Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Act 2 Cam


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Act 2 Cam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG. Although multiple sources are cited in the article, they are not "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:ORGCRITE). A google search for "Act 2 Cam" provides only 281 results in total. Furthermore, the article has some serious WP:COI issues. The article was created and mostly edited by. 153.174.11.128 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note Complete AfD per WT:AFD request. I am neutral in this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article already has multiple references showing significant coverage in reliable sources, so passing WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have declared my conflict of interest in ACT 2 CAM and I am working hard to keep the content verifiable. The majority of edits over the last week have been to update information and remove dead links. Nobody else updated the out-of-date information so I felt I had to remove out of date material and update changes myself. If there is anything I can do to maintain the integrity of the article I will do so. I have referenced articles written about ACT 2 CAM in national newspapers such as The Stage, The Guardian and Sky News. Best wishes, Obsteve (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Several articles were recently edited to remove mentions of Act 2 Cam; see Special:Contributions/153.230.176.151. Certes (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Links to ACT 2 CAM were recently removed, citing spam, although references were given. I believe that the entries satisfied notability guidelines. For example, Regarding Evita . It was also covered on Regional UK television. Obsteve (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added some archive links etc., so we can better see what the sources are. I assessed all the existing references, and made a list on the article's talk page. At the moment, there isn't sufficient evidence of coverage to meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG/WP:ORGCRITE. There don't appear to be any references to significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, so additional citations would be required to establish notability. --IamNotU (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * local sources are permitted for schools articles and as there are multiple reliable sources then WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ACT 2 CAM as a privately-owned, for-profit educational business is considered a Commercial organization, not a school, per WP:NSCHOOL. WP:ORGCRITE, including WP:AUD, applies. Local sources are also permitted for companies, but they must contain deep or significant coverage of the company itself (not just its productions or events) per WP:ORGDEPTH, which none of the existing sources has. Additionally, "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary", with significant coverage of the company, per WP:AUD. --IamNotU (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well sourced. Has enough coverage required for WP:GNG. Knightrises10   talk   13:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Unfortunately, "well sourced" and "enough coverage" is not part of the criteria for establishing notability. Can you provide 2 links to references that meet the criteria in WP:NCORP - if they meet the criteria for establishing notability, I'm happy to change my !vote.  HighKing++ 19:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet BLOCKED Note that Knightirises10 has been blocked for sockpuppetery. There was a time that the !vote would be struck but I'm unsure if that is still the case.  HighKing++ 16:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He was not a sockpuppet when he made this comment, he was later blocked for creating sockpuppets but this account is the original account Atlantic306 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck off sockpuppet's input per WP:DWS and standard AfD practice. -The Gnome (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Α sockmaster not sockpuppet who was not blocked then Atlantic306 (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Paging Dennis Brown! -The Gnome (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that Knightrises10 has since been blocked.
 * Delete Entirely promotional, reads like a brochure or website promoting the company. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Also I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. First off, notability isn't inherited and coverage of their productions doesn't translate to notability of this company. Mentions-in-passing in some articles fail to provide any depth of coverage on the company and these references fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Blogs are not regarded as reliable sources and fail WP:RS. Other references rely entirely on quotations from connected sources and fail WP:ORGIND. There does not appear to be any intellectually independent coverage. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Highking, is there not any independent analysis by school watchdogs Ofsted ? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No.  HighKing++ 09:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As already noted on the article's talk page, Ofsted is not a secondary source: "primary sources include: ...government audit or inspection reports" - so can't be used toward notability. The fact that the company voluntarily registered itself for a government background check for childcare providers says nothing about its notability. --IamNotU (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is clearly not established by existing sources, as noted above and outlined on the talk page. It's been 14 days, and none have been forthcoming. I did a thorough web search and was not able to find any. In addition, the article was created and written almost exclusively by the head of the company, who meets the definition of a paid editor, and had not disclosed that at the time. Even if notability was to be established, now or in the future, the best course would be to WP:BLOWITUP and start from scratch, following proper COI procedure. --IamNotU (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2018 (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.