EnergyX : scope_creep Talk 02:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep may be notable per NEXIST (sources that exist but have not yet been added per language barrier, or something like that.  At least, the US TechCrunch has a good source on EnergyX.  -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 10:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I do not know one word in Korean (sorry) and for lack of time I cannot do a comprehensive analysis of sources in Korean right now.  Even so a few observations.  Next to this article, there is an article on this company's main project.  The company is already mentioned there.  So delete is not really on the menu.  At minimum this should be a redirect.  Merge is not really on the menu either, as talking a lot on the parent on the project's page would create content drift/UNDUE/COATRACK etc.  A merge in the opposite direction would be possible.  So the options HERE are redirect or keep.  The company is young yet operates in an area that receives coverage.  The text is promotional and I will add a payment warning.  gidonb ( talk ) 14:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ::I support either a keep or redirect and object to a delete or merge, per reasons detailed above.  gidonb ( talk ) 14:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Delete is now also an option so the post scriptum has outlived its useful live.  It was a summary for that moment of my comment above it.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I will go through the sources on this.  scope_creep Talk 21:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 06:32, 4 February 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!  09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Lets look at the first block of references in hope of getting some input: Ref 1 [75] Forbes 50 fastest growing startups.  Non-notable trade award.  Not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS .  Ref 2 [76] "EnergyX wins the 2023 Korea 4th Industry Leading Company Grand Prize" Non-notable trade award.  Fails WP:SIRS Ref 3 [77] "Seoul-based energy funding startup bags $5.1m in Hyundai-led round" Funding.  Fails WP:CORPDEPTH .  Ref 4 [78] "Park Seong-hyeon and Hong Du-hwa, co-CEOs of EnergyX “Energy independence through buildings is the key to future cities".  Not independent.  Conference.  Fails WP:ORGIND , WP:SIRS Ref 5 [79] "EnergyX presents sustainable building platform and vision at the 2023 Carbon Neutral Expo".  Not independent.  Conference.  Fails WP:ORGIND , WP:SIRS Ref 6 [80] Funding annoucement.  Fails WP:CORPDEPTH .  Ref 7 [81] Funding annoucement.  Fails WP:CORPDEPTH The rest of the references are the same low quality.  None of them meet the bar defined in WP:SIRS , effectively failing WP:SIRS .  scope_creep Talk 14:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] vote removed: Thanks to scope_creep for the source analysis, but I must disagree with some of the conclusions drawn.  While an award might not be notable, if the award gets coverage in an otherwise reliable, secondary, and independent source and the coverage is significant, it counts towards notability.  Similarly, articles about a funding round, if more than trivial or incidental (ie., significant coverage of the funding rather beyond a line or two in a tipsheet about the round) can count towards notability if its more than a brief mention and otherwise SIRS.  DCsansei ( talk ) 17:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Striking my vote per the paid editor observation made by BusterD, probably best to start over.  DCsansei ( talk ) 19:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DCsansei : Do you have actual evidence per WP:THREE which is considered best-practice since last autumn.  I do hundreds of these company articles, since 2008 and I've seen the same argument multiple times.  It is false.  Your slightly confused.  In 2018, the WP:NCORP guidelines were completely rewritten to be stricter.  Funding is now considered trivial coverage and is non-rs.  Also trade awards, which are given out like water to drive business relationship are generally considered non-notable on Wikipedia.   So if you some references that prove the company notable, post them up instead of posting conjecture and non-truths.  scope_creep Talk 18:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to pick up on the comment above.  If the *award* gets coverage, we need to examine the content of that coverage to see whether it includes information *about* the company that is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  If the "coverage" is a cut-and-paste and all the "coverage" is essentially the same article, then no, it fails our criteria.  And in this particular case, none of the coverage about the "award" meets our criteria.  Similarly, articles about a funding round might meet the criteria if the *content* of the article meets the criteria and isn't simply regurgitating information from a press release or the company website.  There is a difference between notability of the company and "coverage".  HighKing ++ 14:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  More discussion explicitly about the sources presented would be helpful in attaining a consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment So far, they hasn't been a single reference presented that supports WP:SIRS correctly.   Its relatively a brand new startup, the usual SAAS type startup and not a single piece of coverage that has been presented that hasn't been created by the company.  The supposed trade awards are by long consensus, more than a decade, are non-notable.  Does anybody have evidence that the company is notable, or is it another brand new company using an agency to manage its Wikipedia brand.  It is brochure advertising and non-notable.  scope_creep Talk 16:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I'm choosing not to assert keep for what is obviously a purely promotional and paid page creation or redirect it to another clearly promotional and paid page creation.  The nominator's source analysis leaves very little for this page to stand on.  This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH .  Question: What distinguishes this contracting firm from any other?  BusterD ( talk ) 14:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Answer: an undeclared paid editor .  BusterD ( talk ) 14:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I have nominated the building for deletion as well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnergyX DY-Building .  Based on my reading, every edit this contributor has made has been to Korean construction firms and the projects they sell.  BusterD ( talk ) 14:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete 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 .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability despite the "awards" and "funding rounds" which are not part of our criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 14:40, 22 February 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: delete