Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pumping Station: One


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  13:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Pumping Station: One

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. 16 of this article's 27 citations are from the website of the company itself, and the rest have little to no notability. Dawnbails (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: to discuss the sourcing identified Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology,  and Computing. Dawnbails (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, this looked promising, but it's in Winnipeg . No sourcing found for this makerspace in Chicago. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the coverage from the American Bar Association Journal, Columbia Chronicle, Time Out Chicago, Gapers Block, Northwestern University. This might help as well: Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from here, but the sources still generally aren't any good. The ABA Journal source is just a brief mention about one of the article's main subjects having spent time with the company. Same thing goes for the Northwestern article. The other sources you mention seem to lack credibility or just noteworthiness in general. Dawnbails (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * delete per nom, reads like ads. Artem.G (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. Sourcing fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Avondale article is a blog so fails WP:RS and has no "Independent Content" since it relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or people closely associated with it. Similar issues arise with most of the other references, relying on information provided by the company or people closely associated with the company, failing WP:ORGIND. The remaining are brief mentions with insufficient in-depth information about the company to meet WP:CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 13:04, 20 June 2023 (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.