Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantis Management Group

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Management Group[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)

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:NCORP. The organization lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE search shows multiple press release and sponsored adverts, nothing cogent. The sourcing also is filled with mere mentions and multiple press release. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are affiliated with the organization from what I saw when I looked them up. Can you provide evidence that they are paid advertisements or dependent? Further, there are multiple sources from those industries covering the news Less Likely (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Lesslikely, as you are the article creator the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary, I’m merely stating that the article does not satisfy NCORP and I have provided rationale as to why, & if you can’t understand that then there isn’t anymore I can do. Mere mentions, press releases and websites that advertise the companies services do not constitute notability for the organization. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at several of the sources used for similar topics for example Cumberland Farms, which are all convenience-store related, they are the same/similar reference sources used in the Atlantis article such as csnews.com. Further, few of the criteria there would easily fit for a majority of the retail-chain convenience stores on Wikipedia. I vote for a Keep and refine of the topic Less Likely (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesslikely, Generally speaking, if an article abc on mainspace looks bad it doesn’t give you leeway to create an equally bad article xyz. That’s WP:POINTy and such rationales or arguments constitutes WP:ATA in an AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, but what I'm generally contesting it that the sources are not mere mentions, are generally the same types of sources that cover the convenience-store industry, and that they are not dependent Less Likely (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesslikely, the sourcing is absent & not what is required by WP:RS. The fact that you are still raising the point of similar sources used in other articles on mainspace means you don’t still understand you are WP:POINTy. I would suggest you use the AFC method to create articles in future especially if you have a potential conflict of interest with the article you are creating. Celestina007 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These sources are all about transactions that the company has engaged in, while my searches turn up only press releases and more of the same thin reporting. None of the sources appear to be the in-depth coverage that would support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NCORP sets a pretty high bar for the quality of sources required. None of the sources presented, upon examination, meets it. If Less Likely would care to identify those specific sources he feels do, they ought to be pointed out. Otherwise, if he feels that the sourcing on other articles is inadequate, he's free to deal with them in the appropriate manner. Ravenswing 23:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "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. 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 WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more or less per the above. Sure you can find press-releases (which are not WP:IS), and yes there are sources in the article which are largely about individual transactions this organization has effected, but with WP:CORPDEPTH completely lacking. Without at least three available reliable and independent sources with WP:CORPDEPTH we can't be sure we are writing a neutral and verifiable article. I understand that it sucks to have an article you created deleted, but given available sourcing that's how this has to go. 83.136.106.119 (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2021 (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.