Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lasertainment
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Lasertainment[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lasertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the notability guideline for companies. Looking at the given sources, the Saipan Tribune and Honolulu Star are passing mentions, the Pangolin Prize is non-notable and the Laserist piece is very brief and rountine. Created in 2007 by a single-purpose account. TeraTIX 07:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Detail in sources isn't of sufficient length in the non-primary sources. It's unclear whether Nom did a proper WP:BEFORE check, but in any case, nothing more than a few more 1/2 line mentions showed up in any reasonably reliable/independent source. Certainly nothing that satisfies WP:NCORP. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: I was under the impression that it's normal not to mention your WP:BEFORE if you didn't find anything significant. Is that true? But, as you said, the results were brief mentions in directories and community newspapers – nothing approaching significant coverage. TeraTIX 00:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Teratix: - hi, I just said I was unclear since your phrasing of "looking at the given sources" implied a possible sense of "only" in it. Obviously if that isn't the case then apologies. In the normal cause then of things then there's no need to mention it (other than preventing irritating people like me, I suppose). Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: That's totally fine, thanks for keeping me on my toes! TeraTIX 09:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Teratix: - hi, I just said I was unclear since your phrasing of "looking at the given sources" implied a possible sense of "only" in it. Obviously if that isn't the case then apologies. In the normal cause then of things then there's no need to mention it (other than preventing irritating people like me, I suppose). Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: I was under the impression that it's normal not to mention your WP:BEFORE if you didn't find anything significant. Is that true? But, as you said, the results were brief mentions in directories and community newspapers – nothing approaching significant coverage. TeraTIX 00:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article. The company has been mentioned in media notices of various events for which they have provided laser displays, which verifies that this is a company going about its business, but I am not seeing the in-depth coverage about the company which is needed for WP:NCORP. The company has used Pangolin Laser Systems software ([1] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) so a Pangolin Prize should not be considered as independent. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 11:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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.