Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoHo Experiential

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SoHo Experiential

[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)

Fails notability criteria due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Associating with notable people does not confer a sheen of inherited notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a ad to me, as well. I agree with all the points given by Roscelese. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising, --and non-notable as well. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we don't allow advertising and because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources: 4 refs to eventmarketer.com, a trade magazine. Note that WP:NCORP says that Trade publications must be used with great care. It's paywalled, so I can't check the sources, but routine coverage in trade magazines is not significant coverage, so likely fails the GNG. pastemagazine.com is not about SoHo Experiential but about the founders' podcast. linkedin.com should almost never be used, because it's user-generated content, which is not reliable. The lasso.io source is a press release by a software company. The economist.com source is a press release. sohoexp.com is the subject itself talking about itself, so is not a reliable source. podcasts.apple.com is about a different subject again, the founders' podcast about liquor. bizbash.com is one of the very few sources that actually discusses the subject: It describes an "interactive herb station" conceived by the subject. The activity invited guests to guess the name of herbs. The herb station consisted of glass vessels containing herbs and wooden breadboards with a written description of each herbs and the name written on the back of the board. I don't think that's material that has a place in an encyclopedia. Vexations (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The eventmarketer sources are their own writings about their clients, not stuff about them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the move to delete. There are several references from reliable sources which more than meet notability standards, and the article regards a significant 15-year-old New York marketing company with high profile clients. Superfluous "advertising" language seems to have already been removed as well. Nfdgoisn (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Keep Nfdgoisn (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. pass G11 for CSD. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article for a company that doesn't meet notability .JSFarman (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no coverage in the higher end advertising industry publications like AdWeek, and just a few mentions here and there elsewhere. Not enough for corpdepth or even gng for that matter. 198.255.228.27 (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet notability requirements. Tunescool (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC). Thanks![reply]
Delete Utterly fails notability requirements, I am unable to locate any reference that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly Strong delete, as the given sources are extremely weak, if they're even independent. There is no, or next to no, mass media press coverage, only blogs and pseudo-news organizations that really just institutional blogs. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:42, 10 October 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.