates its main basis for notability is WP:COATRACK for its subsidiary, Epik.  That shouldn't be considered in assessing the notability as acquiring a notable subsidiary does not establish independent topic notability per WP:INHERITORG .  Wikipedia is supposed to be something of a lagging indicator of notability , and this seems like an exemplar.  Until more significant coverage occurs this should not be an article.  WmLawson ( talk ) 19:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You literally made a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, please don't gaslight us.  As for Wired , it is considered by editors here to be a perennial reliable source and is known for its fact-checking practices, so without countervailing evidence contradicting the Wired story (which no one has supplied), I believe we can take it as reliable on this topic.  Anonymous sourcing is a legitimate journalistic practice and does not rule out an otherwise reliable source.  Finally, I said nothing about NSUSTAINED (please read carefully), but that policy refers to a "sufficiently significant period of time," and the WP:SIRS coverage spans from 2020 to the present, which is more than sufficiently sustained to meet the policy.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 00:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — Sources appear substantial enough to meet NCORP.  The ICIJ source, for example, spends multiple paragraphs to establish this specific company as not just a convent example, but as a noteworthy example of its industry.  Grayfell ( talk ) 03:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Source 3 from Wired is the only one strictly about the Registered Agents company, the rest focus on Epik (that they bought) or some not so nice things the company is said to be involved with.  I don't find much else we can use for sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and/or merge with Epik .  These two companies don't appear to have separate notability.  Even if Registered Agents, Inc. were to have marginal notability on its own, WP:NOPAGE reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context .  This is one of those times; I think that covering the two companies in one article would both provide the users with a better overall understanding and reduce maintenance required by avoiding unnecessary content duplication across two articles.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Striking in favor of keeping.  Will expand on why later; I don't have the time at the moment.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Though the editor who proposed this RfC framed it in relation to Epik, the bulk of the media coverage here is not about RAI's acquisition of Epik and good deal of it pre-dates the acquisition.  There is sufficient WP:RS coverage for it to be a stand-alone article at this point.  - Amigao ( talk ) 02:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  04:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Through probably what is one of the oddest coincidences I have experienced on Wikipedia, I encountered the 30 N Gould Street, Sheridan, WY address independently when I noticed that it was related to lots of fraudulent and/or generally sketchy activity.  This activity is covered in a variety of reliable sources, including The Sheridan Press ( 1 , 2 , 3 ), Reuters (via KSL , via The Malaysian Star ), Overdrive , Esquire , The Washington Post , and the Gillette News-Record .  I began to wonder to myself is it possible for an address to be notable but not the physical building itself ?  And I concluded that it was, given all of the coverage of it and the various scams that run through it.  I then began to look back through Wikipedia to see if this was covered anywhere and, lo and behold, it was covered here.  For reasons entirely unrelated to the acquisition of Epik, the address (and the registration agent operating out of it) had received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events.  The text of the current article puts a lot of weight on the acquisition of Epik.  That's probably a mistake in terms of article content focus (at least in terms of covering the great variety of items associated with that address), but I now realize that the sourcing is quite clear: this article can exist as a standalone, and should exist as a standalone, due to substantial non-overlap with Epik in terms of what our coverage ought be.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:25, 2 July 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