Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bardown Hockey


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Bardown Hockey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This article should not be deleted as the company itself is in the public as of high interest upon the celebs in the sector of sports as well as outside. Notability is there and can been seen via internet and sources thereof --Your Favorite Writers Writer (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to allege that sources exist. You need to give explicit details, preferably with a link. SpinningSpark 11:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete G11, irretrievably promotional. None of the refs in the article add up to notability.  Ref#1 is a newspaper column that is kind of an agony aunt for companies.  Bardown is being used as a case study of a run-of-the-mill company with problems.  WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE also spring to mind as reasons not to accept this for notability.  Ref#2 is from one of the teams that the company sponsers, hence not independent.  Ref#3 is on the companies own website hence does not add to notability (and there is zero text on the page).  SpinningSpark 11:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, even ref #1 isn't using Bardown as the case study — it's using a different company called Boddam as the case study, and Bardown's presence in the article is limited to its founder giving soundbite as one of the people the column approached to provide business advice to Boddam. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I normally support to keep the article, but i don't think that this will get through. Even in the articles there is a seperate section about an achievement done through an instagram page. I think we need to proceed with the deletion B. N .D  |  ✉  08:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Two of the three references here are primary sources, not reliable and independent ones for the purposes of establishing a company's notability — and even the one that's actually to a real media outlet isn't coverage about Bardown, but simply soundbites Bardown's co-founder giving business advice to another sporting goods startup. None of this sourcing passes WP:CORPDEPTH, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to pass CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails NCORP, CORPDEATH and the GNG. The article creator seems to be a SPA churning out these NN promotional articles, and like several other editors, I'm thinking that he's being paid to do so.   Ravenswing   21:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no significant independent coverage of this company to show it's notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam masquerading as an article with little to no third-party information about the company itself. -- Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 04:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.