Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RouteNote (4th 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 no consensus‎. I hate this with the 4th discussion, but there's no indication that further input is forthcoming and there is none at the moment Star Mississippi 02:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote

RouteNote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Out of the 9 sources in the article only 4 could have the potential to count towards NCORP, and out of the 4, I am not entirely satisfied with their independence. ([1][2][3][4]). This article appeared for me while doing WP:NPP and I wasn't comfortable accepting it and with the last AfD being no consensus, I thought I'd opt for the AfD route. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Keep weakly. Would prefer a redirect to some kind of article on music distributors but I couldn't find anything appropriate. In arriving at a view to keep, I have taken into account the sources found at the third AfD, but note that no one has accessed any of these paywalled reports and one of them has gone away. However, Highking's view there is worth careful consideration. Add to that the sources in the article. The 4 mentioned by the nom. do indeed have issues, although they are debatable/marginal. Additionally RouteNote gets mentioned in a number of books. E.g.^[1][2][3] And if this were some (still) unreleased video game[5] or something then that would be way more sourcing than anyone could dream of! But this is an NCORP AfD, and the problem with the sources lies in WP:CORPDEPTH. By that measure we need Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. The books provide coverage of the service (i.e. product) but not of the company. Even then, whether we have deep coverage is very debatable. Except for the analyst reports. They may well have exactly what is needed to write the article... but no one knows! On a strict reading of NCORP, we are not there. By any other measure, this is notable. I don't think deletion is a net positive for the encyclopaedia, so unless someone knows of where it could be redirected/merged, I think this one should be (reluctantly) kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2024 (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.