Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Event Entertainment


 * 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. Essentially, sources were supplied and none of them were rebuked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Main Event Entertainment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unreferenced and semi-advertorialized article about a company with no credible claim to passing WP:CORP. As always, every company is not automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists -- it has to have a proper claim of notability, supported by enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:CORPDEPTH, and does not get to keep an unreferenced article that reads like it was written by the company's own marketing staff. We're an encyclopedia, not a free public relations platform. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced advertorial article for an organisation which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. First few pages of hits are its own website, social media and a lot of local coverage of events at its various locations, but nothing substantial from WP:RS about the company itself. Neiltonks (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: User:Ifnord suggests there are scores of newspaper articles, but doesn't cite any specifically. Please list a few, so people can evaluate them.
 * Delete There are no references that meet the criteria for establishing independent and there is no indications that this company is notable. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Searching for sources reveals scores of newspaper articles regarding locations opening throughout the US. While the article reads as a promotional piece currently, the subject does appear to pass both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Daask (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RoySmith, the obligation is on the nominator, per WP:BEFORE. However, one could look at: ; ;, ; ; ; ; ... I underestimated when I said scores, a Google search  shows well over a thousand hits. From flipping through the first half dozen pages, the bulk of them are mainstream news or media sites. Ifnord (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is poorly referenced (true mess there!), but the company has significant media coverage and at least 1 book mention (result of a lazy Google Books search). -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - the sources are a bit poor in terms of both primary (much of the content is coming from related individuals/press releases etc) and failing CORPDEPTH, but I think there is enough there to demonstrate the basics required. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:50, 29 August 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.