Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Rock Sports, LLC

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, no prejudice against recreation after reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Rock Sports, LLC[edit]

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

Not convinced that any of the sources currently in the article demonstrate the company's notability, nor can I find any extra online. Sam Walton (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the nominator. Looks like the company fails the guideline for corporations. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- my apologies, I accepted this at AfC about 10 months ago and didn't check carefully enough. Concur with Samwalton and Howicus re. the article subject's notability. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as said above per WP:NOTABLE. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a valid reason for speedy deletion, and no one "above" has argued for it. Please make an actual argument - AfD is not a vote count. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) What is missing from this to make it notable? I have read over the notability requirements and still am not clear on what is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstas (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems like a company that "should" be notable based on their level of activity, but unfortunately I have not been able to find any non-press release stories about the company. I find plenty of coverage of their taxidermy contest and a few stories about specific incidents (such as an employee being charged for theft), but not really anything about the company as a business. @Rstas: That is what we need to show notability - reliable source coverage of the company as a company. For example, an RS that goes into the company history or a RS that provides analysis of a business deal. Merely republishing a company press release without analysis (which is what most of the current sources do) doesn't count towards notability and generally shouldn't be used as sources. Incidental mentions or stories primarily about other things (such as the theft story) are valid for information once notability is established, but unfortunately don't count towards notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V; no objection to re-creation following RS: Since the current article relies exclusively on press releases, all the content on the page needs to be deleted, which is to say the article should be deleted regardless of notability. Given that it has 650 employees, I would suspect that it may be notable and so would not oppose re-creation using credible, independent sources if at some point they are found. CorporateM (Talk) 02:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2015 (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.