Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MATTE Projects

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. SpinningSpark 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MATTE Projects[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement, and most of the references read like press releases. No indication of notability, except by association. Of note, this article had previously been deleted through PROD in October 2013, but was de-PRODded recently at the request of OliverZD, a new user whose initial username was User:MATTE Projects. Risker (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, I am currently in the process of editing this page and will make sure to find more creditable sources. The change in username was made because it there was a change in administrator and the previous name did not comply with Wikipedia's terms. OliverZD (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OliverZD, what do you mean by "there was a change in administrator"? Risker (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This company (less than four years old) comprehensively fails the inclusion criteria at WP:ORG. This is a blatant spamvert with all the hallmarks of a paid-for "article", i.e. the usual slew of perfectly-formatted non-references which sprang fully formed, complete with infobox, from a "new" editor on their 13th edit. There is no evidence whatsoever of independent in-depth coverage of the company (or its productions). I have found nothing better than what is already in the article, i.e. PR based sources—quite obvious from their virtually identical (buzz)wording—and a review of their "Full Moon Festival" in a blog. Note that the reference cited as Madden, Josh. "MATTE PROJECTS". Nylon Magazine is not by him. He merely posted it. It's by Nick Bloom-Scaglione one of whose clients is the "Full Moon Festival" [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:03, 11 December 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer have access to edit this page, if it is deleted am I still able to create another MATTE Projects page? Also, would you mind sending the guidelines for articles so I can make sure a new page isn't deleted? Thanks so much! OliverZD (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left guidance on your talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OliverZD, I don't see any technical reason why you may "no longer have access to edit this page"; you're not blocked, and the page is not protected from editing. What happens if you go to the page and click the "Edit" button at the top? Risker (talk) 18:07, 17 December 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 15:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. All the sources are not independent, third-party sources, so the company's notability is also questionable. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:48, 31 December 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.