Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character Options (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. TrixieCat123's opinion does not address the reason for deletion and is therefore discounted. Sandstein 15:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Character Options

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Many of the sources are the company website. The rest is mostly product/licensing announcements - which seems to be what is available out there in a BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a good-faith contribution rather than an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion like the last version, but I'm not seeing evidence of notability. There are a scattering of mentions in trade publications, but nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notability is the multiple billion-dollar brands that it creates toys for, like Pokemon, Doctor Who, and Scooby Doo. It also has several different sources that certainly meets the requirement of "multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" and "Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The only source that doesn't meet requirements are the one's from the Character Options website. I didn't create this article, but I have contributed to it and do not see any reason for deletion. —Formal Dude^(talk) 23:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion. The only reason I created this page is for people to understand what Character Options is and without a Wikipedia article to go by, it would've been difficult. So, I decided to make a resourceful article on it. I try my best to improve this article and with FormalDude contributing it was really helping until this was nominated for deletion. I'll do what ever I can to improve this article -User:TrixieCat123 User talk:TrixieCat123 19:01, 28 December 2017 (Mountain Time)

delete The company's name makes searching a bit difficult, but I can't find any in-depth independent eliable sources other than maybe [1]. That said, I'd expect a company like this with 200 employees really should have reliable sources that count toward WP:N. But I can't find them. If someone does find some, please ping me and I'll take a look. Hobit (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: I've found at least four sources about the company from websites that provide company portfolios. Here, here, here, and here. —Formal Dude^(talk) 00:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are standard company directories available for most UK companies. companieshouse is a government website that makes available all company reports to company house - of any size company.Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not really counting those as meaningfully in-depth. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability - entirely promotional article. Fails WP:SPIP, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP, references fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited - that is, just because some of the products this company manufactured may be for notably characters from movies, etc, this does not mean that the notability of those characters bestows notability on the manufacturer. Also, there appears to be some misinterpretation of "independent of the subject" - this does not mean that the publisher of a reference must be an independent corporate entity from the company. Routine listings in Bloomberg and the Companies Office fail WP:CORPDEPTH, references such as this one from kidscreen.com provide no information on the company and are mere mentions-in-passing, thereby also fails CORPDEPTH, references such as this one are based on company announcements with no independent analysis or opinion and fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 31 December 2017 (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.