Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAUCER

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 14:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SAUCER

[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 currently sources to the company's website, a few social media posts, and some random websites/news sites that happen to have a picture showing someone wearing one of their products - nothing that approaches WP:CORPDEPTH. I can't find any independent sourcing online, so appears to fail WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, it's been a chore to keep the blatant product marketing out of this, and with that removed there's not much left for an article. I can find nothing substantial about the company online in WP:RS, just photos on social media of a few people wearing their logo. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tracy, I have included another source to establish credibility. SAUCER was mentioned in the OC Weekly paper this month so I added that in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMG2019 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: SMG2019 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Thanks. The OC Weekly is a reliable source but what's needed is something more than a passing mention of them in an article about Mutual UFO Network: substantial coverage of the company itself, in multiple reliable sources, as described in WP:NCORP..

May I ask: what's your connection with the company? Because your edits to the article have all had a promotional tone. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if my edits sound promotional as this is my first article and I am just getting accustomed to the language. I do appreciate your constant revisions as I have learned a great deal from your edits. I feel as though the company is doing great things and is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. I do not feel that the page should be deleted as I am sure that more reliable sources are soon to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMG2019 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But do you work for the company, or are you professionally connected with them? Because if you have a WP:Conflict of interest then please don't edit the article. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SMG2019 if the sources do not yet exist, then the subject is not yet notable. If they become notable at a future date, you would be free to contact the deleting administrator and ask for the text of the article, so you can recreate it - but if you have any kind of connection with the company, you must declare it and comply with the requirements set out at WP:COI, as Tracy Von Doom has explained. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 23:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a non-notable company that fails to meet WP:NCORP. The article currently cites a number of unreliable, user-generated sources (which do not confer notability) such as Google and Instagram. More reliable sources are cited, but this coverage seems to be trivial or in-passing in nature, and issue given NCORP is clear such limited coverage does not work towards establishing notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2019 (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.