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.
I can see where you're coming from here, but the sources still generally aren't any good. The ABA Journal source is just a brief mention about one of the article's main subjects having spent time with the company. Same thing goes for the Northwestern article. The other sources you mention seem to lack credibility or just noteworthiness in general.
Dawnbails (
talk)
20:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to discuss the sourcing identified Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi02:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company/organization therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP criteria apply. Sourcing fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The
Avondale article is a blog so fails
WP:RS and has no "
Independent Content" since it relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or people closely associated with it. Similar issues arise with most of the other references, relying on information provided by the company or people closely associated with the company, failing
WP:ORGIND. The remaining are brief mentions with insufficient in-depth information about the company to meet
WP:CORPDEPTH.
HighKing++ 13:04, 20 June 2023 (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.
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.
I can see where you're coming from here, but the sources still generally aren't any good. The ABA Journal source is just a brief mention about one of the article's main subjects having spent time with the company. Same thing goes for the Northwestern article. The other sources you mention seem to lack credibility or just noteworthiness in general.
Dawnbails (
talk)
20:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to discuss the sourcing identified Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi02:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company/organization therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP criteria apply. Sourcing fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The
Avondale article is a blog so fails
WP:RS and has no "
Independent Content" since it relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or people closely associated with it. Similar issues arise with most of the other references, relying on information provided by the company or people closely associated with the company, failing
WP:ORGIND. The remaining are brief mentions with insufficient in-depth information about the company to meet
WP:CORPDEPTH.
HighKing++ 13:04, 20 June 2023 (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.