Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LockerDome

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LockerDome (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)

Promotional, no sign of notability other than local coverage Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't have to be promotional. LockerDome is apparently a purveyor of fake news. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-madden-death-hoax/, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/roethlisberger-loses-multiple-fingers/, https://www.inquisitr.com/4355457/steelers-qb-ben-roethlisbergers-fingers-make-fake-news-blown-off-by-fireworks/. Not sure if there's sufficient coverage of such incidents to warrant inclusion in an article. There isn't much else. Coverage in Forbes.com and Marketwatch looks biased. Vexations (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt catch that. Well if it is notable fake news site then it is good enough for wikipedia ;-) What I saw at marketwatch I recall looked like a press release. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed page. Mattg82 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and NCORP. All coverage is routine (i.e. capital raising), and none is recent. In fact, it all looks like a PR push from 2013/14 when it was trying to grow. PK650 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's been one source added that discusses a new building this company opened, but that doesn't really make it noteworthy. I'm struggling to find any significant coverage here. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^Talk? 02:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^Talk? 02:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^Talk? 02:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The majority of coverage seems to fall under that of "trivial" according to WP:NCORP. Coverage is mostly of standard notices such as raising capital or hiring. Specifically, this company does not seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH as coverage of this organization does not seem significant or detailed enough to write more than a few sentences about it. Most coverage seems focused on capital/hiring and does not go into substantial detail of what the company actually does. Editor10293813 (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Aside from announcement coverage of company funding and premises, both of which fall under the "trivial coverage" classification at WP:NCORP and merely indicate a company going about its business, I am not seeing the WP:RS coverage required to establish notability here. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 19 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.