Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production club

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. MBisanz ^talk 16:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production club

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

The editor has chosen to reference spam this previously G5-deleted article with at some points nine references after each sentence. Unfortunately for them, the references are exclusively trivial mentions and a large majority are only very tangentially related to the the company, and have most likely been added en masse in an futile attempt to avoid being nominated for deletion.

To give some examples of the extreme REFOVERKILL going on here, an magazine interview with The Chainsmokers has been cited, along with the book "Minecraft, the game that changed everything" and a video of a Skrillex performance. It seems that the author has just hoped that if they cited loads and loads of websites, no one would actually check the references. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the horrific refbomb ought to be reason enough to delete this. I see no inherent notability and no individual reference that suggests that GNG is met. Having dozens of trivial references is not a reason to keep an article, merely to WP:TROUT its creator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree there are many refs and a few trivial, however, the majority are mainstream and reliable, making the article notable and meeting GNG. Not sure why the editor didn’t include recent national press found on this company’s website (e.g. Billboard Magazine feature solely about this business). Perhaps coming later, but would help now. Vote against deletion, and suggest ref consolidation and ref update post-May 2017.Contributions/162.211.150.88 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC) — 162.211.150.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This SPA vote proves exactly what I said above about the concerted UPE sockfarm effort to get this subject on Wikipedia. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam with no indications of meeting WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 23 November 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.