Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotshop (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robotshop[edit]

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

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

Article is based almost entirely on press releases and corporation filings. Could not find significant independent coverage of Robotshop. –dlthewave ☎ 14:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly an advert article and lacks reliable sources. Plus, it should be deleted on WP:TNT grounds also since it would take a fundamental rewrite to present the company in a neutral none advertising way. Although, it's unlikely it could be re-written in accordance with the guidelines given the lack of reliable sourcing. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RobotShop is a leader in its industry and the coverage with the previously suggested sources that were identified as not sufficiently independent was not to do any wrong doing. I think by changing sources to other independent sources available and adding others reliable sources in this article makes the point in having a legitimate article about RobotShop company. Fmarsolais (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're confusing "Independent" to only concern itself with the independence of the publisher from the topic company. That's probably the most easily passed test. The real test for "Independent" relates to "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Can you link to WP:THREE references that meet the above criterion? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:20, 3 October 2020 (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.

Hello! Differents sources from reliable newspapers and magazine in Canada have been added, they are from differents authors and the content is produced by independent journalists that permitted to verify the content of the Robotshop Wiki article. I konw the content from the source was in French, but they stated facts Fmarsolais (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]