Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmashLAB (2nd nomination)


 * 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 relisting  DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

SmashLAB
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. References are merely a blog written by company associates to various media. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Strong evidence that company meets WP:GNG. Included on The Time Magazine Design 100. Vancouer Sun says "An online green initiative has helped Vancouver-based interactive design firm smashLAB gain the type of international exposure many companies can only dream of." Further good sourcing in The Globe & Mail. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Delete: Amending my !vote per discussion below. This article is part of a walled garden, and SmashLAB appears to be the most notable of the articles involved, but it is marginally notable so I'm fine with deleting it. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Once in a life time coverage on Popular media can happen for thousands of people or company, it is nowhere make them encyclopedic notable or significance. Light2021 (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep While I see few design digital design firms that meet WP:CORP, this one squeaks by enough for me. In addition to the cited sources, there are a fair number of Google news hits. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Amending my !vote after reviewing K.e.coffman's findings. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Comment - Wish that would have been right, and Second AfD would be avoided. But clearly not the case here. Google News hits makes something Encyclopedia notable? Light2021 (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete instead as the TIME "article" is simply a few mere sentences and is certainly not substance, or anything close to it, the VancouverSun article is then simply focusing with what the company said and then repeated businesspeople, hence the information came from the company itself in not 1 path, but 2, none of this is amounting to an actual substantial article with substantial sourcing. The same can be said about the GlobalandMail article which then also simply focuses with what the company is saying itself and then also simply repeating company and businessman quotes, none of it amounts to substance, and that's another that was clearly influenced by the company itself, therefore not independent or substance. The article currently still looks like an advertisement and, although informative and sourced, looking closer suggests otherwise since it simply boiling to an advertisement and what there to show and say about the company, instead of establishing an encyclopedia-material article. Once we start accepting mere trivial coverage as sourcing without thinking of the consequences and damages it can take, we are damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  22:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the sources do not amount to WP:SIGCOV on the company. Separately, the article was created as part of the walled garden around the company, which also includes:
 * Sustainable graphic design (I PRODed this one)
 * Design Can Change
 * Eric Karjaluoto
 * All articles are advertorially toned and on marginally notable subjects, created by single purpose editor Special:Contributions/Petiep. At best, this could be redirected to Design Can Change (after Delete), as most of the page is about the project anyway. I don't think Wikipedia needs four articles on these related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree we don't need four articles on these related topics. Perhaps they should all be redirected to Eric Karjaluoto? SmashLAB and Design Can Change could become subsections of that article. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that Design Can Change is particularly notable, and if it's not, then it's harder to argue that Eric Karjaluoto is notable. Personally, I think the whole garden should be razed at this point. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, looking at the other articles involved, they are really bad and I can't find any sources establishing that Eric Karjaluoto or Design Can Change meet WP:GNG. SmashLAB may be the most notable of this garden, and it seems its notability is pretty marginal. I would support deleting this garden as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable, no reliable sources. Promo piece posing as encyclopedic article. The 3 related articles are just as bad.  Yinta n  23:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I nominated the remaining articles for deletion:
 * Articles for deletion/Design Can Change
 * Articles for deletion/Eric Karjaluoto (2nd nomination)
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 6 October 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.