Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StudioSpace

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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StudioSpace

[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)

Coverage is routine and lacking significant independent reporting (mostly interviews). It does not meet

WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just trying to understand notability a bit more. Could I ask, would this be an example of independent reporting? https://www.adnews.com.au/news/online-marketplace-studiospace-arrives-in-australia

AdNews is published by Yaffa Media, one of Australia's largest independent media companies.

The article above does mention demonstrable effects on the economic landscape of agencies as a result of beta testing across the UK and Australia. AUJTwikieditor (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't too bad, but it is somewhat

trade publication i believe. She was ^afairy 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Coverage is generally not
WP:ORGIND of StudioSpace, coming in the form of interviews and reprints of press releases. Regarding the AdNews source, given its promotional content, and comparing to [1], it's almost certainly a reprint of a press release. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Technology, Internet, United Kingdom, England, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: i accepted this because i thought it would have a 50%+ chance at AfD, but i personally thought it was very borderline and full of routine coverage. the sourcing is not that bad though with some relevant sources, but the interviews and press release content make it not just yet ready. She was ^afairy 13:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines, given the routine coverage aas well as sources that are not independent. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Shewasafairy. Sal2100 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2024 (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.