Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexany Audio


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  17:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hexany Audio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant Promotion for Non notable business. None of the awards are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the business. A business talking about themselves and their products is not independent. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Richard Ludlow and Articles for deletion/Matthew Carl Earl. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

There's also one source about an award on this topic from Variety magazine here. Certainly, the few sources are not good enough. More is needed. The current page is loaded with a refbomb many of which are not reliable. I recommend pushing this to the draft space for now. If it must be kept, it has to be properly cleaned up. All those promo lines and unreliable refs should be cleared. Nevertheless, outright delete can be very harsh as I stated earlier on Matthew Carl's AFD. Both pages have same issues.Benleg4000 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Linked from Richard Ludlow, I guess this company passes WP:CORP. Nevertheless, a rewrite might be necessary to clear some of the non 3rd party sources used. Generally, the topic is in line with WP:GNG. My opinion anyway. Germcrow (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. So you're just guessing are you? Which sources are good? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Topic appears notable. Good sources out there to scale through WP:COMPANYLaosilika (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. Which sources are good? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Draftify. Searched for this topic in Googlenews, I only discovered three 3rd party sources. They include 1, 2 and 3.
 * Redirect to Richard Ludlow - Epinoia (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable project credits in line with WP:CORP. New draft removes the promotional aspects of previous draft. ParinazF talk
 * Delete There are very clear guidelines on establishing the notability for organizations and the references that can be located for the company all fail. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and the Keep !votes above are vague with no references to policy/guidelines. An examination of the sources shows none meet the criteria as per WP:NCORP:
 * This interview with Matthew Carl Earl, an employee, fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent. The article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there is no information provided about the company itself.
 * This Sound&Picture interview with a founder also fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent.
 * This Berklee reference and this one are from a connected source as Hexany are featured as Berklee Institute for Creative Entrepreneurship graduates and essentially were supported by the organizations publishing the articles, therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This Variety reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This TVOM reference fails for two reasons. It mainly fails because it is an interview with Matthew Carl Earl and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it only mentions the company twice, in passing, and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * The Forbes article fails because it is a profile on the founder, not on the company. Notability is not inherited. It also contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * The Cultured Vultures reference fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on an interview with a founder and is not intellectually independent. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no in-depth information about the company.
 * This blog post fails as a reliable source as blogs are not considered reliable.
 * There is no significant coverage and no independent coverage that includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 11:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not a normal relisting case, I know, but not all of Benleg4000's sources have been rebutted and High King's analysis came quite late in the AFD process. I'd like to see a bit more discussion before settling for a delete close (since most other keep arguments are quite weak given their lack of source analysis)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The other sources from Benleg4000:
 * flickeringmyth interview "with Matthew Carl Earl, an employee, fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent. The article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there is no information provided about the company itself."
 * Same problem as above as well stated by HighKing. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article meets WP:NRV as the references, though local, verify and support the content. More notable references like this and this  can be added. Variety, Forbes, Sound & Picture are good sources. The article needs a clean-up to remove the redundant content like 'Credits and Clients' section.Sora Sailor (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment References may be deemed "notable" and still fail the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references you mention meet the criteria.  HighKing++ 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. Hexany Audio is mentioned in many reliable sources, such as The Boston Globe and Gamasutra, the first of which is a mainstream newspaper and the second of which is a respectable platform in the area of gaming. The Boston Globe found Hexany Audio an authority to quote with regard to the topic of VR while Gamasutra  provided in-depth coverage about Hexany Audio through an interview with its Audio Director. Although the article could use some cleanup, it meets the threshold required to possess an encyclopedia entry. desmay (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment "Mentions" are not part of the criteria for references to establish notability. The Gamasutra reference is an interview with the founder, therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The article looks improved, the history notes that cleanup has been done after it was marked for deletion. As per the source analysis -
 * Sound and Picture - this interview of the founder talks about the company
 * The Boston Globe - this source supports the Berkelee genesis of the company
