Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JK! Studios


 * 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. For a detailed explanation of the assessment of keep !votes, please read User talk:Lourdes. Post relisting, the only Keep !vote editor claims they heard the group on a show; and therefore the same should be kept. Again, nothing based on policy or notability guidelines. If any editor has an issue with the closure, they can contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 08:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

JK! Studios

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources are not enough to show this company passes WP:NORG or WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. Article speedied already once and prodded and deprodded. The sources include a puff piece of mostly interviews. It is difficult to know if this article is about the youtube production company or the group of comedians. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - While several of the sources do include interview snippets, they are from reliable sources. But I do agree that the article itself is not written very well, If someone were to edit it I would change my vote to "Keep". ---GingeBro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note, quality isn't a reason for deletion unless it gets to the point where TNT is required. The real question here is whether the topic is notable. --Slashme (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. I never nominate for reasons linked to the quality of an article...a lot are so poorly written that it makes my eyes bleed just looking at them! Dom from Paris (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, per nom. Some sources reliable but snippets do not establish notability. WP:SIGCOV lists "significant coverage (which) addresses the topic directly and in detail," as a requirement. Ifnord (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep – I agree with all above points, but the notability may change given their recent activities (e.g. competing on Bring the Funny) that may lead to more significant coverage. I think the article, if kept, definitely requires cleanup, which can be added to the task list of Wikipedia's cleanup task force. However, should the article be deleted and more significant coverage emerges in the future, the article could be restored then. Rosalina2427  (talk to me) 03:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Your comment that "the notability may change given their recent activities" indicates that you are currently of the opinion that it is not notability but that you hope they will become notable in the future.  HighKing++ 15:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would contend that they have achieved notability, likely more than many in the List_of_YouTubers. Their members have appeared on various shows including Bring_the_Funny and Conan_(talk_show). They are all 10 original cast members of Studio_C having almost 2 billion YouTube views and collaborations with various other YouTube stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:2:40E2:667E:4E1D:BD4C (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)  — 2001:4898:80E8:2:40E2:667E:4E1D:BD4C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep for reasons in the immediately preceding post. Meets WP:GNG and WP:Sigcov.  No compliance with WP:Before, which sets forth a series of hurdles before a WP:Prod is filed.  A quick search of the sources (listed at the top of this AFD) shows no compliance with WP:Before.  While sourcing can be improved WP:NEXIST.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Creating a show that gains 2 billion YouTube views is impressive and the group is doing numerous other projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1f05:da00:a8:c457:25fd:dfb7 (talk • contribs) — 2600:8801:1f05:da00:a8:c457:25fd:dfb7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Their most popular video has 866 thousand views.    D r e a m Focus  21:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Deseret News is a reliable source giving them significant coverage.   and the two Herald Extra articles, among others give ample coverage.  Note the two IP addresses that made one edit ever, that being the KEEP statements in this AFD, you probably work for these guys so please ask around the office and see if you got coverage outside of Utah.   D r e a m Focus  21:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the subject passes our general notability guide. Coverage exists WP:NEXIST. Doing a WP:BEFORE should have discovered the sources to show notability. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete First of all, this topic is being examined under WP:NCORP since it is an organization. It would be impressive for any organization (founded in 2019 according to the website to meet the criteria for notability which requires at least two different sources providing significant (WP:SIGCOV) in-depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) coverage containing independent content (WP:ORGIND). Many of the Keep !voters above have stated that such coverage exists (which is not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability) or that there is "ample coverage" (again, not one of the criteria for notability) but in my opinion, have no clue as to the rest of the criteria including the guidelines for independent content as per WP:ORGIND. Rather than stating the nom should have complied with WP:BEFORE, my advice would be for those very same editors to take a good long read of WP:NCORP and especially WP:ORGIND. 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. An evaluation of the sources contained in the article and mentioned above are as follows:
 * NBCUniveral reference is a mention-in-passing in the "Sketch Act Division" and contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.
