Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EXFO (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Consensus formed around the nominator's assertion the that sourcing failed to demonstrate notability Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EXFO

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the large number of references, as far as I can tell none of them meet the WP:NCORP criteria for counting toward notability. Most of them are primary. Most of the ones that aren't aren't in-depth or independent. For example, Ref 4 is not independent because it's based almost entirely with an interview from one of the company's investors. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a publicly listed company, appearing on NASDAQ although recently re-privatised. Almost 2k employees, 25 countries. That said, respect to the stance of User:Pppery and the analysis there. Chumpih ^t 20:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LISTED, the existence of suitable sources still needs to be demonstrated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick before shows that they generate lots of press releases and routine coverage, but nobody seems to have written an in-depth article about them (much less the 3 generally preferred to establish notability) Rockphed (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, not much found that we can use for sourcing, beyond press release stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are in-depth article about them, meeting NCORP, already referenced in the article; here. Article needs improving! Nfitz (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the exact source I said was not independent content in the nomination statement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nom, no significant secondary and independent sources, and being listed on the NASDAQ is not enough for notability. PopoDameron (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2022 (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.