Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Strong


 * 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. Based on the analysis per User:HighKing. Nothing has convinced me this subject meets WP:GNG based on the sourcing. Missvain (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Special Strong

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable fails GNG Urartuvanking (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Urartuvanking (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Decent amount of coverage available in reliable websites like etc. Deftwapt (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG as per indepth coverage in reputable sources. Namkongville (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertisement of a Fitness company. References do not show notability of the subject. Routine coverage and PR. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep It has significant coverage and meets WP:ORG .Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above, passes WP:ORG has indepth coverage in many sources. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertorials masquerading as news. Not a single reference comes close to meeting the requirements for establishing notability of this *company*. Most of the articles focus on the founder and only mention the company in passing. Maybe the founder is notable, but the company does not meet NCORP requirements.
 * Forbes blog post fails WP:RS
 * Dallas News profile of a guy called Robert working out with the founder and is a discussion on the benefits of exercise for special needs. Very little info on the company and all of it provided by the founder, fails WP:ORGIND
 * Graced Health blog, fails WP:RS
 * Mindbody Online profile of the founder, all info on the company provided by the founder, fails ORGIND
 * Autism Sprectrum New written by the founder, fails as a Primary source
 * Video1, Video2 and Video3 are all commenting on the same "viral" video filmed by the founder, fails CORPDEPTH (no info about the company) and ORGIND (material produced by the founder, no Independent Content)
 * Fort Worth Business is an advertorial for the company, all info provided by the founder, no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
 * Reframing Ministries is a blog, fails WP:RS
 * I haven't managed to locate a single reference that meets the criteria, topic fails NNCORP  HighKing++ 13:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment While I agree with some of your assessment by HighKing,  Fort Worth Business is a reliable publication and has in-depth coverage on them. There is no indication anywhere that this is an advertorial. CityLiefeStyle, not mentioned by HighKing, has in-depth coverage on them. In addition, they have been featured on several major media and TV (ABC, NBC, FOX), although not in-depth, just the fact that they have so much coverage, helps with the overall notability. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Response "reliable source" and "in-depth coverage" is two out of three - people always tend to try to ignore WP:ORGIND and the fact that all the information is provided by the company (in a glowingly positive way, hence the term "advertorial"). Same as the CityLifeStyle article originally published in McKinney & Prosper - once you see it in the original magazine, you'll see it as an advertorial also. The entire magazine is one big bunch of ads. You need to examine very closely those times when the CEO is being interviewed or there are mentions of the company and ask - who is providing the information. To pass ORGIND, it can't originate from the company/CEO/founder/executive and be published - the reference requires independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of those links provide that.  HighKing++ 10:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * CityLifeStyle and McKinney & Prosper publications are from the same company. Deftwapt (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Has a good amount of reliable coverage overall, should be enough to pass the notability bar. Jaysonsands (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above seems to have enough sources available to pass notability. Okaye Agongo (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment So far, nobody appears to be engaging in a discussion about the sourcing and references. Reasons such as "good amount of reliable coverage" and "enough sources available" without providing links makes it difficult to understand the precise reasons for the !vote and, to my mind at least, shows some !voters don't really seem to be bothering to look. This isn't a count of !votes, it is meant to be a discussion.  HighKing++ 12:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The combined sources and TV news coverage seems enough to make this organization qualify for WP:ORG because as per WP:ORG, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. And here Special Strong clearly qualifies this criterion by getting coverage on reputed websites and getting featured on major TV channels like ABC, NBC, Fox News, Channel 24, News 24 and many others for their notable works like making Brandon Neal walked again in over 8 years which was a notable moment itself in medical mystery and got highlighted in almost all major world news channels for the same. So, Overall when both website and TV coverage combined, it is more than enough to make this brand qualify for WP:ORG. Deftwapt (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for clarifying but your interpretation of WP:NCORP is simply wrong. You don't get to consider all references at once, each reference is examined individually. Each reference should pass all of the requirements of NCORP and as I've shown above, not a single reference when considered in isolation (as is proper) meets the criteria for establishing notability. If you disagree, either point me to where my interpretation of NCORP is off or point to a single reference that meets NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying and I agree with you on some. But receiving coverage in multiple sources either some of them are not full-featured posts but having 3-4 para which talks in-depth about the subject and having multiple news coverage which is independent and reliable should make it qualify. Deftwapt (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that simply isn't the way WP:NCORP works. It's designed specifically to make it more difficult for organizations that rely entirely on spammy promotional references like the ones here to use this platform for even more promotion. Oh ... and when your use the word "independent", you're using it in the context of "corporate independedce", that is, the publisher has no corporate relationship with the topic organization. That is not the complete nor correct definition and I'm going by the "Independent Content" definition in WP:ORGIND which says the content must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I invite you once more to provide a link to any single reference that meets the criteria. Just one.  HighKing++ 11:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Passes WP:ORG as per available overall coverage. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per HighKing.-KH-1 (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete creation of SPA, remarkable WP page creation skills for a brand new account. Sourcing does not pass WP:ORG, overlinked mess. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not a new user and was earlier used to edits through IP before. I have a basic knowledge of Wikipedia. Deftwapt (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment As per having coverage in multiple sources and major news TV channels this article should qualify for WP:ORG. I think this company has been the subject of enough independent and reliable sources like The Dallas Morning News, GoodNewsNetwork, ABC, NBC, Fox News, Channel 24 and many others which can surely warrant notability, please see the source table below for the same. Deftwapt (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment You literally just totally ignored the detailed input of HighKing up the page, there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Alexandermcnabb, I didn't ignore any of Highking's inputs. I followed them and showed sources that seem good enough to me to pass this company for notability criteria. Deftwapt (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm interested to hear how you are defining "Independent" because from what I can see, it doesn't follow ORGIND guidelines. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. Not a single reference you've posted above meets *both* CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND which is a requirement. I asked above for you to post just a single link to any single reference that you believe meets the criteria and we can go through it. Take any reference you like and highlight any part that provides in-depth information on the *company* and which is "Independent content". By my analysis, not a single source above meets the criteria. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 11:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. I won't repeat the analysis that HighKing provided above, but I concur with it. Most of the sources presented here are either outright spam, of dubious reliability (or significance), non-independent because they just quote the founder, or simply feel-good stories that don't provide any significant coverage of the company itself. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 11:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete contrary to what many of the keeps say here, notability is not established because the sources are unreliable, black hat SEO or contributor pieces. BEACHIDICAE🌊  13:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.