Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunks in Trunks

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. Sandstein 09:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hunks in Trunks

[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)

This article's title indicates that it is about a company, not an event. However the references relate to one event, which itself is not considered to be worthy of a Wikipedia article, per WP:NOTNEWS.

The company, Hunks in Trunks, is only mentioned briefly in the references. There's nothing there to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH requirement. None of the references are about the company, or cover it to any depth. It could have been any other such company that the care home called up. It just happened to be this one.

This is a thinly-veiled attempt to use Wikipedia for publicity, contrary to WP:NOTPROMOTION.

Much the same content has been added to Naked_butler#News.

The author has also added citations at Personal chef that are news articles mentioning Hunks in Trunks' parent company, Dineindulge. I take that as clear indication of promotion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Curb Safe Charmer I think your above comment states well reasons for deletion and agree with your nomination. Particularly agree to WP:CORPDEPTH.

Remain User:Gofitty I feel that this opinion is based upon the user who created it rather than the subject itself. For example, you mention the Personal chef page as evidence for this being removed. It's irrelevant to this article and shows you're driven by action against the user rather than then the relevance of the article itself. I noticed rather than simply removing the name of the company from the Personal chef article you removed a whole paragraph of huge importance to the article. This industry is exploding but that is not of interest to you you're simply interested in muting individuals on wikipedia who you don't agree with.

"It could have been any other such company that the care home called up. It just happened to be this one." this comment is bizarre and illogical argument as you could use this about absolutely any company individual ever to be listed on wikipedia. Any actor in any major film could have been an another actor but they weren't. The article mentioned in the Naked chef page, which you have no issue with because they weren't the user you're going after, was shared over 5,000,000 times across social media and there were over 100 articles written about it. It was one of the biggest viral news stories in October. How is this not relevant for a mention on wikipedia?

The company name in mention gets more searches a year across search engines than the term 'Naked butler' yet that has a page based on references that were almost exclusively about the company in this article. It's illogical to argue for the removal of the page that was the catalyst for the creation of another.

Coverage across 94 news site seems to meet the requirements set out here WP:AUD.

I think the work you're doing on here needs reviewing as you don't seemed to be educated on any subjects just driven by muting users who you don't agree with.

The subject requiring education here is WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH which is what you will need to show in order to have the article spared from deletion. You would make better use of your time arguing how the page meets these standards instead of focusing on other users.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. The term "hunks in trunks" does receive a ton of coverage, but it is also a general term and many of the references are NOT about the company. The "term" could be mentioned in Naked butler as a same or similar term, but not the company. As far as the recent press, WP:NOTNEWS would apply as there is no WP:EFFECT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure of the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2018 (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.