Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoveCrafts


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 08:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

LoveCrafts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Olurteilanru with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Marquardtika (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think there is enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. I've been through the linked references. Several are trade magazines I think, which I don't believe are considered necessarily reliable sources (1 - TechCrunch; 8 - Craft Business Magazine; 10 - Business Insider). Not sure about the reliability of Pymnts (2) and Crunchbase (15). A couple of the references only mention LC in passing (4 - open letter signed by 200+ people; 5 - City.am; 14 - Guardian). Some of the references don't say what the article says they do (4 and 5 again; 11 (re disrupting the market); 14 again (about a gap in the online craft market); and 15 (says LC was founded in 2010, not 2012)). 9 is a primary source (one of the investors) and 16 and 17 are LC's own website. 6 is apparently a Sunday Times article in PDF on LC's website, but doesn't work for me. 12 is an article by one of the founders on a trade site. 13 is a deadlink. 7 is an FT article listing LC as number 20 in a list of fastest growing companies, which is one of the examples given in WP:NCORP of trivial coverage. That leaves ref 3, a reasonable BBC link. I don't think that's enough to take it out of WP:ROUTINE. I have searched but just finding more articles on trade sites about the investment money, and again I think this would count as trivial coverage under NCORP. Tacyarg (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2018 (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.