Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magical (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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Magical (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG - and WP:SERIESA to boot - routine/incidental coverage presented for this browser extension startup. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has enough weighty and relevant sources to be retained.--DH22 Mim (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software,  and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per media coverage in TechCrunch, LifeHacker Australia, Android Police, Mashable, Business Insider... It appears this broad coverage in multiple reliable sources demonstrates browser extension notability. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, "media coverage" includes PR, announcements, interviews, etc and is not a criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 12:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are either not about the company but about a product (which is not the topic of this article) or are based on company announcements or funding announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc.  HighKing++ 12:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Delete per WP:ORG. While there is coverage in TechCrunch, there isn't much substance there. Some of the refs like Bloomberg and WSJ don't even mention the company. The rest of the refs are non-RS and articles that just mention Magical along with a lot of other businesses.  APK  whisper in my ear  08:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per table below. This article is mildly refdumped, and there isn't even enough for GNG let alone WP:NCORP. &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per . Good job on that table. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  10:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete fails GNG and NCORP Qwv (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.