Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Mob America (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Flash Mob America
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

-- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - more than enough WP:RS coverage to pass WP:CORP, some starter samples that were just added to the article:
 * Weak delete Yeah, there are sources mentioning them, but they lack real depth. We need to be cautious of using slow-news-day novelty to prop up promotional content like this. The Time article is crime reporting. It's just quoting the founders about how how there was some brief confusion over the term flash mob being applied to crimes. This is because they were convenient to the journalist, not because they were encyclopedically significant. Likewise the Bangor article is basically an event listing which has no weight for this. Huffington Post is weak as a source, and is an interview which lacks independence. The Non-Profit Times article is about flash mobs in general, and it's clear that all information about the company comes from the company, which is true for most of these sources. The only exception is the WSJ article. I don't have a subscription, but if it's consistent with the rest, there isn't enough here. Grayfell (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The bylined WSJ article is legit news coverage, with paragraphs about the company, and more paragraphs detailing one of the company events, as chosen to be covered by the journalist and the editors of the paper, +1 for rs sigcov. The bylined Bangor Daily News article is legit news coverage of a topic the journalist and editors chose as significant, +1 for rs sigcov.  The bylined Time magazine article is minor coverage, +1 for verification.  The bylined article in the Non Profit Times is legit news reporting and commentary with coverage of the company as chosen by the writer and editors of the publication, +1 for rs sigcov.  I might be convinced to change my !vote to Weak keep because there are not an overwhelming amount of rs coverage, but still enough to clearly pass WP:CORP.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Bangor article is a profile of the company leading up to a local event, similar to a million such profiles put out by newspapers all the time. If this were a music group or theatrical production, it would not even be considered, and I don't see how this is any different. The NonProfit Times article does mention one specific event the company produced, but otherwise there's little about the company that isn't direct quotes from the founder. Being bylined is better than not, and these may be usable for details, but I still don't think they do enough for notability. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep as I've always wondered "who organises these things?" -- and now I know :-). The coverage is not in depth and is rather borderline, but perhaps worth keeping for the novelty factor, as I'm sure there are not a lot of these. If someone proves me wrong, and this is a run-of-the-mill group, then I'd be happy to change my vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 24 October 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.