Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creepy Company

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy Company

[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)

Page should be deleted because it does not meet WP:GNG. Nor do the sources constitute significant coverage per WP:GNG. More over, the sources are not necessarily about the subject itself. The sources are promotional links, i.e. Gift Guides. The page is also written as promotional content and not neutral in tone. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page's subject has received significant coverage in cited articles published by Inverse and Rebellious Magazine. The sources that are not necessarily about the company itself nevertheless mention the company and address products specifically released by the company, and are independent of said company. Minutes ago, I attempted to reduce the perceived promotional tone of the article's prose, and would appreciate help with further adjustments. —Matthew - (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You say he sources that are not necessarily about the company itself. Therefore the sources cannot be used to establish notability of the company according to WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: The page's subject has not received significant coverage. I understand that you wrote the article and want to keep it, but the rules of WP:GNG are clear. 1 source is from the company About Us page, 2 of the sources are gift guides, a 4th source doesn't even discuss the subject at all. It is about a designer, independent of the subject. A 5th source briefly mentions the subject's product in a product description along with dozens of others. It's not an article either. The 2 sourced articles from Dread Central aren't articles either. They are product reviews. The article from Fangoria is a dead link, there is no article. The source from Bloody Disgusting is the same product review already cited. There's 2 articles here that could be counted towards the subject. However, of the 2, I would not consider Rebellious Magazine a notable publication. It is a local publication that only services the Chicagoland area and rules are clear about those types of local publications as well. I'd be happy to help you rewrite the article when there is enough news about the subject to rewrite. The subject is not notable and it does not pass WP:GNG. The page is promotional content only, and therefore should be deleted. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(duplicate !vote struck. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 9 February 2021 (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.