Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mophie (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 delete. The one "keep" opinion is clearly at odds with community practice: The notability guidelines are routinely applied to old articles. Sandstein 15:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mophie

[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)

Delete Despite 44 references in the article itself, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. The articles either discuss/review the products and not the company (fails CORPDEPTH) or are based on announcements/PR/quotations/interviews with company sources (fails ORGIND). Overall, fails GNG and

HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep The notability guidelines have been changed since the article's creation. I would not consider new guidelines on this to apply to articles created before that date. Daylen (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant advertisement and obvious subject of heavy promotional editing, likely UPE. See here. If somebody wants to create an actual encyclopedia article on this company they can. This should be nuked. yes NCORP applies to everything. There is no "grandfathering". Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, someone did create an actual encyclopedia article on it - that person being me - however, the issue here is that it has been turned into a promotion-fest since that time. It's sad when a company is notable enough that someone decides to write about it, then editors with a likely COI come along and ruin it. I am kind of conflicted here as the company is notable (just three but there are many more). The problem I see is that the current version could likely be speedied based on
WP:NOT. With that being said, they (anyone adding the promotional tone) made their own bed and I'll abstain from voting and leave it up to the rest of the community to decide the article's fate. I won't be heartbroken if deleted. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes I noticed that this happened. I am sorry that your work was perverted. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, but it does make me wonder sometimes if I should even concentrate on company articles anymore. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:56, 25 September 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.