Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Entertainment Design and Research (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Entertainment Design and Research

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

Repeating AfD nomination as the only keep !vote in first one was entered by an editor now blocked for undisclosed promotional editing. The AfD text by original nominator User:TJRC was as follows.

Apparently non-notable company. Most sources are to the company’s own website or to mere news articles. The closest claim to notability having once been apparently listed (circa 2009, it seems) on Forbes’ “Most Promising Companies” list ([1]). It’s not there now, so I can’t confirm. A search on Forbes does not turn up any articles about the company; 15 where it’s mentioned, though. (TJRC)

Obviously I agree with his assessment of the sources, intent and outcome. Promotional editing for a non-notable entity. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't confirm much of this. The AfD nomination edit summary uses non-neutral language that I think should be rev-deled. I found the SPI without mention of paid editing, or more specifically without the words "paid" or "promotional". The block was for socking. A WP:BEFORE D1 on Google books confirms the argument made at the first AfD that this company is used as an expert source of info. The fact that it was so easy to find ghits on Google books suggests it likely that a closer review will confirm the first AfD comment that, " 'lots of minor coverage can be added up into something significant' clause in GNG". This is a topic to look at Google scholar, which reports 186 hits. Unscintillating (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sole !keep voter in the first deletion debate was "de facto banned as a sockpuppet...and for violations of the Terms of Use", JzG's words not mine. The tone of the ANI discussion is clear that the community believes this guy was a bad apple and IMO it's a no-brainer that banned editors shouldn't have been part of any article deletion process. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to, "IMO it's a no-brainer that banned editors shouldn't have been part of any article deletion process.", I only wish that were true. Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the banning discussion link. What I see there is that one of the participants closed the discussion, citing a "de facto" ban (which is not a ban), and using the non-policy language "banninated". So this discussion has no standing, and clearly it waa not a ban. Unscintillating (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the block-evading editor's AfDs, and there are 66 AfDs. Unscintillating (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for substantially the same reasons as in the first nomination. I'll elaborate a bit: almost all the references are from the group, either directly or indirectly. The direct ones are obvious, citing to the group's own web site. The indirect ones are a little less obvious: the company gets used a lot as a source in news reports (not the subject of news reports, as WP:GNG requires), and so gets mentioned, as a source, a lot. But this is not an indication of notability; it's that it successfully self-publicizes -- and its Wikipedia article is part of that publicity effort. TJRC (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All secondary sources are basically just analysis of stats they released, not the organization itself._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:35, 7 August 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.