Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jokers' Masquerade (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 keep. (non-admin closure) N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jokers' Masquerade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Completing nomination for an IP editor, whose rationale is below (as posted at the article's talk page). I make no comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated in 2014 for deletion without a substantial edit history.

• Creator of the page User:Ivondudley has a promotional link to this company in their bio suggesting affiliation.
• All sources in the Awards section (which would make them notable) require citation
• Previous deletion request for not being notable
• Citations reference company / Facebook page of the company which are not ["reliable sources unrelated to the organisation or product"]
• Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:7004:af00:f12b:3014:9e23:aaea (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak Keep The sources for the article are quite shoddy now (2 primary, other 2 are for a unimpressive world record), but a search revealed that this company has continually caused controversy in Britain over the last few years, such as when they sold an Oscar Pistorius costume (complete with toy gun!), a psych ward costume that was condemned as rienforcing stereotypes, and were forced to surrender one of their star wars domain names to disney. I couldn't find anything supporting the unimpressive hitwise awards and will remove their mention, along with the primary sources, but I think this just barely passes WP:GNG. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 02:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources found by Money Emoji are independent of the subject, and enough to make the article meet WP:ORGCRIT. The information about the awards should be removed unless it can be verified. Not a very active user (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by Money Emoji. -- Toughpigs (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2020 (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.