Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youtooz

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youtooz

[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)

not exactly my field, but judged merely as a company, there is no substantial independent reference from a reliable general interest publication. Even if the Daily Star is accepted as a RS, what they published is a promotional interview, where he proprietor of the firm is allowed to say whatever he likes about it -- such references are not truly independent. The others are trade publciations. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although most news are not from major publications, there is significant coverage in that when you search google news, there are at least 4 pages of results for this company from various publications, mostly industry and licencing related. I have added two more sources and partnerships to improve this article. Also note that the partnerships & licensing are mostly with very well known companies. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Significant coverage" and the number of Google Hits aren't listed as criteria for establishing notability, nor are assertions of "partnerships & licensing" being "mostly" with "very well known companies". Your comments on these lines are starting to crop up on multiple AfDs. We have guidelines for this - please read WP:NCORP??? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DailyStar is considered an unreliable source at WP:RSP so it can't be used to establish WP:N, and the Bob Ross source doesn't mention Youtooz. The article's other sources are about different product launches from the company or announcements of partnerships which will result in a product launch, both considered trivial coverage in WP:CORPDEPTH. A search of Google, JSTOR, NYT and Gale did not produce additional sources. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the company aside from its activities. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 23 September 2020 (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.