Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malinche Entertainment (2nd nomination)

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malinche Entertainment

[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)

Subject does not meet WP:N or WP:NPOV. Multiple citations point to dead links. Self-promotional in tone and scope. Does not belong in an encyclopedia in its current form. Volcom95 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Business, and Software. Volcom95 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like this article was whitewashed by a WP:SPA account prior to this nomination. Not sure if the version prior to it would fare any better, though. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like WP:PROMOTION and I saw a ANI discussion for one of the user for WP:COI Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 11:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Native advertising. Standing there with his games. scope_creep^Talk 13:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep "Multiple citations point to dead links" is not a valid deletion rationale, as those links were once not dead and can likely be fixed. "Self-promotional" is also not a valid rationale, as that can be cleaned up. Nobody has raised why the previous "keep" deletion discussion for the article is currently invalid, as the studio got 2 articles in Wired from different people on different years and a mention in a newspaper. I can see someone arguing this is too little, but nobody has made that argument, simply stating it has no sources, which is false. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references meet WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability and it doesn't appear that any exists. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom and scope_creep. Zxcvbnm brings up some points that have merit, but even if that is the case, it feels like this is an example of WP:TNT. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TNT how exactly? It's fully referenced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the references might be OK for supporting facts/infomation within an article, we have different guidelines for establishing whether or not a topic meets notability criteria and this relies on finding at least two references that meet those criteria. None of these references meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. While it is true that "dead links" is not a valid deletion rational, the absence of any links to references which meets the criteria for establishing notability is grounds for deletion. Topic fails WP:NCORP. In addition, the article appears to me to be an attempt for the author to try to get their own Wikipedia page. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: The article is quite old, written by an editor who doesn't have any apparent relationship, and only recently whitewashed by an apparent COI editor. Also see below for significant coverage I found. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I found several hits for "Malinche" on Wired (cannot link to search) that appear to have decent coverage, or at least more than trivial coverage (hard to tell when Wired quicly obscures the article with a subscription modal dialog). The cited PhD dissertation also goes into some detail. That is sufficient to establish notability. And there should be no question whatsoever that the Asbury Park Press piece constitutes significant coverage of the company. Here's a clip. Here's the continuation. Similar articles by the same author have been published in Des Moines Register and The Daily Journal, among others. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response The Des Moines Register article relies *entirely* on an interview with Mr. Sherman. As per WP:SIRS, each reference used to establish notability of the company needs to meet all the criteria, so while this may be an in-depth piece and meet WP:CORPDEPTH, it fails WP:ORGIND as it contains no "Independent Content". The PhD dissertation provides a small summary and not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The criteria is not merely "decent coverage" or mentions or listings. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:11, 7 June 2022 (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.