Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BandLab Technologies (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. JGHowes ^talk 17:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BandLab Technologies

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 23:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and thus meets the criteria of WP:GNG. The company is known for its multiple notable brands, and also has coverage itself. WP:DEL4 doesn't apply - the content isn't spam or advertising - all the information comes from independent third party sources. WP:DEL14 is also not met since by meeting WP:GNG, the subject is suitable for the encyclopedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Timtempton. This company has recieved notable coverage such the BBC, Variety, Tech in Asia, TechCrunch, and Fortune. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when does WP:GNG apply when the consensus seems to be that WP:NCORP is more applicable in these instances. And I see somebody is still pushing Techcrunch likes its gold instead of lead. scope_creep^Talk 08:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, obviously TechCrunch is not necessarily the best source in determining notabilty, however given that it is accompanied by a few other sources including the BBC,Variety, the Financial Times and other sources, I think it can be used to determine notablity. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you should start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard related to TechCrunch. Be prepared to discuss the thousands of articles that use it for sourcing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are good and it owns many notable brands.--Blurz (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references are junk. Lets quickly look at them:

* [1] "We've seen a 300% rise in monthly online sales at our South East Asia music instrument retailer, Swee Lee," he said. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS

* [2] A smiling picture of Kuok Meng Ru. Fails [[WP:SIRS]. Dependent source.

* [3] Excerpts from the interview: An interview style press-release.

* [4] Paywalled.

* [5] Same content as reference above. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as routine announcement.

* [6] “We’re not disclosing dollar amounts for the deal. This was a privately funded deal – we worked to find a fair price that both parties were happy with,” says a BandLab spokesperson Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS

* [7] To me, 225 Parsons is one of the most significant establishments in the history of modern music,” said Meng Ru Kuok, CEO and co-founder of BandLab Another fail on WP:ORGIND.

* [8] Today, it was BandLab’s turn to stir the pot, with a short announcement regarding its plans to reboot two classic guitar brands: Harmony and Teisco Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a routine announcement of partnership.

I think that is about half. There is no point of doing anymore as assuming WP:AGF they would be all the same. They fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS as well as WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14 and WP:NOTDIR. It is small private company and there is no need for it to be on Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 01:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well sourced enough Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Omniscientmoose42: Can you not read the references. That is whole point, is that it is not well sourced. You have done only 28 Afd's. I would sincerely suggest that you go an read the notability criteria, particularly WP:NCORP, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV, WP:AUD and all the rest. Hopefully that will help in future decisions. scope_creep^Talk 15:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON is unfair to the other participants and creates an unhealthy environment. I've done 647 AfDs, and voted keep also. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You voted keep because you wrote the article, I would have done the same. It is natural. The editor voted keep based on something that is not based on evidence. That is the primary difference. scope_creep^Talk 08:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Listen, there are articles on wikipedia that are a lot worse than this one that survive AfD. Admittedly, this company is probably not the most notable; however, I think the fact that you merely can't base this AfD off WP:GNG makes your argument too weak in my opinion. Your statements about a BBC source and the Fortune source do not conform to policy, could you please justify how multiple non-trivial mentions of the company would make this elgible for deletion? Moreover, you have not analyized all of the sources, including the Variety source. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @P,TO 19104: Possibly. WP:NCORP now applies to companies now per consensus. I hope your not planning on going against consensus are you? When somebody is standing in his teeshirt smiling and direct quoting, it doesn't a leap of imagination to know it is an interview style article. Fortune, while different and paywalled, is all the name. It is a routine announcement of sale, which is trivial coverage. The variety ref is also interview style article, Said CEO Jay Penske in announcing the news: “In the 12 months since PMC’s initial investment into this incredible team and legendary brand, the need to consolidate the Rolling Stone business has become abundantly clear... The whole thing is a press-release, or are you going to tell me its not, particularly since entertainment paper like variety has been savaged by Facebook and Google and are now taking the advertising dollar as heavily as everybody else, to survive. They always did. scope_creep^Talk 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A careful reading of WP:NCORP tells us that "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." We can all see that in this article, there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If NCORP is the gold standard, this should be a clear keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm going to have to say this definitely appears to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, there are literally thousands of articles which talk about this company, at varying depth levels (and of course many are press-release types). In the current sourcing, the Fortune piece and Techcrunch are solid. While I agree with Scopecreep that some articles are routine announcements, Fortune rarely participates in that type of mill article. Searching turns up other articles which go beyond the simple announcement or brief mention type, Musicweek, BBC, their purchase of Rolling Stone was also covered in-depth in The Wall Street Journal. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised. The wall street journal fails WP:ORGIND, “Our strength is local knowledge,” Meng Ru Kuok said in an interview. “Rolling Stone is pushing digital, and we’re excited to push the physical experiences around the brand.” Mr. Kuok said he views the partnership as a venture that will extend for many years. “We aren’t coming in as a traditional investor with a short-term plan,” he said. The Techcrunch references states:“I am very pleased that Chew will now be supported by the BandLab team. For the past two years I’ve been closely watching the growth and development of this great platform and community of DJs,” said Meng Ru Kuok, BandLab CEO and co-founder, in a statement. So it may be full fail of Orgind, but it certainly a dependent source. scope_creep^Talk

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.