Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McNeill Designs

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 of the debate was delete (4 delete votes to 1 keep). moink 20:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McNeill Designs

Advertisement for non-notable game company whose main product also does not appear to be notable enough (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You've Been Sentenced!), fails WP:CORP. A combined Google search finds 39 hits. Delete. Kusma (討論) 15:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Ezeu 16:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:CORP Criteria for companies and corporations A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. 2

This company has been covered in numerous Newspaper, TV, and Radio stories and reports. Several of these articles are on-line.

Your assessment of "non-notable" is incorrect. *Keep Springheeledjack 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Explain your reasoning. See http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060126/CROSSROADS/601260317/1006/NEWS for sample media coverage. Springheeledjack 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Look at some of the other businesses and such on Wikipedia, then compare yours. Whether you intended to or not, yours clearly sounds like advertising (for example, we have no proof that you are not attached to the company - though that's not necessarily critera, either). Also, how many of these media reports aren't locally-covered articles essentially saying "local boy does good"? Admittedly, the criteria on WP:CORP may need to be reexamined so that such is made clearer, but as it stands right now, the article looks no different than the hundreds of "articles" submitted daily whose whole purpose is free advertising.--み使い Mitsukai 20:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Then kindly make some constructive suggestions how to "fix" it, instead of continually trashing it. Or re-write it yourself if it is so completely unacceptable. This is the first time I've written an entry, so cut me some slack here. Springheeledjack 20:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I should have said that in the nomination: If the articles end up being merged and only one is kept, I would suggest to keep the article on the game because that is more likely to be written about than the company. The article quoted above is more about the game than the company. Also, I must say I would prefer the guidelines at WP:CORP to be made clearer. Most new restaurants are likely to get an article in a local newspaper, yet that does not make them suitable for inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Kusma (討論) 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Edited for a more NPOV. Should now be within current rules for acceptability. Springheeledjack 22:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• delete NN corp, TV claim vague, oter claims to notability via crystal ball Pete.Hurd 00:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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.