Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Black (company)

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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Black (company)[edit]

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

I actually live very close where this company is located (and pass it quite frequently but never knew it was there) and I can't say I'm all that familiar with it and my searches simply found nothing good with the best here (business listing) and here (two links, one a local TV news story and the other press release for a sponsorship) and here (a few more mentions from online magazines). The awards and magazine features are admirable but there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement (article has existed since April 2007 with hardly much change) and simply appears to be a local company. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know diddly about men's grooming products other than that I have seen this one at multiple high end stores. Clearly notable, scores of articles which can be used to improve the piece. green diary, GQ Magazine Wall Street Journal American Financial Review, ad week, buzzfeed, Men's Journal. One of those cases where the "length of coverage" is not offset by the overwhelming "depth of coverage". That every one of these sources mentions the products tells you that it is a notable company--there are thousands of products to choose from but repeatedly Jack Blacks is chosen. Some have one sentence, but some have more. Add to that Addison Magazine's piece on the 15 year anniversary of the company or this one from [www.examiner.com/article/jack-black-a-men-s-grooming-fave-introduces-new-intense-therapy-lip-balms the Examiner] or this one from Country Times both of which give background on the company's founding and there is certainly plenty of room for expansion and improvement of the article. It concerns me greatly that the discernment to evaluate notability is not a requirement for being able to nominate files for deletion. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the sources offered by SusanW but what I saw were mentions, blog posts (the Addison Magazine is a "post" by a college student), and one very short article on the company. The only possibly notable source that I see is one about the founder of the business. LaMona (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per LaMona and nom. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at all the sources supplied by SusanW. The Addison article is reasonably in-depth, but it doesn't really meet WP:NCORP, and the local nature of the publication ("The magazine of the North Dallas Corridor") down-weights whatever significance it may have. None of the others even come close. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2015 (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.