Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echelon International


 * 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 moved to draft by the page creator, User:Fros7bite. This was a pretty questionable thing to do, and I don't think it would be out of bounds to close this AfD as delete and delete the draft page. That said, the current state is basically the same as if the move didn't happen, the article was deleted, and the creator asked for it to be restored as a draft. I would allow that in this case, so I'm going to accept the fait accompli and leave the draft. But I'm also giving fair warning that if it gets moved back to main space without substantial improvement, it's going to be considered shenanigans and could lead to salting of the article name. RL0919 (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Echelon International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Group is not notable, a single mention in the news is not notability. Charlie.gao (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The article itself is poorly sourced - member count is taken from primary source that isn't even reliable (you do not have to be active with a unit to get in their unit page) and self-published LinkedIn where players are apparently employees, other source is a podcast with Fros7bite himself as a guest, relevant to one event and finally an article about Arma 3's game mode. Furthermore they're stating they're partnered with Bohemia Interactive (unlikely and not sourced), Discord (unlikely and not sourced) and Radio Arma (I know the host, he confirmed they're not partnered, only one-off interview). Their website is currently down, possibly because Fros7bite here had an amazing idea of threatening legal action against RHS, well established modding group that actually has a legal counsel, while himself being accused of reverse-engineering their and others' mods, Arma 3 and using models from these in his own mods. Actually trying to look them up results in a groupon for shooting range (laser? airsoft?) in Canada and their Patreon. ThePointForward  /   talk  12:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Few mentions in passing, if any, the one random source I checked used as a source doesn't even mention them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Move. I've moved the article to Draft, as there are a few more newsworthy events that Echelon International was involved in that are more notable than what the page indicates. Fros7bite —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also note that the article's author quickly moved the page to draftspace, tried to clear this AfD, and delisted the AfD from deletion sortings. I have reverted the latter. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (disclaimer: saw the AfD because the main page was deleted by AfD not closed) Delete as a non-notable topic. None of the sources in the article pass WP:GNG as reliable independent and in-depth. In fact, most don't even mention the subject. The author seems to have a strong investment in this up to trying to bypass the AfD, so I don't believe there is good faith in keeping it as a draft and spending more reviewer time. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Fros7bite is the founder of Echelon Interactive and wrote the article. Feels like an attempt to advertise themselves.


 * 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.