Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T2 Design & Prototype

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. Michig (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T2 Design & Prototype

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

Tagged for speedy deletion with the tag "No in-depth coverage, no sources independent of the subject, author has made no edits at all other than this article". I felt it did not meet appropriate speedy deletion criteria but thought it should be referred to here. NW (Talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP.Tiny company (5 employees) with no outside coverage that I could find. Not even the standard self-supplied listings such as Bloomberg, not even the BBB.[1] I agree it did not meet speedy deletion criteria because it does make some claim of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Better Business Bureau listing is sufficient - [2] as well as the following sources [3] YELP [4] [[5] Final source talks about involvement with American Inventor which is now also found on the american inventor wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.38.158 (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MelanieN and as the Nominator for Speedy Deletion; that was my edit summary quoted above. There is no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, the sources used in the article are not independent, regardless of the depth of coverage; the One Stop Invention Shop has an association with T2 Design. As for the sources presented above, none of them pass muster either. Any coverage elsewhere that I could find consists of passing mentions only. It is clear to me that the article creator's intent is to promote the company. A Draft article was G11ed and s/he has written another. The article had about 15 images of products the company has been involved with, all of them copyvios added to Commons by the article creator. I removed the gallery, they were added back. I removed them again and they were all deleted from Commons. The article creator has uploaded many of them to Commons again and added them to the article again; I have removed them a third time because they are all still copyvios. YSSYguy (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP, not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have spoken to the creator of the article and she has agreed to stop uploading the pictures and find the original source files so that there will be no issues as to who they have come from. Just as a precursor, the One Stop Invention shop doesn't even have a tenuous link to T2 Design and Prototype it simply shares a similar field. The company is of note due to its work with a number of television shows listed on wikipedia which we have been in contact with and have agreed to give credit. The article has now been revised to take away all aspects of self-advertisement - please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.38.158 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page on the One Stop Invention Shop website states that there is an association with T2. YSSYguy (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(From the article author): I have made several edits to accommodate more external references that showcase T2 Design's claim of notability. We have also inserted external links to the article and no more pictures will be uploaded. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitached (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so in one book of almost 300 pages and another of more than 300 pages, T2 is mentioned on two pages of each? That does not appear to be "featured". YSSYguy (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (article author) 4 pages of direct quotation taken from T2 in one book, the book was worked on with the company and featured has been replaced with quoted to remove any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitached (talk • contribs) 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but this is all starting to sound like a desperate company PR effort. That makes it all seem more like WP:COI and WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2015 (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.