Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octopie

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. Sandstein 08:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Octopie

[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)

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Available coverage is either routine, trivial, or not independent of the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also note WP:PROMO per the tone of the article, with sentences like "Octopie started in 2016 when Micah Brooke, Lon Strickland and Isaac Krauss decided they wanted to create a new kind of animation company that focused on independent creators, developing IP, and cultivating fandom." The rest of the article is more of that. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 16:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tone of composition is not a valid reason for deletion as that can be fixed if the entity is otherwise notable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage, just brief mentions. S0091 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the only citation, at this time, that would count toward 'significant coverage' would be the Starace 2017 piece in International Opulence Magazine.--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that publication can be considered reliable, it doesn't appear to publish a masthead or any other editorial information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that I got the publisher from a masthead, so I went looking for it again ... If you go to http://www.internationalopulence.com/current-past-issues/, and leaf through one of the magazines, such as Spring 2018, you'll find a masthead on the last page of or that following the table of contents. Now, thinking on reliable sources, I'd venture that some of the unreliable listings at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources likely sport mastheads, but that's a guess. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're veering off topic, but I think it's more that failure to publish a masthead is a strong indicator of unreliability, rather than the presence of a masthead being a safeguard against it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of the article and am a HUGE fan of Octopie. I have since made modifications to the page in hopes to prevent the deletion of it. --DaJerm (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DaJerm, while I appreciate you cleaning up the article a bit, you don't appear to have added any examples of significant coverage in an independent source, which is really the crux of the issue here (i.e. articles with one or more paragraphs of coverage devoted to the history and workings of Octopie, rather than just brief mentions crediting them). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I will fix that shortly and update this page when I do. Much appreciated. DaJerm (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill Thank you for the feedback. I have since removed content that can not be properly cited and fixed a few citations. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the article and hopefully we can now remove it from "recommended for deletion" DaJerm (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the citations that you've added are not examples of significant coverage in secondary sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:50, 7 February 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.