Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Group (retailer)

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. ✗plicit 14:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Group (retailer)

[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)

Article about a company that does not meet our

WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. Sources are basically company listing websites and blogs. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draft-ify. Recently created article about a company which is promotional and does not demonstrate that
Walt Yoder (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Draft. I'd agree with

Walt Yoder here that this could be better off moved to draftspace for a while. There're some sources listed and perhaps there are more out there that could improve this article. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 20:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Thanks for your feedback everyone. I have made plenty of changes to the original page. I have included more sources from reputable sites and have taken out any language which makes the page sound promotional. 11:56, 5 June 2023 (BST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07davisa (talk • contribs)
Delete - There is only one reference that would meet
WP:BEFORE and was unable to locate anything of use. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Ran through the sources in the article and not seeing a single one providing significant, independent, indepth coverage sufficient to pass the
WP:NCORP, as most are not independent of the company. The Press article includes a lot of content in quotation marks explaining products' USPs presumably from the company itself, so is not independent and basically promotional. Can't see the Financial Times source as paywalled. Rupples (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm going to assume the Financial Times source does provide significant, indepth coverage of the business and therefore counts towards notability. However, further such sources are needed to satisfy the "multiple" requirement of ORGCRIT. Rupples (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails
WP:NCORP. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2023 (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.