Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MATTE Projects (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. Star Mississippi 03:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MATTE Projects

[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)

Might have qualified as WP:G11 but am bringing here for discussion instead. Non-notable production company, likely WP:UPE. A loose necktie (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The citation from the New York Times doesn't even mention the subject. Vexations (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable because [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRShami (talk • contribs) 11:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes contributors are generally not independent, reliable sources. See WP:FORBESCON Vexations (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We require multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and containing "Independent Content". As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company or execs - articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. References that focus on one of their products/events with no in-depth info on the company fails CORPDEPTH, etc.
- This Forbes article and this are by "contributors" and are not regarded as reliable sources - see WP:FORBESCON.
- Harpers Bazaar article is based entirely off an interview, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- Billboard article also based entirely off an interview, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- Coveteur article based entirely off interviews and info provided by the company, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This Observer reference is focused on the BLACK event and is based on interview/quotes from the execs, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This Vogue reference is a mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH
- This from Paper is based entirely off interviews, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND

These were the references mentioned by HRShami above, there were some others in the article as follows:

This from HypeBae appears to have been info provided by the company - for example, here's the same text on a different website attributed to a different journalist, questionable as a reliable source and fails CORPDEPTH anyway and probably is not "Independent Content"
This in VMAN is an article with info provided by an exec, fails ORGIND, and focussed on an event/festival with nothing in-depth about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This in Vice is pumping an upcoming event organized by the company, no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This NYT article doesn't mention the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
This on the Marriott Hotels website is a description of a marketing campaign involving the topic company, since Marriott are customers this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND, also no in-depth information on the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
This in the Chicago Tribune is a mere mention-in-passing with no in-depth information on the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
This is an ad for an upcoming event with no in-depth information on the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
This announcement in Fashion Network is totally based on info provided by the company, fails ORGIND
This in White Wall is a mention-in-passing with no in-depth information on the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, most refs aren't event *about* the company and nearly all are marketing or reviews of events. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The best source listed above is the Fashion network coverage [[9]]. I don't have a problem with sources based on interviews, since that implies the media took an interest in them, implying some notability. Nonetheless, I also looked for more sources about the company, and not just stories about the events they held, and found this funding news [[10]]. It's a small amount, and doesn't seem to be enough. WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:05, 26 August 2022 (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.