Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Littlstar

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Littlstar

Littlstar (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 company does not meet notability guidelines. References are press releases, articles about other topics that mention Littlstar in passing, and routine coverage in niche publications - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The creator of the article is a single-purpose account with an apparent connection to the company and the main contributor declared himself to be ""Founder/CEO Littlstar", so there is an apparent WP:COI/WP:PAID issue here as well. Peacock (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant sources in this article, and it includes relevant information on the formation on the industry, challenges, and of a company that has had material global impact on Virtual Reality. In no way is it meant to be an advertisement. There are plenty of other places to do that, and there are countless companies on Wikipedia that the structure of this article follows. This is a matter of record, and just because someone close to the subject matter is commenting and editing, doesn't mean that a conflict of interest comes into play. Can you please explain what a more neutral point of view would look like? This seems like a slight abuse of admin power because someone is actually contributing information and ensuring completeness.Tony.mugavero (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, this bylined news piece in Variety by Janko Roettgers, its Senior Silicon Valley Correspondent, is a bona fide reliable source. There are clearly serious COI issues though. Mugavero does not seem to have the slightest concern about it, other than to accuse others of "abuse of power." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the nod on the sources, of which many more were added (including 4 by Janko as noted above). 24+ of them, which include not only bona fide sources globally, but SEC filing and trademarks. Genuinely curious on how we make this information that fits the guidelines, as we spend quite a bit of time/energy speaking on, informing, and transferring knowledge in the VR industry. It seems like a simple history of the company, which of course people at Littlstar know the most. While we're certainly close to the subject matter, if you look at the linked articles, there is no question that Littlstar powers a material part of the virtual reality industry globally and in this case at least 24 other places across 3 years have been verifying notability.Tony.mugavero (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I think you should be blocked from editing Wikipedia, based on your conduct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. It's unwarranted however. Genuinely want to understand how to add to the record, and I'm in the process of updating numerous places related to VR and not related to Littlstar. Is this how you guys treat editors? Tony.mugavero (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to point out some reference sources that were used to model the article after. Namely Vimeo, Nat_Geo_Wild, and Esquire_Network, but there are obviously many more that are similar. These examples are very similar in style and include fewer or similar numbers of references. Genuinely want to get good information out there and honor the Wikipedia guidelines, so if there is a good way to help alleviate the COI issue (beyond 32 references), we'll do what needs to be done. Any suggestions?

• There is a common way of dealing with this kind of COI at Wikipedia. You should restrict yourself to proposing edits on the Talk page of the article and not edit the article at all. If the article survives this discussion, you risk being blocked if you continue to edit the article directly in the manner you have to date.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok this makes sense, and I'll start doing that. I also added the Paid Template to my user page. Thank you for the clarification, and going forward, I'll suggest edits via the talk page.

• Delete Fails GNG. I could do a breakdown of why each source fails either WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND if required, but the references fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per HighKing's point about CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article content is entirely promotional, ending with:

• Littlstar has recently expanded into Asia with the launch of Littlstar Japan with Sony Music Entertainment (Japan) and Littlstar Korea with CJ Powercast! [33]

Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or a replacement for a company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2017 (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.