Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amagi Media Labs


 * 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 20:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Amagi Media Labs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No assertion of notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. MSJapan (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not personally familiar with the awards listed, but I do assume at least one of them may help assert notability. There is also some significant independent coverage referenced on the page, although it isn't very easy to see that, , . I may clean that aspect up a bit. Yvarta (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this reply. Are you saying that some citations "may" make it notable, or it is notable? Also may I ask if you have edited here before, as participating in several AfDs on the second or third day of editorhood is rather unusual.
 * Regarding the Times and Bangalore Mirror pieces, they are not independent RSes based on this statement in the article itself: "Amagi has also partnered with Times Network for their geo-targeted advertising business". Which is in addition to the fact that Bangalore Mirror is merely reporting on architecture, not the business itself. - Brianhe (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being more clear. Yes, I am voting keep based on the sources currently linked on the page (I see more than 3 reputable sources with significant coverage - I cleaned some up yesterday so you can see the newspapers easier). And yes, I have edited here before. For many years in fact. Yvarta (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- typical advertorial. Insufficient coverage to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NCORP. If you look at the sources cited, and  are part of the same publication. We count these as a single source.  is almost a press release and seems to be a local source as well. Clearly doesn't pass WP:CORP at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2016 (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.