 * Further cleanup is required as per WP:NPV and WP:MoS. OliverKianzo (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to Closer It is worrying that some editors above !voting to Keep do not appear to have either read or understood the criteria for references to establish notability. Just above, OliverKianzo quotes a reference and describes it as an interview with the founder - this shows a lack of understanding of WP:ORGIND. Similarly, quoting an article which only contains two quotes from the founder with no discussion on the company whatsoever fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The recent Keep !votes from, and  above describe references as "notable" and "reliable sources" - but this is just one small aspect of a reference. Clearly none have correctly applied the interpretations of "independent" - see WP:ORGIND. I provided an analysis of sources and pointing out why each failed WP:NCORP. To date, nobody has refuted this analysis. The closer will not based their decision on the highest number of !votes recorded for either Keep and Delete. We don't simply count !votes at AfD.  HighKing++ 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There will always be some editors who make incomplete arguments, but that doesn't mean there aren't significant sources per WP:GNG, here are some that meet that criteria   (and yes, Berklee College of music is independent, not some sock puppet of Hexany Audio). In this case, WP:CCSI also applies (and "significant sources" also exist for the founder, here cited)    . Additionally, there are a few independent, reliable, significant, and secondary tha seem to meet a minimum threshold for notability (prevoiusly cited). In this particular case of a music production company elements of WP:COMPOSER apply as well with the numerous credits. There simply isn't a glaring, obvious lack of coverage in the sub-genre of "game music" also, and then there are pathways to notability because of the repeated, independent coverage to satisfy WP:NMUSIC as well, "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture", which their music product is, quite clearly, as shown by the citations. The page should be kept so it can be improved (itself a different issue entirely), but it does meet the criteria of notability.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Response, once again, and I apologize for repeating myself, the criteria for references that can establish notability is different that the criteria for references to support facts within an article. For example, if an article states "According to the company, revenues exceeded $20m last quarter", then it is perfectly fine to use a quotation from the CEO to support this. BUT! That does not automatically mean that this same reference can be used to establish notability. There are different criteria for references to establish notability and for organizations/companies/etc, they can be found at WP:NCORP (especially the sections on significant coverage and independent content
 * You say the sources you've provided meet the criteria for "significant sources". They don't. Significant coverage does not mean "coverage in a well-known publication" or "namechecked in the Financial Times". Please read the WP:CORPDEPTH section of NCORP. References must also be "independent" - please read WP:ORGIND. You say that Berklee college is independent and not a "sock puppet" of the company. Nobody said they were a "sock puppet", that is a strawman argument. None of the information on the Berklee website contains independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc and relies on information provided by the company. I've extracted the quotation below as this is the accepted interpretation of an "independent" source for establishing notability of companies/organizations/etc.
 * Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
 * You (here and as a comment below) use a section from WP:CCSI to support claims of notability and in doing so, manged to mangle the logic behind that section. WP:CCSI is an essay (not a policy/guideline and therefore does not have the support of the community) intended to assist in overturning speedy deletion requests. This is not a speedy deletion request. It has no weight here at AFD and does not mean we can ignore WP:NCORP.
 * You mention WP:NMUSIC and in particular, the WP:COMPOSER section and this guideline is for "artists, bands, albums, and songs".. It is an interesting and possibly compelling argument that a music production company should be treated the same as a band or artist but to date I am not aware that the community has accepted this argument and therefore this guidelines to not apply. Also, be aware, notability is not inherited. Even if the CEO is notable, it does not mean that this company meets the criteria.
 * Looking at the references you provided. The first four, you say are "significant coverate". They are not and *all* of them fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * The Boston Globe reference merely namechecks the company twice with no other information about the company. It is therefore not "significant coverage" as is fails to provide in-depth information on the company (fails CORPDEPTH) and is not independent (quotes from CEO) and fails WP:ORGIND
 * This Gamasutra reference is a recorded interview with the founder and is therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND (interview with the CEO) and provides no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * This Gamecrate reference is entirely based on an interview with the CEO. Not independent, fails WP:ORGIND and no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This Berklee reference relies on information provided by the company and/or the executives. Not only that, but Berklee are using Hexany's profile in order to promote the college. This is not "independent" coverage and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * The next four sources you mention are focussed on the founder. For the reasons I've quoted above, those references also do not meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company.  HighKing++ 13:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: would there be any value in merging Matthew Carl Earl and Richard Ludlow into this article? All three are up for deletion, and it's because they each have a couple of reliable sources but no more – as far as I can see Mr. Earl and Mr. Ludlow's notability comes from their company, so perhaps if they were all included in one article which would then have have a dozen reliable sources, there would be a better chance of keeping any verifiable information, instead of deleting all three. Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This above suggestion doesn't make sense. They are distinct topics. While notability can transfer from a CEO's individual notability per WP:CCSI, their pages are different distinct topics.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you are totally misinterpreting what is being said. Not only does WP:CCSI *not* state that "Notability can be transferred" but the RFC it in turn references discussed "significance" and not notability. The RFC was not passed and the example it uses in the closing summary makes it clear how common sense should be applied. Nothing in the example lends weight to your argument.
 * Response *If* this topic survives AfD (which I doubt as to date, not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability has been provided) then I agree that some relevant and appropriate information on those individuals could be included.  HighKing</b>++ 13:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, although the articles has quite some sources, you will find that only the smallest portion (maybe 4) is actually reliable. The rest is primary (own website), tertiary (MobyGames), or some blogs. Definetly fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NORG. Few mentions in passing plus primary / COI / self-published sources. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:43, 15 May 2019 (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.