 * The various YouTube references fail as they are not regarded as reliable sources
 * The Deseret News reference (also mentioned by Dream Focus above) is based on an interview with Matt Meese and Stacey Harkey and contains no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * The Salt Lake Tribune reference is also based on an interview, this time with Stacey Harkey and Whitney Call and contains no Independent Content and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. It also contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * The second Deseret News reference is also based on an interview, this time with Natalie Madsen, Mallory Everton, Whitney Call and Stacey Harkey (and Michael Dunn, BYUtv's Managing Director). It mentions the company name in passing but contains no significant or in-depth information on the company, failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also no independent content on the company (clearly all information has been provided by the company or people connected with the company), failing WP:ORGIND. There is a review of the Loving Lyfe series but this is not coverage on the company but on one of their products.
 * The BYU Magazine reference doesn't even mention the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * The KUTV reference is a review of one of the sketchs and contains no information whatsoever on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH
 * In summary, I am unable to locate a single source that meets the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. Sure, some of their sketches are very popular and perhaps there's a really good argument for an article on the Series as opposed to the Company, but company fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I would ask any of the Keep !voters above to provide links below this comment (and stating reasons) to any references that they believe meet the criteria for notability of the company so that we can examine them and I'm very happy to change my mind if any can be found.  HighKing</b>++ 12:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * An excellent review of the sources, and one that should be taken very seriously by the closing admin! --Slashme (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for taking the time to write what I should have explained myself. This was exactly what I meant when I said it is difficult to know if we should be considering this as a WP:NCORP discussion. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The applicable policy is more likely the policy that covers actors, artists and other entertainers WP:creative and or WP:ENT is applicable: and this troupe: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. In any event reasonable people can disagree. The HighKing votes to delete at AfDs 89.2% of the time. WP:NCORP: Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc. NCORP is the wrong policy for entertainers IMO. Per NCORP: If another subject-specific notability guideline applies to a group, it may be notable by passing either this or the more specific guideline. For example bands are covered by WP:MUSIC.Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You should not be using High King's afd stats as a means of discounting his !vote as per WP:ADHOM but seeing as you insist please note that they are "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 94.4% of AfD's were matches and 5.6% of AfD's were not." Which shows that they master the criteria especially when you consider they have !voted in 1883 discussions and left 14 comments without voting. You might want to compare your stats to his, you have participated in 350 discussions of which 278 there was no discernable !vote so he has voted in more than 26 times more discussions and has a 94% record...I shan't give your voting stats because it is a pointless exercise as I think I have just proved. What is important is the quality of the !votes and please remember the advice for participating "Always try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions, Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)" Simply stating that an article passes the criteria does not help. And whilst we're at the WP:ADHOM bit it states "As well, be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found." And I would also point out that you have added no sources here or on the page. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Good analysis and nice to know I vote with the consensus 94.4% of the time! <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a changed user name, so I voted in many more under my previous name. But lets keep it to the AfD. I added two sources a while ago, and reverted some IP potential vandalism.One, Two.
