Huupe: Appears PROMO.  Sourcing used in the article appears in non-RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Basketball , Technology , California , Massachusetts ,  and Wisconsin .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b the articles below list helpful information to users about the product.  This is not a promotion as this just lists information about the company, how it was founded, and how this will enhance the sport that people cherish.  This should not merit a deletion.There are other articles as sources that can be added that prove and list this as well.  Kompyoub ( talk ) 08:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b I agree with @ Kompyoub where the article does have reliable sources that show history and information on the product.  This is not anything to do with anything promotional.  I am happy to help answer anything but this article should stay.  Nrochluz ( talk ) 12:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not casting a formal ! vote since I've taken admin actions against sockpuppetry here, but I do want to note that my assertion in the edit history of the page that SBJ had decent coverage was an error: said article states that it is "sponsored content" at the bottom of the page.  signed, Rosguill talk 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I figured something was up.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with all of this, delete Cmarsch ☮︎ ( talk ) ( contribs ) 03:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, re Rosguill, if you're referring to the bit in the sitemap (where it says Sponsored Content / All Sponsored Content across two lines) that seems to be a link to all their sponsored pieces.  Those all have a marking at the top from what I can see, and I can't see anywhere else with the word Sponsored.  On the other hand, there seems to be very little secondary analysis from the reporter themselves in the article that I could see, and analysing under TRADES, I am inclined to classify it as failing ORGCRIT.  Also, it's a bit of a moot point, since I can't find another source that might meeet ORGCRIT.  Overall, my assessment is that it is very likely that it is too soon for this company to meet NCORP, so I would also have to go with delete .  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 08:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] re Rosguill, if you're referring to the bit in the sitemap (where it says Sponsored Content / All Sponsored Content across two lines) No, that appears to be further down the page.  On my computer, below the last line of the article, there's a navigation bar to two other articles, followed by red text on a line on its own reading SPONSORED CONTENT , which is then a link to this page explaining their native advertisements signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no or few reliable sources for this product or brand.  Bearian ( talk ) 16:39, 3 June 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.

Discussion outcome: delete