CEVA Logistics: The article is a catalogue of mergers and acquisitions without any claims that the business has done anything notable.  A BEFORE search comes up with nothing but listings entries and their own social media.  Cabayi ( talk ) 08:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies ,  and France .  Cabayi ( talk ) 08:23, 5 September 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!  06:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The freight forwarding market is significant and has been the subject of multiple analyst reports, some of which provide detailed analysis of participants including the topic company.  Unfortunately most are paywalled, but that doesn't exclude the existence of sourcing that likely meets the criteria for establishing notability.  For example, here is a link to a report by Allied Market Research and another by Global Data and another by Technavio .  Mordor Intelligence also provides analysis on various regions - for example it includes the topic company in a report on the Contract Logistics Market in the Netherlands (and other regions too).  HighKing ++ 20:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per HighKing - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, – Joe ( talk ) 18:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , while I commend HighKing 's research, the sources found are market surveys which are indiscriminate listings of the companies in the market rather than significant coverage of CEVA.  Cabayi ( talk ) 14:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, its a pity I can't return the compliment because by labelling the reports as indiscriminate listings, you're just demonstrating that you didn't bother to even look at the reports.  These reports contain detailed information and analysis about CEVA.  HighKing ++ 09:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since HighKing calls upon me to prove I've looked at their sources, here goes: alliedmarketresearch.com : "Some leading companies profiled in the freight forwarding market report comprises Bollore Logistics, CEVA Logistics , DB Schenker, DHL Global Forwarding, Dimerco, DSV Panalpina A/S, Expeditors International, Fedex, Hellman Worldwide Logistics, Kuehne+Nagel International AG, MGF (Manitoulin Global Forwarding), Nippon Express Co., Ltd., Transporteca, UPS Supply Chain Solutions, and UBER Freight LLC." .  $3,456 for more detail.  globaldata.com : " CEVA Logistics SA (CEVA), a subsidiary of CMA CGM SA, is a provider of contract logistics and freight management services."  There's nothing in the paragraph available to show notability.  $295 for more detail.  technavio.com : paywall semi-broken by web archive , " The market report also offers information on several market vendors, including AP Moller Maersk AS, Agility Public Warehousing Co K.S.C.P, Aramex International LLC, C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., CEVA Logistics AG, CJ Logistics Corp, Deutsche Bahn AG, Deutsche Post DHL Group, DSV Panalpina AS, FedEx Corp., Gati Ltd, GEODIS, Kerry Logistics Network Ltd., Kuehne Nagel International AG, Nippon Express Holdings Inc, Omni Logistics LLC, Singapore Post Ltd, SINO Group, United Parcel Service Inc., and XPO Logistics Inc. among others." $2,500 for more detail.  mordorintelligence.com : The link provided is a list of 20 reports three of which feature CEVA's logo, priced at $4750 per report .  I won't claim that I've laid out the $20,501 necessary to read the complete text of these reports.  I don't think any of our readers will either.  With these pricetags, it's the pricetag and the alleged insider knowledge that are the points of those articles.  If the other sources established CEVA's notability then I'd have no objection to these sources further down the article.  However, to require $20k to just establish the company is notable is the antithesis of notability.  If notability is only established by insider knowledge, the entity is not notable in any rational interpretation of notability.  It's a variant of Jasper Carrott 's old joke, "I'm world famous in Birmingham."  If the "detailed information and analysis about CEVA" shows CEVA's notability, please provide the proof.  Cabayi ( talk ) 09:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even better, put it in the article.  Cabayi ( talk ) 09:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What's your point?  Even by your own arguements, these reports go far beyond "indiscriminate listings".  For example, the alliedmarketresearch link says that it *profiles* those companies and if you click on the Table of Contents you can see section 10.7 is dedicated to Ceva under a number of headings.  You misunderstand the purpose of sources and the manner of meeting the criteria for establishing notability.  It isn't the case that the report *content* needs to show notability, it is merely the fact that a publisher has created in-depth "Independent Content".  The globaldata report is entirely dedicated to Ceva and is a detailed profile.  This is not "trivial coverage" and that fact alone means this source meets the criteria.  The technavio report is similar to other research reports and the Table of Contents link shows section 10.5 dedicated to Ceva under a number of headings.  For mordorintelligence, you realise you can click on the link to get more details of each report.  For example this report profiles Ceva at section 6.2.4.  The points you raise only really serve to demonstrate a lack of understanding of our criteria for establishing notability.  It is enough that sources exist which contain in-depth "Independent Content" and Research reports (especially when they profile the company in questions) have long been accepted as meeting the criteria and aren't regarded as "inside information".  They're no guideline to say that sources must be freely available, only that they are published.  The requirement for "multiple sources" has easily been met, there are (even by your own admission) 6 independent analyst reports listed above and I've no doubt more exist too.  HighKing ++ 15:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What's your point?  Even by your own arguments, you have not read these reports.  WP:PAYWALL allows the citation of sources behind paywall.  Your assertion is that the material hidden behind the paywall must be presumed to show the business is notable.  It's an equally valid assumption that the material behind the paywall is a copy of the Wikipedia article for which someone has the chutzpah to charge their users extortionate fees.  If you have read the reports, please cite them in the article, along with some of their great insights, and we can all happily ! vote keep.  Cabayi ( talk ) 14:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So I take it (although you've yet to acknowledge your error) that you've retracted the "indiscriminate listings" objection now that you've actually read the guideline?  Your new argument has now changed to not accepting the bona fides of the listed analyst firms.  I don't have access to these specific reports right now but I've read analyst reports from technavio and Mordor in the past and it is for this reason that it is frankly ridiculous to say that it is a "valid assumption" that the reports are mere copies of this Wikipedia article.  Perhaps you've not bothered to check out the available Table of Contents for some of these reports from which you can see the headings under which the analysis/profile of the company is provided?  Perhaps you've also not read WP:PAYWALL - the first sentence reads Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.  and I can find no evidence you've even bothered to make a request at RX.  HighKing ++ 13:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the sources currently in the article are not independent from the subject - 1 is co-authored by an employee of CEVA Logistics, and 2-5 are press releases released by CEVA Logistics or their business partners.  It is not possible to determine what depth of coverage the four market research reports provided by HighKing give to the subject.  Given their unknown reliability, unknown independence, and very low diffusion (these are meant to be sold to a handful of companies), I choose to err on the side of what is available to us, and find myself agreeing more with Cabayi 's case.  There's simply not enough reliable material to justify a standalone article when all the content we should be using sits behind an inaccessible paywall.  Pilaz ( talk ) 19:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a new one for me at least.  Technavio is one of the biggest analyst firms in the world.  Mordor is one of the biggest research aggregators.  Have you located something which says they are of questionable reliability or independence?  Also, see WP:PAYWALL .  HighKing ++ 14:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've added more references.  HighKing ++ 15:14, 3 October 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: no consensus