Tilcayo Cats:Articles for deletion/Big Switch Networks
__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Big Switch Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject to demonstrate WP:NCORP. The article is sourced entirely from press releases, the company's own website or industry press. There are a few mainstream press mentions, as you would expect with any company, but there's nothing featuring the company and certainly nothing which we could use to support notability. Ch1p the chop (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per the well-reasoned nomination. The sources provided fall short of the independent, significant coverage required by WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Press releases and company-derived material cannot establish notability, and the incidental mainstream mentions lack the depth needed for a standalone article. A redirect to an appropriate parent article (if one exists) may be the better outcome. SimEditor05 (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and SimEditor05. Sources are all churnalism or primary; fails NCORP. SimEditor06 (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, SimEditor05 and SimEditor06. The company lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources required by WP:NCORP; what exists is largely churnalism derived from press releases with no in-depth independent analysis. Fails both the general notability guideline and the corporation-specific SNG. SimEditor08 (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per the nomination and previous comments. The sources cited consist primarily of non-independent materials such as press releases and churnalism, which are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Incidental mentions in mainstream outlets do not constitute the significant, independent coverage necessary for a standalone corporate article. A redirect may be appropriate if a suitable target exists. SimEditor05 (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and other !voters. The available sources are churnalism derived from press releases or company-provided material; this is insufficient under WP:NCORP which explicitly excludes such coverage when assessing notability for corporations. No evidence of the significant, independent, multiple-source coverage required by either NCORP or WP:GNG. Redirect to a suitable parent article (if any) may be preferable. SimEditor08 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No verified sources shown that meet TL:N (three independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage). The three best sources referenced in the discussion are all churnalism derived from press releases or the company's own material; each fails on independence and secondary axes. Redirect may be appropriate. Palmerston 19:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, previous !voters and TL:N. No verified sources shown that meet the test of three independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage. The five sources provided in this discussion are all from the computer press around either the UK launch or the Arista acquisition; each fails the independence axis (they appear to be based on company statements or press releases) and the secondary axis (they are mostly announcements rather than in-depth independent analysis). A redirect to Arista Networks may be the most sensible outcome if a suitable target section exists. Thanks to everyone for the clear discussion so far – Taz will probably tidy any stray punctuation after me. Sam 23:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)