 * Couldn't agree more, let's avoid the ad hom. I just looked at the 2 sources you added and one is a passing mention in a very short piece in a student publication with no byline and the other is a credit in an affiliated source. I do not think they help to meet the NCORP criteria. If we consider that this is not a production company but a youtube channel then we should use WP:WEBCRIT and I believe that the sources do not show it meets the criteria. There are too many WP:INTERVIEWS and affiliated sources to meet the 1st criteria and they have not won an award yet so fail the 2nd criteria. So still NN for me. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reasonable editors can disagree. I added two sources to contribute to the article. Note: Actors and artists are known by their work, and by their audience and their reception. Just because there is not RS to show the artists in rehab, or getting arrested, it makes their work no less notable. The troupe passes WP:ENT and that seems clear enough. Also to your points about the web, and Youtube, they seem to have gone beyond Youtube: now on Network television - adding to their notability. I will bow out now to avoid WP:BLUDGEON Lightburst (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actors and artists are individuals. And while a band or a singer is covered by WP:MUSIC, a record producer or publisher is not - they're covered by WP:NCORP. Also, you may describe these people as a "troupe" but in reality, that only recognises the artists in front of the camera. What about Stephen Walter, the CEO? I don't think troupes even have a CEO, or bands? Clearly this belongs under WP:NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By your estimation those with management must pass NCORP criteria. Bands, actors, artists all have management, agents, roadies, staff, executive assistants, drivers, camera people, web site developers, social media personell etc. Even if what you say is true that this is an NCORP situation, we can determine notability based on criteria set out on the NCORP guidelines. The actual policy states: If another subject-specific notability guideline applies to a group, it may be notable by passing either this or the more specific guideline." It is a stretch to say they we are only allowed to use NCORP: but it is not a stretch to say they are entertainers. In fact it is logical. Lightburst (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I find myself in agreement with HighKing and Dom from Paris; a majority *several* of the references (of those that mention JK!) refer to it as a company, venture or business, and even the first sentence of the lead paragraph within the entry describes it this way. So it would seem to me that NCORP is the more specific criteria, and as such, it is the criteria we must apply. Interestingly, I did find notability criteria proposed for comedy-related subjects, alas it was abandoned in 2007 due to lack of support. Pegnawl (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Pegnawl The reference for that sentence in this article, calls them a "troupe". Some WP editor wrote that language "company" in the opening sentence. In any event we wouldn't make the rock group Metalica meet WP:NCORP - we would use the :subject specific notability guideline. WP:MUSIC. We wouldn't judge Penn and Teller by WP:NCORP we would likely use WP:ENT. Even large groups of athletes or sports teams like the Green Bay Packers would be judged by the subject specific WP:NTEAM ....even though the Packers have a corporate structure and a CEO, a President, shareholders, etc. So it is NCORP or "subject specific" Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood, but JK! isn't a musical act, nor a BLP about an entertainer or entertainers, nor a sports team. Because there is no comedy-group specific subject guidance, that leads me to believe that we stick with NCORP, the most specific category that can be used at present.


 * That said, I'm going to walk back my comment that a majority of refs call it a company; it's more of a mixed bag than that. Because I've now done the legwork, I'll leave this here in case it helps others come to a determination:


 * Publisher / Title: Qualifier(s) used
 * Deseret News / Original 'Studio C' cast members...: Comedy Network, Project
 * SLTRib / 'Former BYUtv ‘Studio C’ cast...': Troupe, Company (granted in this instance, 'company' might be used in the more Shakespearean sense)
 * Deseret News / Life after 'Studio C'...: Venture, Startup, comedy-focused media company
 * BYU Magazine / Last Laughs: online network
 * KUTV / JK! Studios impresses...: Group
 * Herald Extra / JK! Studios sketch wins ...: Comedy group
 * Given the above, and the content they purport to serve across various channels, I'm leaning towards media company/network and therefore still NCORP (but not strongly enough to cast a !vote quite yet). Pegnawl (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good points both. My 2c = unless there are guidelines for specific topics (like bands, sports teams, etc) which are special types of organizations, the default is WP:NCORP. It isn't a perfect system - there has been a lot of debate here in relation to a requirement for specific guidelines for specialist record publishers or specialist book publishers. I believe there is also a case to be made for entertainers on social media or streaming channels although it doesn't get around the problem of deciding the criteria for notability. The best we have right now is to find (at least) two references from reliable independent publishers that contains Independent Content which is in-depth. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * HighKing: Thanks for those comments. I think this was a healthy debate and you provided a sober and rational assessment. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I would have gone ahead and deleted the article given the evident consensus, but just on the side of caution as someone might find a couple of reliable sources (as suggested by multiple editors), relisting this

