Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E3 Media (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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E3 Media[edit]

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

The article appears to have enough citations however most are dead links or don't support the claims made. Having looked for RS to fix these problems I'm having trouble finding anything to demonstrate that the company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or GNG — Rod ^talk 08:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches apparently found nothing better than some passing mentions at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam. Notifying first AfD commenter Thryduulf and tagger DAJF. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol + & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bennett (businessman).— Rod ^talk 20:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any in-depth coverage in third-party sources, it's difficult to see how this article satisfies the basic notability guidelines (WP:GNG). --DAJF (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article has been changed massively (by an editor with a possible COI) since the original nomination, although I still think it is valid. I don't know what the procedure is to inform others interested.— Rod ^talk 08:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. 3 or 4 of the sources are reasonable, although mostly local coverage. --Michig (talk) 12:54, 19 December 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.