Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRO MOTION. The Brad LeBeau Company, Inc.


 * 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. Clear consensus after the relistings  DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

PRO MOTION. The Brad LeBeau Company, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Heavily padded sources which are either unreliable or press releases. I won't even bother with a rename. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - I'm not sure, but this company may be notable. There are a number of mentions in books and news media, and articles such as this Billboard article suggest that other sources may be available to meet WP:ORG.- MrX 23:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked and found lots of mentions, but no significant coverage. Lots of music studios are like that, they get mentioned but no real coverage. In this case, it is a marketing firm, which rarely gets coverage enough to pass WP:CORP because no one dedicates articles to them because they aren't very interesting.  Necessary, but not interesting enough in most circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I've seen a good many of these types of articles and very rarely do they pass the bar. They of course want to have to their own article.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - There are quite a few short, but not trivial mentions of this company, spanning a period of around 30 years. This contributes to notability per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:ORGDEPTH. I also found these in-depth articles which discuss the company .- MrX 22:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ORGDEPTH specifically mention that WP:SIGCOV must be satisfied, and is just a subsection of WP:CORP. SUSTAINED really isn't even at issue here.  The second reference you show is good enough to show notability, but the first is not, per SIGCOV, and it being mentioned but not the center of the article.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's still nothing actually convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  05:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, no real rationale provided for why the subject is notable, and the provided sources are far short of the standard recommended by the GNG. The company might actually be notable given the (second) source provided above by MrX but I'm struggling to find anything more substantial in terms of significant coverage, hence the !vote. ✤ Fosse   8 ✤  10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The four sources in the article are worthless.  An article about the founder selling his apartment???  Something labeled PRESS RELEASE in big letters on the top?  I did a little searching (admittedly, I didn't put a huge effort into it) and didn't find anything better.  Unless somebody can come up with some good solid reliable sources, delete.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP The company has been around since 1983 but I can't find enough independent reliable sources to justify keeping the article. Meters (talk) 22:53, 20 June 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.