Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CashmereMedia

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CashmereMedia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Aside from mirrors and forks, "CashmereMedia" searches turn up little other than affiliated sources. SITH (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Close to a WP:A7 case. Not even borderline GNG/CORPDEPTH. Britishfinance (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If you separate into two names ("Cashmere Media" as opposed to "Cashmeremedia"), you get more results. However, it still falls short of WP:NCORP in my opinion. Mentions of its production credits but nothing in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Old article since 2007 that hasn't had significant press coverage and clearly fails notability. Lapablo (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This currently-operating Irish company does not appear to be the company whose takeover was reported in the sole reference. Nothing in the article text makes a case for notability. Their website mentions a 2008 ICAD award [1], but that does not appear innately notable. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2019 (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.