Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todito.com

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 connection to the proposed target hasn't been shown to be direct enough to justify a redirect. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Todito.com

[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)

After 15 years this article still has no references to show its notability. As it is an extinct business, I don't think that it has notability. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no sources and nothing found (though several unrelated web properties have "Todito" in their name), not even enough to support a redirect to the claimed operator Grupo Salinas. (I did find a press release which verifies this isn't a hoax but nothing more.) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Todito.com's relationship with TV Azteca (which is owned by Grupo Salinas) seems to be well-documented - e.g. some English-language publications, [1] (Ad Age) and [2] (Variety), and obviously more Spanish-language: [3] ("TV Azteca will assume control of the web portal Todito.com", El País) and [4] ("TV Azteca examines purchase of 50% of todito.com", Produ). No comment on overall notability though. Aranya (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many references in published books: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=todito.com Moreover, the subject is used as a reference in several books, like this one: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=N9Yk-gHb694C Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has found some coverage in the books. With reliable sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Will not argue against a merge or redirect (ATD and WP:FAILN) to Grupo Salinas. "Some coverage" (mainly trade field type and press releases) does not translate to notability for a stand alone article. Being defunct is not a great argument except that sourcing (presented here but not on the article) was not enough then and certainly fails "contemporary" notability standards since there is no "grandfather clause". One of the books listed above includes "The tie in with Azteca has given Todito.com an impressive promotional advantage". Notability is not inherited and Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off, GNG is not the applicable guideline - companies/organizations fall under WP:NCORP. Second, the article has no references. Somebody above points to a generic google book search The vague mentions-in-passing and "coverage in books" reasons falls well short of NCORP requirements. For example, the book mentioned above is called "Joven.com: Internet in the popular neighborhoods of Cochabamba" and says nothing about the company (the name is mentioned in a footnote, that's it). WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content" (defined in WP:ORGIND. None of the references I can find/see meet the criteria. They are either mentions-in-passing or standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - in other words, everything published all originates from within the company's echo chamber. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP, CORPDEPTH, ORGIND due to lack of significant and/or independent sourcing as demonstrated by other contributors above. Also, I don't think this qualifies as a redirect because the company no longer exists and there is nothing about it that is worth covering. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grupo Salinas: Changed my vote as I believe there's no way in expanding the article. Since it had a relationship with Grupo Salinas, it's best to cover it in the History section of the target article as a valid WP:ATD. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 6 August 2021 (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.