Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Propworx


 * 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. Courcelles 01:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Propworx

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This company seems inconsequential, in that it lacks significant coverage beyond the article in Variety and apparently inherits its notability via the equipment and properties that it auctioned.  Mephistophelian (contact)  08:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is inherited. 1292simon (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - well, notability is generally not inherited and though there are a few exceptions to that widely accepted rule, I don't think this is one of them. For a company like this to be considered notable, we would need for it to have received "significant coverage" in reliable sources enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm certainly not seeing any depth of coverage that would substantiate a pass and being the auction house for the props from a couple of notable shows does not, in my opinion, confer notability. Filing for bankruptcy is also, in and of itself, not notable. Stalwart 111  02:33, 17 December 2012 (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.