Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superplastic (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superplastic (company)[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)

Previously deleted article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superplastic (Company)) but has since been resurrected, and (un)fortunately this new version is too different to justify G4 deletion. Listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As well as the article deleted at AfD in November 2018, there was a subsequent instance at Superplastic (toy company). See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lostxi/Archive. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't see the previous instances of this article but would suggest considering this instance by ignoring the non-encyclopaedic Fictional Universe section. The History section's details of prior ventures fall under WP:NOTINHERITED and the funding details fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, and the Collaborations section also raises WP:NOTINHERITED concerns, but is there overall evidence of notability? AllyD (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see superifical coverage (i.e. coverage that does not satisify NCORP) about a partnership with Gorillaz and a series A funding round. No evidence of reliable independent sources discussing the company in significant detail. Continues to not be notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2020 (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.