Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storefront (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Storefront (company)

[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)

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Jeremy112233 currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts; see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The New York Times article would seem to be the best source, both reasonably substantial and independent. TechCrunch may also meet our criteria. However, I've been unable to find sources of any quality beyond those two already cited – most other independent sources are passing mentions only, as the nomination mentions. I'm leaning towards soft delete, with the article recreated iff there is more independent sourcing, but more comments will probably be for the best. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the two sources provided above satisfy WP:NCORP. wumbolo ^^^ 09:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Wumbolo: I think two sources is generally considered on the low side when it comes to WP:NCORP, especially for a recent company (as opposed to an older one where sources may be less available). What is your evaluation of the tone of the page? — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While there are only two of them, they're both very good. wumbolo ^^^ 13:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: NYT is a passing mention in an article on a larger topic. TechCrunch is too indiscriminate to be sufficient for notability. See for example the entry for TechCrunch at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2018 (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) 10:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no references available that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Neither of the two mentioned above meet the criteria either. As per ORGIND, "Intellectual Independence" 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 NYT reference relies totally on the company and the founders - no independent opinion/analysys/fact checking/investigation/etc in the article, total churnalism. The TechCrunch reference also fails ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement (even says so in the article). There's always a ton of articles based on funding announcements and this is no exception - here are some more based on the same announcement and they all use the same story facts and quotations: VentureBeat, The NEXT Web, Startup Beat, VC News Daily, Reuters, WWD, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing - I looked at the NYT article and it really doesn't have much analysis, just quotes the company, and techcrunch is the epitome of churnalism. WP:NOTPROMO is also a perfectly valid WP:DEL-REASON Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:14, 5 September 2018 (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.