Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folded Wing (2nd nomination)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folded Wing

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

Completely unsourced article about a media company, originally created by that company themselves (a WP:COI violation); the more neutral version is still getting overwritten (most recently by User:PeteFoldedWing just a few days ago) with an attempt at pushing it back into advertorial territory. While there are claims here that could get the company past WP:CORP if they were properly sourced, and thus I'm willing to withdraw this if the referencing can be properly spruced up, it's not entitled to keep an unsourced version. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (whisper) @ 20:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has got to be a delete. The WP:COI is blatant. There are no references. There is no evidence of the awards listed, since those are not sourced. WP:V. LaMona (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shame, really. It seems everything on this page should be pretty easy to source, and if it's all true (as the article stands today), then it's probably notable too. But of course it can't stand without sourcing. This really seems to merit an article, but not like this - not without sourcing, and not with someone with a single-purpose account and a COI waiting to make an ad out of it again. Dcs002 (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the COI is not a problem here since it's not against the rules as such to edit on a topic where you have a COI, as long as it is declared (which it is). However, I'm not seeing how they meet WP:CORP, a handful of minor awards of the sort that I'd expect any long lasting business in the industry to have. They appear to be successful as a firm, but 'successful' is not the same as 'notable' as far as Wikipedia goes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:03, 31 August 2014 (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.