Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massive Black


 * 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. --Core desat 07:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Massive Black

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nonnotable media company, article reads like PR. One independent source which also appears to be a PR puff piece. NawlinWiki 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason this isn't a nonnotable media company is the attention it's gotten online. They use the success of their company to help artists in improvement by the community they've established at ConceptArt.org and by opening a real life school. They are a new company, which explains the lack of proper third party sources at the moment. I didn't mean to make it sound like PR - I'm not actually a part of the community or any efforts involved, maybe it's just English being my second language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrisque (talk • contribs).


 * Comment Any article with a "lack of proper third party sources" fails Verifiability. NawlinWiki 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Massive Delete lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So what about all the articles on Wikipedia that state no sources at all, or are simple oneliners? What reasoning seperates those articles from this one in a sense that makes the article on Massive Black so bad it shouldn't exist at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrisque (talk • contribs).

Also, the article on CGSociety is an independent source - it has no affiliation with Massive Black. Unless writing an article on someone and interviewing them automatically makes you affiliated with their agenda?
 * That would be WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete it then. I still don't agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrisque (talk • contribs).

Wouldn't it just be possible to tag it as an article in need of sources? Is there an immediate need to delete the information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrisque (talk • contribs).


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete - this has now had the full five days for someone to add sources and no-one - not even the creator & sole editor who's arguing that it can be sourced, has managed to dig any legitimate sources out. While I don't mean to be rude about this company, this is a PR company and their entire job is getting things mentioned in the press - the lack of sources really isn't a great advert. Necrisque, do feel free to nominate all those other articles you don't approve of as long as you've got a reason —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  00:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I think of it more as a producer of material for others to use--it therefore ought not to be getting its name in the press, but rathe those of the clients. It will be very hard in the nature of things for a ghostwriter to establish N. DGG 03:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, I've heard of them so they're not nobodies, but I couldn't find any notable coverage in Google News Archive (and I removed "black hole" and "black vote" from the results). --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nawlin. Fails WP:V and WP:N if not cited. Sr13 (T|C) ER 06:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced and unnotable. --RaiderAspect 10:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Wikipedia's purpose is not to Be Nice and help out fledgling young companies get the word out there.  It's to be an encyclopedia.  If no reliable sources exist, then this company has failed to demonstrate its notability.    RGTraynor  14:49, 1 May 2007 (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.