Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindstir Media

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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mindstir Media

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

The latest bit of paid promotion for the non notable business. Business lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the current sourcing: 3-5 are passing mentions; 1 is a social platform, not a reliable source, the founder talking about the business, not independent; 2 is a local interest piece. A search found more of the same and a lot of press releases. Nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notable per coverage. --JessikaRita (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable company here in Portsmouth and has published several books. There are also reliable sources which makes it qualify to have a page of its own.Melanie98765 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)~~<— Melanie98765 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of JessikaRita (talk • contribs).~~ No, they're not. Inappropriately struck comment un-struck in the archive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as easily passes GNG. All the listed sources are from independent reliable source plus there are awards which shows notability. Riferbare (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)— Riferbare (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet ~~of JessikaRita (talk • contribs).~~ [reply]

Please don't lie. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is this? Please, stop making personal attacks. And yes this is nonsense! Riferbare (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Socks comments struck. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wonder why this discussion is still ongoing. This is a notable publishing company. Sources 1 and 2 on the page are both notable and credible sources, having been listed on Wikipedia themselves, and a search on Amazon returned around 500 results for books that Mindstir Media has published Kinberley (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Kinberley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance for this self-publishing house. Strictly promotional and no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable company and obvious paid promotional article. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:Corp; promo article which reads like a press release. Kierzek (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2016 (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.