Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CraveOnline (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 keep. Since nobody has challenged *Treker's sources in over week, the "ayes" have it Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CraveOnline

[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)

Non-notable website; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:WEB / WP:GNG. The references provided, which are mostly archived (including those brought up in AFD 8 years ago), present mere mentions of CraveOnline, not the significant coverage needed to merit a standalone article. Moreover, the site's rebrands "Mandatory" and "Evolve" also lack significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Mandatory (company): It has received some coverage under its former name, notably [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. With these reliable sources, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seem blatantly notable based on sources above.★Trekker (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few "articles" that are glorified press releases about a name change and one by "PAIDCONTENT.ORG" doesn't qualify them as notable. So, unless can provide some actual in-depth secondary reliable coverage that's not by guest paid content writers I'm going with delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Superastig and User:*Treker, I would take a closer look at the sources Superastig has provided. As User:Adamant1 notes, many of those are just republished press releases. The first link (econtentmag) stems verbatim from Mandatory's own press release, and the second, fourth, and sixth links are all self-submitted press releases by CraveOnline itself (note the CraveOnline "Corporate Communications" authors at the bottom of all three), so none of those links are independent of the subject. I would also say that the CBS link (republished from PaidContent.org) – a two-paragraph news brief – does not qualify as significant coverage. While the last provided link (Digiday) does qualify as significant coverage, I'm not sure there is enough to meet notability guidelines (and it only mentions "CraveOnline" once). Feel free to take another look. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails SIGCOV and WP:WEB. Before anyone else proffers "reliable" sources, might they be examined first? Ravenswing 23:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found these sources pretty fast from a Google search. I'm sure some of these publications will be deemed unreliable but there is a lot out there about CraveOnline/Mandatory, I doubt the negative publications are press releases.★Trekker (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

09:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a couple of days now, I feel like it would be beneficial if someone would evaluate the sources I found. Like I said, I'm sure some of them could be deemed unrelibale or mostly PR but there is info about their controveries as well.★Trekker (talk) 14:29, 21 August 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.