Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Video
Procedural nomination after removal of CSD tags. Another example of Australian corpcruft that does not meet WP:CORP. A non-notable privately held company that is a master franchiser of video rental stores. No WP:RS within the article, and what information included is a copyright violation having been lifted straight from the Australian Film Commission website. The only item yielded from a google search this morning not from the company was a Business Case Study from the The Age which had heavy participation from the chain's owner so does not make the grade as a reliable secondary source. Thewinchester (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, I don't know if it's related to this company, but I know there are other Network Video stores in other places. I'm not sure what to do, but I can get plenty of results on [1] that indicate there's a fairly major chain using the name in the US. I'd suggest disambiguation. Mister.Manticore 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The US company is unrelated to this Australian company as far as I am aware, but if it was to survive AfD then a disambig would be appropriate. Thewinchester (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep 400 stores throughout Australia seems to be notable enough provided independent reliable sources can be found. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That's the problem Mattinbgn, no WP:RS can be found on this company, who is essentially a national franchise operator. Thewinchester (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- While sources have not been found, it doesn't mean they can't be found, and if it takes a little work, well, Wikipedia is work in progress. However, if the company itself is reasonably capable of meeting the notability thresholds, sometimes it's best to give it time to develop. Mister.Manticore 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CORP. A store with lots of outlets does not necessarily a *notable* store per Wikipedia policies make. Orderinchaos 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:CORP. Lacking references is not sufficient grounds for deletion - they are out there:
- Saying that "no independant reliable sources can be found" is both lazy and wrong. Neil ╦ 09:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- What's on the findarticles one? I get some dodgy looking box warning me about adult files on my computer then my firewall knocks the thing out. As for the others, Network Video from what I can tell is not the subject of any of them except the mybusiness.com.au article, which looks awfully primary sourced. Orderinchaos 11:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Come on Neil, half of those links are from places which don't meet WP:RS (Like MyBusiness, which is just an advertorial). The existing article is a copyvio of the Australian Film Commission (last time I checked), and is only a list of potential companies who may be interested in film investment. Findarticles makes no reference to the business, so try again. ICMI is a speaker management bureau, so does not meet WP:RS, the ABC is an interview regarding scratched DVD's and does not confer notability by association just because the ABC interviewed the women, plus doesn't even make reference to the company or talk about them. You can sit here going round and round in circles here, but the subject of the article does not meet WP:CORP specially when throwing in the above links which you're trying to pass off as both reliable and independent of the subject. It's a franchise operation which owns no stores itself, so that rules out the size of the company as a claim to notability. Seriously, i've been dealing with corpcruft for ages now, and if this comes out as a keep or no consensus then it'll be flicked straight up to a DRV where they'll have no problems culling it. Thewinchester (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, four hundred stores? Notable. Lankiveil 11:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC).