Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexany Audio (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hexany Audio

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Hexany Audio
• Articles for deletion/Hexany Audio (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Hexany Audio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

UPE from indeffed editor, blocked as a Spam / advertising-only account. Blatant Promotion for Non notable business. None of the awards are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the business. A business talking about themselves and their products is not independent. In the first AfD User:HighKing goes into greater details about the failings of the sourcing.
Since the last AfD Keep !voters User:Germcrow, User:Laosilika, User:Benleg4000, User:ParinazF, User:Sora Sailor, User:OliverKianzo, User:Nubtrazolacine have all been indeffed as upe, spam/advertising only and/or sock accounts. Also also blocked is User:Mister305akamisterworldwide and User:PANGIfroth who edited/requested edits the page. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Just like the last time, I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Interesting to see that of the 9 editors that !voted to Keep at the previous AfD, *8* have since been blocked for promotion/spam/etc. From the previous AfD:
• There are very clear guidelines on establishing the notability for organizations and the references that can be located for the company all fail. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and the Keep !votes above are vague with no references to policy/guidelines. An examination of the sources shows none meet the criteria as per WP:NCORP:
  • This interview with Matthew Carl Earl, an employee, fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent. The article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there is no information provided about the company itself.
  • This Sound&Picture interview with a founder also fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent.
  • This Berklee reference and this one are from a connected source as Hexany are featured as Berklee Institute for Creative Entrepreneurship graduates and essentially were supported by the organizations publishing the articles, therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This Variety reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This TVOM reference fails for two reasons. It mainly fails because it is an interview with Matthew Carl Earl and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it only mentions the company twice, in passing, and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • The Forbes article fails because it is a profile on the founder, not on the company. Notability is not inherited. It also contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • The Cultured Vultures reference fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on an interview with a founder and is not intellectually independent. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no in-depth information about the company.
  • This blog post fails as a reliable source as blogs are not considered reliable.

There is no significant coverage and no independent coverage that includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I mentioned in the deletion discussion for Richard Ludlow (this company's founder) that I couldn't see the value in having separate articles for both Mr. Ludlow and Hexany Audio, as their notability is intertwined – the Boston Globe source is also in Mr. Ludlow's article, as well as the Forbes interview and another piece from the Orange County Register. These seem to be the only reliable sources in both articles, so either merge them into one article or delete one (or both). Richard3120 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep If the article is promotional we can fix that (WP:NOTCLEANUP). I see notability in the links provided in the last AfD. Lightburst (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I also participated in the discussion for deletion discussion for Richard Ludlow (this company's founder) "passes WP:GNG nominated for notable awards and featured in Forbes. Work is represented in mainstream productions." I can circle back and reconsider after I see what other editors can find. Lightburst (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The article wasn't only nominated because it was promotional - it needs multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The Boston Globe article [1] counts towards notability as does the one on Gamecrate [2] which is about the company, not the guy running it. So the General Notability Guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 09:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The [3] Boston Globe] article relies entirely on quotations from their founder so therefore it is not Independent and fails WP:ORGIND. Nor is it significant coverage about the company. Nor does it provide any in-depth coverage on the company. The GameCrate reference is an interview with the founder and fails WP:ORGIND. Neither of those references contain "Independent Content" so both fail GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Coverage is fleeting and does not include the serious in-depth content we would expect. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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.