Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'laster Holdings


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

B'laster Holdings

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

B'laster Holdings

This article, in article space, is one of three articles in three namespaces about this company that does not satisfy corporate notability because the coverage is not independent secondary coverage. The three articles are:
 * , the subject of this AFD;

The first and third are the work of User:BB38532, who is a single-purpose account, and the second is partly the work of BB38532, and also of another SPA who has declined to answer whether they have a conflict of interest. The existence of the two articles in draft and user space is only evidence of an apparent campaign to publish an article. The draft was declined five times and has been rejected twice.

So does B'laster Holdings satisfy corporate notability? An article should speak for itself and explain why the company is notable, but the article consists of what the company says about itself, not what third parties have written. The references are not independent secondary coverage, but include press releases, an interview, and trade publications.

We can conclude that the AFC reviewers who declined and rejected the draft were right, and the article should be deleted, and the draft and the sandbox can be ignored (unless they are resubmitted). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete It's not clear how AmericanMotoryclist.com is not independent of this company, trade publications being marked "use with care," but yes, the sourcing is overall weak. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete on account of notability-supporting sources being inadequate in both number and quality. And that's not an assessment proffered before the necessary work was done. -The Gnome (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2023 (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.