Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy For Good (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 redirect to The company P. Content can be merged from history if desired. Bottom line is nobody here is very convinced that this is something notable. Sandstein 17:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy For Good (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is written like a advertisement for what appears to be a very obscure company. No secondary sources are cited, and the subject likely fails WP:GNG. A previous AfD ended without consensus due to a lack of participation. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No-consensus (no participation) AfD in 2010 here. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: This appears to have begun as a multimedia project involving The company P and Tim Kring and gained Banff World Media Festival awards. (I have added sources for that history into the article.) However the website indicates that it has subsequently become a vehicle for providing marketing content. Given the awards, the initial project is possibly notable, but I am less convinced that its subsequent life as a company has demonstrable notability. AllyD (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. There's an academic article about the 2010 campaign/event (DOI:10.1080/14794713.2015.1084807). But as AllyD points out, maybe it's just that specific campaign that is notable. If no-one has the energy to clean this up, maybe we could just merge a couple of sentences into the article on Kring and call it a day. Haukur (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a single one of the references provides in-depth information *on the company*. Perhaps the 2010 campaign/event meets the criteria for notability, but the company's references don't meet the criteria and therefore this topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 16 August 2020 (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.