Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joekels: Difference between revisions

Joekels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. Refs are PR and run of the mill business news. scope_creep^Talk 07:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument to avoid in an Afd discussion. scope_creep^Talk 23:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just shown you that all references you have show the company is non-notable. Not a single references satisfies WP:NCORP. There is a list of arguments in AFD to avoid at WP:ATA. You can look them up. The fact its a c-rated article with potential is neither here nor there. Whats count and only counts is coverage and it fails on that. scope_creep^Talk 08:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets look at the first two blocks of references:

I’m not going to do anymore. Its all routine business news, marketing PR and press-release driven muck. No indication of significance. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I greed the article is heavily reliant on company websites, press releases and CEO interviews. Independent, significant coverage is minimal or absent and most sources fail WP:SIRS. The company does not satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:ORGIND criteria. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage is mostly PR, routine business announcements, and company-supplied material, offering no independent, in-depth sourcing to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, or WP:SIRS. Bagwe Neza (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tata Consumer Products#Brands and products per WP:ATD-R. We have some coverage in reliable sources related to the company’s acquisition by Tata, including News24 ([13]), The Economic Times ([14]), and CNBC TV18 ([15]). While there may not be enough here to pass WP:NCORP, this is clearly a recognizable brand in South Africa that our readers may search for. I think that redirecting is a preferable alternative to deletion in this case, since the brand is already mentioned on the Tata page. Pinging Thilio and Bagwe Neza in case they are willing to consider changing their !vote to redirect. Zeibgeist (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Zeibgeist. I’m not convinced, the cited sources are unbylined pieces which focused on Tata’s acquisitions, not to Joekels itself. Per WP:RSURPRISE, thus do not satisfy the case for a redirect. Bagwe Neza (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to disagree that this would be a WP:RSURPRISE considering Joekels is already mentioned at the target I’ve proposed. This is clearly a plausible search term so I do think redirecting would be more appropriate in this case. Zeibgeist (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: From what I can see the company has some substantial national coverage in South Africa – there is room for better citations to be added, but the company seems to be well recognized in South Africa, and something users would search for.