Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanonation
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nanonation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another digital signage company article, which looks disturbingly similar to the one for Four Winds Interactive. The same reasoning from that nomination applies here as well. This article has a few more references, but they all look like routine announcements from industry news web sites. The company is going to demo product X in booth Y at convention Z, neither of which has an article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created by the single purpose account User:Lucky marketer, and the only other substantive edits made the same day by an IP that geolocates to this company's home town. Hmm... FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also the reference about PepsiCo http://popsop.com/41746 makes no actual mention of Nanonation. It's clear that the source did not consider it important to whom PepsiCo had subcontracted the implementation of that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent secondary sources to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note added by User:Lucky marketer
There are over 100 articles written about Nanonation by independed sources like RetailWire, Mac Observer, Retail Customer Experience etc, only 5 of those were listed in the wiki page.
Here is a list (please copy/paste): http://www.google.com/#q=nanonation&hl=en&tbm=nws&prmd=ivns&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=0NXfTZPqEKbZ0QHv25mqCg&ved=0CA8QpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=74783df6b69c3072&biw=1920&bih=979 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky marketer (talk • contribs) 16:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Lucky marketer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No one in an AfD can be expected to dig through your WP:TLDR WP:GOOGLEHITS search results to figure out which ones, if any, might be meaningful. You really only need two decent (say, 1000-word) articles from reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability. Which two on that list should we look at? Probably none. Msnicki (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per request: Apple Insider: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/08/18/apple_enterprise_sending_thousands_of_macs_into_hotels_cruise_ships.html Self Service World: http://www.selfserviceworld.com/article/159418/PepsiCo-deploying-Greenopolis-recycling-kiosks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky marketer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apple Insider publishes news & information specifically related to Apple Inc. (100,000 up to 600,000 monthly readers). I could be wrong, but being mentioned in 6 paragraphs out of 12 on the first page of an article that is over 1,500 words is not a minor mention. Regarding Self-Service World - they publish industry news, and blogs posts related to Digital Signage and Kiosks (in addition to advertising). Lucky marketer (talk)
According to Google at least 8,500 internet users/year search to find more information about this specific company. I fail to understand how the information provided is not suitable or helpful for these searchers?
In regards to PepsiCo article there were 2 sources, one covers Nanonation the other PepsiCo.
- Do Not Delete Wiki user above did not research the company in-depth to assume that there are no secondary sources to establish notability or that the article is unsuitable/unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky marketer (talk • contribs) 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Lucky marketer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I don't think anyone assumes anything. But you can't expect others to prove a negative. If you think that reliable independent secondary sources providing significant coverage (as required by WP:CORPDEPTH) actually do exist, you should properly cite them in the article or at least specifically identify them here so they can be considered. So far, none have been offered and the guidelines don't allow hand-waving the likelihood of notability based on Google hits per WP:GOOGLEHITS. Msnicki (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable company, fails WP:COMPANY. Keb25 (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.