Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From The Box Office

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. Orphan, pure promotion Bishonen | talk 11:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From The Box Office[edit]

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

Non-notable company,^{and a clear case of WP:UPE if nothing else,} fails WP:ORGCRITE: no significant coverage in secondary sources: WP:BEFORE gives such results as [1]. Much of the claim to notability is inherited (its owners, Ingrisso, have more mention in the article than the subject does). Sources are WP:PRIMARY ([2]) and lack WP:ORGDEPTH. So fails WP:GNG. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Article contains external references and citations, including winning an Award. It contains interviews with notable people, it was the first of its kind to offer a particular service and thus have a significance within the industry. I understand why Wikipedia should not be invaded with non-significant articles, but this website has, albeit small, significance within the industry and should be given a chance. Wikipedia is place to make information publicly available and I believe this censorship is not exactly in line with what this stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csilvestre (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a sample, cited to the company's own blog, while describing how great and notable the blog is:

From The Box Office Blog

From The Box Office's blog offers theatre-related content, including the latest show openings, show reviews, theatre guides and interviews with cast members and other theatre bloggers.^[1] Most notably, From The Box Office interviewed Michael Macilwee, the T. Rex dancer who performed to A Chorus Line in a video that went viral.^[2]

References

^ "FROM THE BOX OFFICE Blog". FROM THE BOX OFFICE Blog. Retrieved 2017-03-10.
^ niallrpalmer (2016-03-26). "Michael Macilwee: The man behind THAT dancing T-Rex". FROM THE BOX OFFICE Blog. Retrieved 2017-03-13.

The table that follows is also cited to the same blog. "Delete" is still my vote, as this is nothing but corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2017 (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.

[1] "FROM THE BOX OFFICE Blog". FROM THE BOX OFFICE Blog. Retrieved 2017-03-10.

[2] rpalmer (2016-03-26). "Michael Macilwee: The man behind THAT dancing T-Rex". FROM THE BOX OFFICE Blog. Retrieved 2017-03-13.

[1]

[2]