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 keep. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Earth Teen Adventures (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)

Fails WP:ORG. Much promotional content removed, but it still remains mainly promotional. Media coverage of the company seems to be solely related to the incident covered in the "Controversy" section. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Recommendation is to keep this article as it doesn’t fit any of the criteria for deletion listed under WP:DEL-REASON, and suggestions can be made for improvement rather than deletion.WP:ORG states that Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability has been established through use of relevant, credible sources on this page (WP:DEL-REASON #8). Although media coverage deals primarily with the controversy, the sources listed are credible and are what helps to make the company notable. A search proves that other sources exist that could be added to the page in the future. (Cite examples: 1; 2; 3). Any other issues noted can be corrected through normal editing. If promotional language exists on the page (WP:DEL-REASON #4), then Template: Advert should be added to encourage users to correct the language, rather than deleting the page entirely.Tcom876 (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for taking the time to read up on policy, but I am of the opinion that the available sources - including the ones you've listed here - are not "significant" and "independent" coverage of the topic, and do not demonstrate notability per WP standards, or indicate that it is a topic of lasting encyclopedic interest. The first link gives the company a brief mention in a short opinion piece, and the other two seem to be mostly promotional/advertisements. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources listed above are not included on the page, they are examples demonstrating the company’s notability in the media. The sources that are currently included within the article are reliable and significant, and while the bulk of the material on the page describes the company’s history and services (as most organization pages of this nature do) it covers the topics with a neutral point of view. If you feel like some of the language could still be improved, Template: Advert should be added to give users the chance to do so. Tcom876 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article. I removed everything that was not sourced or that was not reflected in the sources cited. You can see each reason for removal in the history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bold_Earth_Teen_Adventures&action=history. What is left leads me to the conclusion that this organization is indeed Notable in Wikipedia's terms. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to clean up the article. But I think it could be argued that what's left qualifies for a WP:A7 speedy delete, as no notability is claimed or demonstrated. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article. In regard to WP:A7, I don't think there are any grounds for this as all claims within the article are credible. In terms of notability, I have to vote to keep. Even after removing any sort of promotional material and non-independent sources, the company still received significant coverage from other, reliable sources WP:GNG. Commonlaw99 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 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.