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  03:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether they are writing about them, or doing interviews with them, its significant coverage either way. The news source felt them notable enough to take the time to interview, not just write something about.   D r e a m Focus  14:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The !vote here currently is 5 6 Keeps and 5 3 Deletes. This is not even close to a "Delete" WP:consensus.  I recognize it isn't just 'voting" but the voices of those who visit this page and express their opinions means something, unless it is just supposed to be the closer's whim.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a reason why it isn't a simple !vote count and why the closer reads the discussion. It is to place appropriate weight on the arguments and especially with an eye on those arguments that are grounded in our policies and guidelines as opposed to more simplistic "agree with op" type !votes. For example, we have two Keep !votes from anon IPv6 addresses which fail to identify any reasons which are based/grounded in our policies and guidelines. We have another "Weak Keep" !voter who says that they agree with all of the above (reasons to delete) but basically says "lets give this a chance" because "notability may change" - again, no grounding whatsoever in any of our policies/guidelines. Your own !vote provides as a reason an agreement with one of the anon IPv6 !votes based on have lots of YouTube views - which also isn't grounded in any of our policies/guidelines (and in fact is specifically stated as *not* being a reason for Keep) as well as providing a google search list of mentions (again, specifically stated as not a reason to Keep in the guidelines). The only real engagement was from Lightburst who I believe understands what is required and has providing some reasoning for why WP:NCORP may/should not be the guidelines applicable to this topic but appears to accept that NCORP is the applicable guidelines and appears to be unable to provide any sources that meet the criteria for notability.
 * So by a count of arguments based on policy/guidelines, I'd say there's a clear consensus to delete as they're the only !votes that have provided any arguments based on our actual policies and guidelines rather than pulling reasons our of thin air which amount to no more than "but I like it" or "that's my opinion". <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - The “clear consensus” for deletion is clearly biased against this group for some reason. My reason is not based on thin air per prior argument but is rather based on my actual experience as a wiki user (with very limited editing experience) who found this site when looking up JK Studios on Wikipedia; I was surprised to see the potential deletion note which has led me to this page. I had heard of this group via the NBC show, and my kids who know them from YouTube. Deleting this page would be a disservice to the credibility and reliability of this site. Please keep. Thank you. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;">Elocone07</b> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elocone07 (talk • contribs) 22:09, August 2, 2019 (UTC)  Elocone07 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ...hi this is Elocone07...going to defend myself against the passive aggressive attack on my credibility ...I’ve used Wikipedia since it’s inception and to your point I’ve made few edits as I represent the POV of a reader, not a editor. On that note I as a reader would be very disappointed if this were deleted. Per my keep vote I came to Wikipedia looking for info on this comedy group, which I found; I only chimed in because the possible deletion note on the top of the page encouraged me to do so. It would be foolish to ignore the POV of users like me simply because I am not an elite editor who likes to police the site and delete helpful articles by others. (Elocone07)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is definitely WP:NOCONSENSUS. The arguments are logical on both sides - I think more logical in my interpretation. High King made an argument for calling this comedy group a corporation, and I made an argument to say they are entertainers WP:ENT. I think if we polled the ivoters 6 would agree with me and the WP:ENT rationale and 3 or 4 would agree with the High King and the WP:NCORP rational. That is a clear WP:NOCONSENSUS and if anything, leaning Keep. I went to the relister's page to question the relisting comments, and I got a very condescending response. I only hope that a different uninvolved admin closes with a fair reading of this AfD. Lightburst (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting info.svg Administrative comment – I am sorry if my response sounded condescending. I was pointing out to your apparent lack of understanding of our reliable sources/verifiability guideline/policy and misunderstanding of what consensus means. I listed out exactly why none of the keeps were worth consideration. While you may continue believing that consensus is equivalent to voting, it is actually not. If you find even two reliable, independent non-primary sources that have covered the subject significantly (please don't include interviews or press releases; read WP:RS), there's no number of delete !voters who would be able to get the article deleted.... And vice versa. On your other query, there's no hard and fast rule on my closing this AfD; any other admin can too. Or I will, if I reach here first, when the re-listing period is over. Thanks, Lourdes 07:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidently, you don't understand WP:RS.  