Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mana Up


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Mana Up

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I recognize the recent improvments in the article, but I still consider it promotional and based upon promotional sources.  DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose deletion: GNG for businesses state that a business should have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There are multiple sources listed about this business. MurielMary (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose deletion: I wrote this article on the basis of information taken from 10 independent authoritative sources (with the required minimum of 5). Some of these media outlets whose publications I have used to write the Mana Up article have their own extensive Wikipedia articles.Jedi2be (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and containing independent content (i.e. original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject). Just about all the references rely entirely on information provided by the company and contain no Independent Content or are run-of-the-mill listings or are based on profiles of the client accelerator companies and all fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. This from Bytemarks Café podcast and this one are based on interviewing company execs, fails WP:ORGIND, This Entrepreneur profile also is based on an interview, fails WP:ORGIND, This from KSBE (the company's Title Sponsor) article, Edible Hawaii's profile of one of this company's accelerator clients, fails ORGIND, this from gohawaii.com is a run-of-the-mill listing and fails ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, this from Hawaii Business is based on a company announcement of their launch and accompanying press interviews, fails ORGIND, This also from Hawaii Business is a profile piece on a co-founder which relies entirely on an interview, fails ORGIND, this Washington Post reference doesn't mention this company and is irrelevant for notability, this from Maui News is also irrelevant as it doesn't mention this company, this from KITV4 is a description of a TV segment where a co-founder was interviewed, fails ORGIND, this from Pacific Edge is based on a company announcement (same as the Hawaii Business article) and uses the standard company profile, fails ORGIND. Finally, this from Hawaii Business is an Editor's Choice award and is based entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND. Topic company, like all companies, does PR. That doesn't mean it is notable. Topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 11:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORGIND.  scope_creep Talk  09:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Highking. Note that both the keep !votes ("Oppose deletion", as they put it) unfortunately seem to appear to misunderstand our rigid sourcing requirements. ——  Serial # 16:44, 13 June 2020 (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.