Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DotComGuy (company)


 * 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 13:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

DotComGuy (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

De-prodded by the author. Appears to fail WP:NCORP by a wide margin due to lack of substantial third-party coverage. Not to be confused with the person having the same name. Rentier (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I posted my feedback on the wrong page. I thought I had to add it to the article's talk page - I didn't realize there was another talk page specifically for the discussion of deletion.


 * I believe this article meets the criteria for inclusion on the basis of its reliably referenced content and notability. There are two citations from reputable news sources about this company and its activities and the article is written in a neutral way. Additionally, its history evolves out of the activities of The DotComGuy (person) and the subsequent branding of the DotComGuy company, going back (as of 1/9/2018) 18 years, providing it with a basis for notability both as a documentation of the history of the evolution of the DotComGuy brand (first as a person, then as a company that purchased the brand) and as a company in its own right.


 * With regards to the assertion that there is a lack of substantial third-party coverage, I would challenge where the line should be drawn to define whether third-party coverage is substantial or not - what is the established criteria for defining what is and is not substantial? If evidence can be presented as to what the established norm within the Wikipedia community is to define substantial, then I agree that this is or is not substantial in accordance with whatever that established norm is, however I have been unable to find any documentation of what constitutes substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobbeasley (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , the notability criteria for companies are laid out at WP:NCORP. The DotComGuy person is covered in another article and does not confer notability on your company per WP:NOTINHERITED. We normally require multiple reliable sources intellectually independent from the company that discuss the company in some depth. Both sources present in the article clearly fail the independence criterion. Unless better sources can be found, the article is likely to be deleted. Also, please be mindful of our conflict of interest guideline. Thank you. Rentier (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 04:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 04:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 04:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 04:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What aspect makes the existing sources not independent? These organizations are both independent news organizations. Is it because they are interviewing DotComGuy representatives? I believe this does meet the cited criteria in WP:NCORP because there are multiple reliable sources that are independent from the company. I do see your point about depth, however I believe at around 750 words the Sun Current article does offer some depth, though if your point is that any articles that involve interviewing a representative of the company are not intellectually independent enough, then I can see your point. Just looking for clarification on the principles because when I submitted this article I believed that we met WP:NCORP because I cited multiple independent sources and that is the only requirement I see in WP:NCORP. I see no definition nor requirement of "intellectual independence" nor "depth" in WP:NCORP, so I do not think it is fair to assess that these sources "clearly fail the independence criteria". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobbeasley (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Interviews do not normally contribute to the notability of a company since they are primary sources. See WP:ORGIND, which explicitly excludes other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself. Rentier (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and in general WP:TOOSOON -- the company has not achieved anything significant just yet. Sources listed in the article are local, not meeting WP:AUD. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the significant third party coverage needed to be regarded as notable.  Slideshow Bob (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete- we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 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.