We will have to agree to disagree.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Lourdes That is not correct. WP:CLOSEAFD The AfD needs to be closed by an uninvolved admin or editor. And I think I had excellent arguments that you have summarily dismissed: even the High King acknowledged the validity of the arguments, and I acknowledged the High King's argument as well. This is a clear WP:NOCONSENSUS so far. Lightburst (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting info.svg Administrative comment – Sure Lightburst. Any uninvolved admin including I can close this AfD. My reply to you above is an administrative comment; and so is this. For your benefit, I have marked them so. Thanks, Lourdes 00:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC) )
 * I am saddened by your display of power - it does not benefit the project. Retroactively marking your very involved comments to pretend you are not involved is not appropriate. I am out of this AfD now. Lightburst (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clear up your misunderstanding. An uninvolved admin is one that has not edited the article or !voted in the discussion. Lourdes did neither. They simply analysed the discussion and the different !votes and explained their analysis and despite the result they gave the discussion a bit more time. If anyone should complain it is certainly not the keep !voters. You tried to get them involved by complaining on their talk page but this doesn't make them involved. Just because someone doesn't agree with your arguments that you consider excellent (we shall agree to disagree on that point) doesn't make them involved either. From what I can gather an "uninvolved admin" is one that agrees with you? It just doesn't work like that.Dom from Paris (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC) p.s. To further understand what uninvolved means please read WP:UNINVOLVED. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the summary provided by above. I agree that there was an attempt to examine this topic under a different set of guidelines than WP:NCORP but a suitable set of guidelines could not be found. I agree WP:ENT is applicable for a comedy troupe but I disagree that "JK! Studios" is a comedy troupe - it is a media production company. It is incorporated and has a CEO and President named Stephen Walter. One of the founders (who is not one of the comedians), Alex Madsen, describes it as a "media company".
 * I also don't see any point in conducting a poll on this page - either we have guidelines that we apply consistently or the alternative is that every topic will have a poll that becomes nothing more than a popularity contest.
 * I agree with the summary provided by on their Talk page and above but I feel I have to voice my opinion on some of the commentary on this page. I am dismayed at the lack of understanding demonstrated by editors on this page on how this community decides which guideline(s) to apply, which policies/guidelines are applicable for particular topics, how to respond at AfD pages, how a closing admin weighs up the various points of view, etc. But I am most dismayed at the ad hominen commentary. Nobody here that has !voted to Delete has any particular axe to grind with this topic and yet various Keep !voters have taken potshots at various editors who have voiced an opposing view. Please stop.
 * The point made in relation WP:RS should be read in conjunction with the guidelines on which sources/references meet the criteria for establishing notability (e.g. WP:ORGIND). In summary, there's a difference between how we treat RS depending on the context of use. While RS (even RS that includes interviews/quotations or based on press releases) can be used to support an assertion or facts within an article, these RS may not be used to establish notability. Editors here who participate regularly at AfD and who are familiar with the various applicable policies/guidelines will have seen this point raised many times previously. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You choose to ignore the many sources, a number of which were added after theinital WP:PROD. Thiere is an evidencet violation of WP:BEFOREand a disergard of WP:NEXISTT.  You apparently believe that Ipse dixit gives you a Liberum veto over the existenced of articles.  You seem think that your voice outweighs consensus on this page.  There is nothing more to discuss.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * More ad hominen comments... Tell you what - why don't you post a link here to any two references (or the two best ones) you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? I'll provide an analysis using policies/guidelines and that way you can be 100% sure that nothing is being ignored. The only advice I will freely give you (and those other Delete !voters) is to be absolutely sure you have read and understood WP:NCORP, especially the sections on WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:39, 4 August 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.