Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AHHHA


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 12:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

AHHHA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage of this organisation is weak and in my opinion, fails to pass WP:NCORP. The CNN article is a blog archive from 2011 and the company is defunct as far as I can tell since all the links are dead. This was promising in 2011, but I guess it classifies as a failed venture today. Nicnote •  ask me a question  •  contributions  17:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment . References are available. This archived page contains a number of references. Some PR-related stuffs, but not only. I have just added this one to the article: CNET. --Edcolins (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The company has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources. See CNN, CNET, and Entrepreneur Magazine references. --Edcolins (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:Nicnote is correct that the coverage of the organization is sparse. This is especially true when it comes to indepth coverage. It merely has the CNN source. Therefore, it fails to pass WP:NCORP. The article doesn't serve a useful purpose either as there is nothing particular historic about the company and it is a defunct company.Knox490 (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm... there are other sources than merely the CNN source. Furthermore, usefulness is a subjective judgment (see WP:USELESS). Finally, that the article is about a defunct company, i.e. "a failed venture" (as pointed to by Nicnote), isn't a reason to delete it (see WP:DEFUNCTS). --Edcolins (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was pointing to my thoughts that this article had been given the benefit of the doubt (by you) when it was initially created, it was promising but didn't produce any more news coverage. The CNet article is not a 'news' article but also a blog article (CNET is all a news blog, but this article is part of the blog's blog). This is a pretty difficult AfD given the fact that it has some credible references (we'd all rather discuss things that have no credible references or enough to fully comply with GNG). I tend to decide whether or not to send something to AfD by asking myself, if by letting an article stay would it have some real positive infulence on the readers. Given the lack of any recent (none since 2011) evidence, I find it hard to lobby to keep the article. It is subjective, but I argue that leaving a stub that has little news coverage will give a bad precedent to other companies that think Wikipedia = Yellow Pages. (I'm probably overthinking this, but I treat every company on Wikipedia the same and apply WP:GNG very strongly). I hope that this has cleared up my reasoning for the AfD. Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I have a hard time deciding whether the CNET piece is a "news" piece or a blog post (see Wikipedia about CNET: "... an American media website that publishes reviews, news, articles, blogs, podcasts and videos on technology and consumer electronics globally"). In any event, the author, Rafe Needleman, seems to be a notable columnist, or at least a professional columnist. Thus, even if it was a blog post, it seems to me that it would still qualify as a reliable source (see WP:NEWSBLOG). This means that we have significant coverage in multiple (three references), reliable, independent secondary sources. The coverage is neither trivial nor insignificant. The criterion that you are using, i.e. whether the article "ha[s] some real positive [influence] on the readers", seems to be subjective, and, as far as I can see, it goes beyond WP:CORP. --Edcolins (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A7 material with no indications as to why this entry should be included in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.