Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widdershins, LLC

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Widdershins, LLC

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Coverage appears to be mostly about the events the company arranges, not the company itself. There's some WP:1EVENT controversy about the company's ex-founder, not much else. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Events noted on this page have relevance to a fairly large pool of people. If a company page is not appropriate, can it be migrated to something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.114.12 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CORP for notability guidelines. That's all that matters here for companies. The company founder isn't notable for a single event, and that single event itself could have an article if it had significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the event. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage? I can't see any – 0 hits on GNews. The article has been reduced to a few lines, but if anything that's an improvement. "Jeff Mach Events" seems to get a few mentions, but nowhere near enough to demonstrate notability – there was a passing one in the Edison Metuchen Sentinel ref that's been removed. Current references are Facebook and a blog. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is surprising, given the discussions on the article Talk page, that it did not arrive at AfD before this. It appears to be a run-of-the-mill events business; I am seeing nothing to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability, nor is that inherited from recent social media posts concerning a person associated with the company. AllyD (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable company. The founder's alleged sexual harassment may or may not be notable, but would have to be sourced according to WP:BLP and pass WP:BLP1E for that to be included. It doesn't look like it will be. So 2 reasons to delete now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I'm a bit confused, because I thought the article was already deleted. That being said, this AFD and the responses are a bit misguided. The article was originally one specifically about notable event(s). At some point someone thought it should be renamed for the company, which is silly, because the article was about notable events, not a non-notable company that happened to run them. You can read more in the discussion here: Talk:Widdershins,_LLC#Notability_&_Advertisment_flags Centerone (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Centerone: The article had been deleted via WP:PROD, which is restorable by request. That is why it is now here. All of the contribution history is available for anyone to look at. The article is unarguably about the company, and it is arguable whether the events associated with the company are notable at all. Combining them into one article does not create notability, as was pointed out to you on the talk page. Feel free to write a stand-alone article about any of the events listed, or propose how this article can be kept. As it stands, I found it unacceptable for main article space, so I proposed it for deletion here. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I DID work on a stand-alone article. Someone else made the page about the event about the company, which it is and was arguably and quite clearly not actually about. If you actually read the talk page in depth, and the history, you would have seen a discussion on this very thing. Yes, at least several of the events, including Wicked Faire, and SPWF, amongst others, are easily and quite clearly notable. People have played games with the content. If you'll notice, I'm not actually arguing for an article about the company to be kept, I'm just trying to point out some of the article history so that people can understand the context. Centerone (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Centerone: Would you please point out which revision in the article history represents your stand-alone article that you believe should be kept? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no credible claim of notability and no sourcing in the article or found in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the company is not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2018 (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.