Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warstic

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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warstic

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

I spoke to the user who started and submitted this Draft and they told me there's simply not any additional news sources, and I'll note the ones listed here are simply thin and unconvincing, solely based coverage from the fact 2 baseball players invested and started it; my own searches are mirroring this and that's not not convincing. There's simply nothing else but the named mentions of either other people or groups, the fact this company is also so newly started, that's also suggesting there's not a lot of leeway for notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The original draft was not acceptable WP:NPOV-wise, and the sourcing was only about the recent announcements of new investors. But after searching a bit I leaned to accepting the draft because of additional source found from 2012 about the company:

Combined with other sources already on the article, This company passes WP:CORP, and can be expanded in a neutrally-written manner based on those sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC) (note: added another dallas morning news ref, from 2011) -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The listed sources are merely about the two people investing and then about the company's business and finances because of it, the listed news link above is then actually an interview where the man himself is talking about his career and the company. This is not the substance actually needed for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not convinced me to change my !vote. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I added this 2012 source to the article:

Of Bats and Men: From Louisville Sluggers to Warstic Bats by Micael Dault in Through The Fence Baseball

I just added it to the External links section, but now leaning towards adding it as a normal ref, based on it being a from a RS in relation to baseball news.[1]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - another early source found from early 2011, added to article, this small review:

Swingin' Sluggers - On the field or over a mantel, you won't find a sharper looking bat in the Wall Street Journal

So the nominators and company rep who said no other sources exist beyond the 2016 investment coverage... are clearly factually inaccurate. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even then, simply having a source from the WallStreetJournal is still not alleviating the concerns listed that (1) the only attention is because of 2 major league baseball players involved with it and (2) the fact there's still not enough large substance to suggest otherwise better, both sources are still questionable with the existing amount of bearing weigh for the subject, therefore my concerns still actually apply since I listed the concerns clearly and genuinely along with the fact this is still such a newly started company, hence especially the needs for PR attention, emphasized deeper with the fact of, again, having 2 sportspeople with it. SwisterTwister talk 16:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing. Your arguments have not made me change my vote. Article is a keeper. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO article on an unremarkable company. Sources above are unconvincing, mostly routine "local company does well" type of coverage. WP:TOOSOON also applies; the company is not yet notable per available sources. Article create by user with one contribution Special:Contributions/JohnnyBattle so paid editing is about 100% certain, which is against policy. Keeping this article on a non-notable entity would only encourage the spammers, which is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In addition to sources mentioned at this AfD article has sources to Rolling Stone [2], [3], and Sports Illustrated [4]. That being said, coverage isn't that deep and a bit sparse over five years. However, I would prefer draftifying the article per WP:TOOSOON rather than deletion, given the sources that do exist.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:49, 21 October 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.