Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magicrete

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magicrete[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is an advertorial. Please also see WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. NOT KEEP -- Alice McBanff 07:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note This nomination was missing its template and not listed at AFD. I have fixed both. Please consider this comment as the time of initial listing when closing. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Forbes article referenced in the article is probably the strongest towards demonstrating notability; the other references are routine coverage, including the interview with the company founder. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, it is a common mistake to say that articles such as the Forbes one you mention meet the criteria for establishing notability. They don't. WP:ORGIND explains in great detail what is required in terms of independence and states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The Forbes article is a classic example of churnalism where it "profiles" a company. It has all the traits including market size, founding details/founder profile, the "problem" being addressed, funding, and an future-looking note to finish. The issue is that it is all based exclusively on an interview with company executives. It fails WP:ORGIND as there is zero "original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking" that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP & WP:PROMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2019 (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.