Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SYPartners

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SYPartners

[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)

Non-notable company lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hakuhodo, the company that acquired this company. The suggested merge target article only has a passing mention, so this will improve the article, as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Copied from the article's talk page) I have taken a careful look at the references.
- https://www.fastcompany.com/45739/keith-yamashita-wants-reinvent-your-company is all about what the company does. The article covers the company's activities in depth.
- https://mic.com/articles/189579/heres-the-racial-bias-training-starbucks-employees-got-tuesday-according-to-its-architects#.vjNHcWdle is another good article about how the company approached a critical issue for one of its clients, Starbucks.
- https://shift.newco.co/the-change-whisperer-d10f42df2e74 Again, all about what the company does. Yamashita is talking about the company's work, not just himself.
- https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sypartners-and-syproducts-to-join-hakuhodo-dy-holdings-new-strategic-operating-unit-called-kyu-258615091.html This press release does notdemonstrate notability itself, but it confirmes the change in ownership.
- https://www.seattletimes.com/business/schultz-calls-anti-bias-training-effort-a-historic-step/ This newspaper article talks about SYPartners' work for Starbucks. News coverage need mnot be exclusively about the topic to be significant coverage of the topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not one of those references meets the updated criteria for establishing notability which can be found at WP:NCORP. The fastcompany reference relies extensively on an interview/quotations, is not intellectually independent and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The mic.com reference fails for the same reasons. Same again for the newco.co reference which prints the interview verbatim. The prnewswire reference is based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND and the seattletimes reference is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I added two additional references, Reuters and the NYT, which provide both provide more information on the subject and additional objectivity and credibility and notability. My overall view is that the Starbucks anti-bias training was such a significant and controversial event, the company that designed the training would be considered notable. Crackedvessel (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Crackedvessel There's a basic rule on Wikipedia that notability is not inherited. While the anti-bias at Starbucks might (and might not) be deemed notable, it certainly doesn't confer notability on each and every person and company that participated in the event. A company must be notable in its own right. Getting mentions-in-passing on the Starbucks anti-bias even does not confer notability on a consultancy company that was involved in providing anti-bias training, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete We have some good mentions here but ultimately community will decide. Mia Watson (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The editor whose username is Z0 09:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Preomotional amd Non-notable. The Starbucks connection is trivial coverage for this firm, the NYT article meely says it " also helped come up with Tuesday’s program". DGG ( talk ) 13:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft based on WP:SPIP sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2018 (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.