Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikonick

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Don't think this meets the WP:ORG requirement of multiple significant, reliable and independent coverage. The only real one is the Forbes article but it is more about the investment in the start-up as being notable. However, open-minded on this, and regardless, this article is going to be put up for AfD eventually (as it is, at best, borderline), so might as well test now. thank you. Britishfinance (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Noting here that there is a potential COI since the SPA account that created this article also tried to insert information about this company in at least 2 BLP pages that have since been reversed. --Btcgeek (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references all appear to publicity pieces. The Billboard ref is the only one that I questioned, but it's clear that it's coming from the same material as that of the very poor Forbes ref. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I agree it's promotional, but I was able to find in-depth coverage quickly, and in good sources. This Artnet article is quite good. Coupled with Forbes and Billboard, it's enough... unless someone wants to make the argument that it's all coverage of a single issue. At the very least some editing is required.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very clearly No - references must be intellectually independent. An article such as Artnet.com that relies pretty much exclusively on an interview with a company officer and on a Billboard reference which is also on the same style (promotional and relying exclusively on quotations/interview with company officers) fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. In fact, NCORP guidelines were tightened up last year specifically to exclude this type of churnalism HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The coverage is pretty much standard level 'startup gets funding' rewritten press-release type, which is not impressive. Artnet is just a bit better, as it cites WP:INTERVIEW from Billboard... plus is Artnet a sufficient-quality and high-profile source to warrant keeping this? I think one source is not sufficient. Nope, to me this is still WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Artnet is a good source. Check the front page, where there is much evidence of quality reporting. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references are entirely promotional, the article provides no indications of why this company is notable. References fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Article fails WP:SPIP, WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 3 February 2019 (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.