Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HappyFunCorp

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. Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HappyFunCorp[edit]

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

Tagged by DGG for speedy deletion "as an article about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." I believe it should be deleted as not notable, but I do not believe that it merits speedy deletion. Karl Dickman ^talk 00:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines of notability, HappyFunCorp has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I implore you to point out or edit examples of bias or non-neutrality in the article, so we can make the necessary changes and remove this deletion notice.Imarapaholic (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More precisely, a company with many minor products, none of the individually or collectively notable. The article tries to borrow notability from the major firms that have at one time or another used some of the products, but not everything a notable firm buys is notable. One of Inc's 5000 fastest growing means not yet notable--and not particularly fast-growing either if it doesn't rank higher in that list. The references are mere mentions or PR, or both. They're in my part of Brooklyn, more or less, but that doesn't make them notable either. . DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I speedied this once, and DGG has made an excellent summary of the case against above. It seems likely that Imarapaholic has an undeclared conflict of interest too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than results at Books, News and browser which were not enough for improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you trying to improve the page, instead of delete it. What about the more than 15 News sources cited on the original page? How does that not make it notable? SwisterTwister All the best. Imarapaholic (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and DGG's excellent summary. Searches didn't help to show any notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you do a Google News search for "HappyFunCorp," there are plenty of articles that appear, which can add to this page. This company has more than 15 published articles written about it. Can someone please chime in? I appreciate DGG's work, but I think we should improve the page instead of delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.191.242 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company struggling for attention, the sources are their own website, blog posts and trivial mentions, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - They've received some coverage, so I'm not particularly sure. However, I feel like on balance they're just not particularly notable because they only tend to be slightly mentioned. I also find the above arguments to be rather reasonable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:41, 11 September 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.