Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nona Creative


 * 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Nona Creative

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Rely on non-credible media references. Merely connecting articles. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. No News feed is found on search. No significant coverage by independent media. Total 20 Employee, not publicly listed. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light2021 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * delete as it stands - the refs are terrible (what slightly RSes there are are corporation deals or passing mentions) and fail to demonstrate WP:CORP or WP:CORPDEPTH. Deepest source is a podcast interview on a blog. That's quite apart from the obviously promotional nature of the text - David Gerard (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Appears to be a notable South African company. I improved the article's sourcing and removed the swaths of promotional texts. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just checked your changes. Mostly your listed cites literally don't support the claims they're against. (I moved one to the claim it actually supports.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the improvements. I still think the available sourcing pushes this company over WP:GNG, but the article itself can obviously still be very much improved. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as both the information and sources are PR-based, the company of course is going to have a PR environment so sources cannot immediately be said as convincing; with this said, there's no substance of an article. The Keep vote claims there's somehow enough for GNG, but how can this be if the article noticeably has no substantial claims of independent notability, let alone substantial sourcing? (The article essentially Sony states what there is to advertise about the company) SwisterTwister   talk  23:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no claim of notability or significance; sources are not there to meet GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome &#124; Democratics Talk→  Be a guest 09:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as ive said before, just because a company is in South Africa and not the west, doesnt mean its not significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstonphil (talk • contribs) 11:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That hasn't been the delete reason for any of the people above. The article's sourcing actually needs fixing and notability demonstrated - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2016 (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.