Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toondra


 * 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. The "keep" opinions appear to be of the view that awards establish notability, which is not the case. Sources establish notability, because it is sources we need as a basis for writing a neutral, verifiable article. And the "keep" opinions don't tell us what if any sources are useful for this purpose in their view.  Sandstein  07:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Toondra
AfDs for this article:


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

Does not seem to have any coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:N 162 etc. (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies,  and Russia.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * keep. Notability is asserted by awards and awards are definitely independent refernces to corresponding festivals. There are even more independent "independent sources": p. 22 Loew Galitz (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per Loew Galitz. --Vaco98 (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply.
 * Winning notable awards counts towards notability but none of the awards won by the topic company can be considered as notable for the purposes of establishing notability. In addition, "independent sources" doesn't just mean that the publisher has no corporate links with the topic company - see below for details of the requirement also for "Independent Content".
 * As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
 * WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
 * "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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. The reference by Galitz above is a mere mention-in-passing which includes a quotation from a company executive - nothing that meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:47, 7 March 2022 (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.