Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEG TEK International

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. While I prefer more participation I can't see relisting a 3rd time. Nothing has negated the primary concern, that notability isn't established. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CEG TEK International[edit]

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

I don't think it falls under WP:A7, but most of the media coverage is secondary at best and doesn't seem to establish notability for this company Zeus^u|c 18:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is not well written to describe its own notability, but the references are interesting because they prove examples of the impact that the company is having: specifically transparency to the problem of media piracy. Perhaps the article should state that the statistics generated by the firm are the source for many general interest articles about piracy, but the references bear out the idea that their work has created an impact. I think it's a keeper. Nickmalik (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I actually thought I was going to recommend a corporate Keep for a moment; but then I actually read the sources and discovered that, in the best case of them, the Producers Guild of America mentions CEG in two paragraphs dedicated to them, but those mentions are merely acknowledgements that CEG has (presumably paid the dues and) joined the Guild; in the second best case, the article subject CEG was interviewed as a primary source for that article which related to another topic (the subject of copyright piracy which is CEG's business); and in the rest of the sources, CEG mention is nothing more than an acknowledgement of them as a publisher of statistical information used in those articles relating to the topic of piracy. None of the sources does anything to demonstrate the notability of CEG; rather, they simply confirm CEG's existence as an ongoing business concern, which is insufficient to satisfy WP:NOTE. WP:NCORP states “Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.” and that is all the 13 references in the CEG article provide. Some of the statistical information included in the article may be appropriate for merger into Piracy (media) or otherwise. Cheers — Who R you? Talk 19:27, 11 June 2014 (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.