Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superior Glove


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Superior Glove

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Created by a sock of prior to B's block (so not G5 eligible). Already tagged as COI & paid. It seems spammy to me. At the very least it needs community discussion before more time is wasted on their advert. Cabayi (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The company does not have significant coverage in reliable sources which clearly fails WP:GNG and as suggested by Cabayi maybe a paid article. AmericanAgent (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: the company has received coverage in secondary sources, however, much of that is in local papers about their commendable yet not notable philanthropy. Better sourcing is needed to demonstrate the company has received the depth of coverage required for corporations to be considered notable.  Here is an analysis of the sources.  See my comment below for a source assessment.    SITH   (talk)   11:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment:


 * Sources 1 and 6 are of questionable independence. Much of the description of the company in these two sources is closely paraphrased from the company's website which gives me reason to suspect they could be instances of sponsored content.  Sources 10 and 11 cover the company's actions but on a restricted, local level, and unfortunately, being nice to your community doesn't automatically make you notable.  Source 5 is the only one which meets the golden rule and alone, per the requirement for multiple sources, is insufficient to establish corporate notability.
 * This, in conjunction with the clear conflict of interest issues, leads me to believe the article, in its current state, should be deleted.   SITH   (talk)   11:18, 12 March 2019 (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.