Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HornBlasters (3rd 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. ✗plicit 14:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HornBlasters

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Non-notable private company (if clever at marketing); fails WP:NCORP with insufficient WP:SIGCOV. We have a single example (in the Tampa Bay Times). The rest of the coverage is niche WP:TRADES magazines that don't contribute to notability ([1], [2], [3]) and a thinly disguised press release (original here). A WP:BEFORE search turns up more of the same, along with a bit of thin churnalism (example) about the company's viral marketing stunts that focuses more on the effects of the stunts than on the company itself. Given that this is the third deletion discussion for this page, if the outcome is "delete" I'd ask participants to consider supporting SALTing so future attempts go through AfC and don't waste the community's time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: The article fails WP:NCORP as it does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are necessary to establish notability. The majority of the references are either niche trade magazines, promotional press releases, or articles focusing on marketing stunts rather than the company itself. The only potentially notable source (Tampa Bay Times) offers insufficient depth or detail to support notability. Given that this is the third deletion discussion, a consensus to delete with a recommendation to SALT the page is appropriate to prevent further recreation without substantive improvements.--Abhey City (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jfire (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company and GNG/WP:NCORP requires in-depth independent content *about* the *company* that is more that merely regurgitating quotes and interviews or press releases or other information provided by the company. Given this is the third iteration of this topic, I'm of the opinion that serious consideration should be given to SALT the topic. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or soapboxing. While generic "coverage" exists, none of the references in the article contain in-depth independent content and I'm unable to locate anything that meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: A new editing account's article about a company going about its business, sourced to brief announcement and interview based media items. I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability and overturn the consensus across the previous 2 AFD deletions. Any return of a future article to mainspace should be only after an accepted AFC. AllyD (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2025 (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.