Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ink (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 keep. Davewild (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ink (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability. Masses of references but none that demonstrate any notability. All the refs seem to be printing jobs they have done.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, nice advert for the company, nothing notable for Wikipedia though. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The company is one of the largest publishers of airline and travel industry magazines within that industry. They also published CNN Traveler and CNBC Europe magazines for those brands. I'm sure there's independent sources out there. Even without them, this company is notable. Scanlan (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - no without them they are Not notable - that is precisiely how notability is defined. But then, of course, you knew that already.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Many of the first 10 sources are actually independent sources. A page for the particular company is long overdue given their reach within the travel industry and related trade/consumer publishing. (P.S. I have no affilaition with INK whatsoever).  Thanks! Scanlan (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by. Both the CNN article and The Yorkshire Post articles discuss Ink nontrivially. There is no need to consider WP:CORP when the subject passes Notability. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ink to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC) 
 * Weak delete: fails WP:CORP: are significant coverage and many articles that only talk about the subject's deals with airlines instead of itself (which doesn't add to notability), however just not quite enough to be notable. Esquivalience  t 00:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not consider the company to meet WP:GNG. First off, WP:CORP is fundamentally the same as the WP:GNG in its notability requirement, and it actually adds extra requirements, such as the audience requirement. Two sources are almost never enough to meet WP:GNG. Multiple does not necessarily mean two or more sources; although the amount of sources varies on depth and quality of coverage, two is most likely not enough. The source by CNN covers it deeply, but the source by The Yorkshire Post does not cover the subject deeply. Esquivalience t 00:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have listed several more sources below (along with the two you mentioned). Cunard (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It has coverage enough to satisfy WP:N. It could use improvement but does not merit deletion. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 01:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

List of sources: <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)</li></ul> Keep, meets WP:GNG. Thanks to diligence of editors above (especially Cunard and tks to Scanlan for the recent article edits) I have changed my mind, a case of too hasty on my part (only checking 40 or so ghits) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2015 (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.