Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meridian_Gaming References

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. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Meridian Gaming

[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)

Previously deleted and salted as Meridian Gaming Ltd/ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meridian Gaming Ltd * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, Internet, Malta, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not entering an opinion yet since I've not fully reviewed the sources, the sheer volume prevents me from doing so in a timely manner (I'll do it later, promise!... If I get the time anyway), but Backij, I see you've left comments on the old AfD and the article talk page ( Talk:Meridian Gaming), asking about the reason it has been nominated (this is the best place for that, so please leave your future comments here!).

Extended commentary on WP:ORGCRIT and why an article might need to be deleted

In most cases, the reason an article would be deleted because the sources used don't meet one of the four criteria: An article about a company must generally be supported by coverage that is significant, which is defined here as something that addresses the topic of the article directly and in-detail, also excluding coverage that is trivial which includes (but is not limited to) " routine coverage", such as that in the vijesti.me article that is currently ref 2. All of the significant coverage that is used to support the existence of the article (you can add other sources later for specific facts if necessary) must also be independent in two different ways: they must not be controlled by the article subject (functional independence, ref 1) and they must not be content taken from the article subject (intellectual independence, refs 2-5 etc).

This independence is especially important, as the marketing professionals that write these press releases will spin the facts, emphasising certain things, de-emphasising others, and using peacock and weasel words strategically. Even if you try and write the article as neutrally as you can from those sources, you'd end up writing a brochure, and that is a reason to delete the article just by itself. The sources must also, of course, be reliable (third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.) and secondary (contains an author's analysis [...] of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources), but those are less often issues if the sources meet the first two criteria.

My best advice would be to pick your best three sources that you think meets all four of those criteria, copy them here and explain how they tick each of the boxes. If you can find three that clearly meet the criteria, usually an article will be kept. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 11:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I'm done with my search. There is a truly horrific amount of sponsored articles (ads) and press releases of them tooting their own horn ( WP:SPIP), but no amount of tooting ought to be able to buy a well-intentioned page on Wikipedia that does more of the same tooting. Please up the level of salt and delete again, the current level having proven insufficent. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 12:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist would be the logical next level. But I'm not convinced that's warranted after only three recreations years apart. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per Alpha3031's comments and per it having been salted already. Procyon117 ( talk) 08:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to the previous AFD, I do not think that this discussion is eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per above. I agree with Backij, a lot of other pages on Wikipedia on non-notable companies (and non-companies) exist, this is one of them. Traumnovelle ( talk) 00:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I still contest deletation considering how many pages wikipedia contains about irrelevant companies with poor, dead or wrong references considering non commerical style of this page, considering it summerize true facts. -- Backij ( talk) 08:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to nominate those for deletion too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - WP:ADMASQ, little to no serious third party coverage.- KH-1 ( talk) 00:03, 13 June 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.