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 redirect to Firdaus Kharas. Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Moose Media (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)

Article about a media production company, with some advertorial undertones and not properly sourced as clearing WP:CORP. Five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that cannot support notability, such as the company's own self-published content about itself and press releases from directly affiliated people or organizations, while the other three are a blog entry, a Q&A interview in which the company founder is talking about himself rather than having his work written about in the third person by somebody else, and an article which doesn't actually mention this company at all but simply verifies the founder's existence in a tangential context. Which means that exactly none of the sources here actually constitute support for this company's notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- As nom notes, there are RS. First of all, the interviews in the Atlantic and the New Yorker support notability per WP:INTERVIEW. It's a common misconception at AfD that interviews aren't RS for notability, but they are, just not for facts stated by the subject. Furthermore, there's this award nomination from the Guardian, all of which add up to a GNG pass. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:INTERVIEW is clear: If it comes straight from the horse's mouth, it's a primary source; Q&As, like the ones described here, are in fact primary sources since they do not offer substantial secondary commentary. The Guardian piece mentions the subject once, hardly substantial coverage. There are blogs and self-published sources but those, like the interviews and The Guardian blurb, do not help pass WP:GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typical misreading of notability guidelines. WP:INTERVIEW is clear. Interviews are RS for establishing notability: "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was misread at all, actually. I agree that the interviewer is independent. But if all he/she is offering is a brief intro and questions, like in these Q&As, he/she isn't offering any content, the interviewee is.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in INTERVIEW is "clear" that interviews are RS for establishing notability, especially if the interview is the only substantive source that can be provided at all. The problem with Q&A interviews is that if a person is talking about himself, then it's subject to the same problem as any other self-published source (i.e. people can and do make self-aggrandizing claims in interviews, or try to whitewash controversies by presenting a distorted version of the story instead of the truth...yes, Donald Trump, I'm looking at you), and if he's talking about something else then he fails to be the subject of the source at all. Interviews of this type can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by better sources — for example, an interview in which a writer clearly refers to herself as lesbian can be used as sourcing to support adding the fact that she's out as lesbian to the article, and an interview in which a musician reveals that the reason he dances so oddly in his videos is because he only has three toes on each foot can be used to support adding the fact that he has ectrodactyly of the feet to his article — but an interview can't bring a GNG pass all by itself as an article's only non-primary source. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Firdaus Kharas#Media where a subhead could be created. Slources in additoin to those mentioned above and on the page include: Globe and Mail: Animated series brings Africa to other cultures Nixon, Geoff. 23 June 2007; Toronto Star: Cartoon condoms battle AIDS; Canadian tackles the pandemic with animated humour Twenty public service announcements to be aired worldwide, Stephens, Libby, 23 July 2004; and more similar over several years, but despite extensive coverage of the company's productins, I found no INDEPTH coverage of the for-profit media company founded and run by Kharas.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but it would need further work to make it less promotional, which shouldn't be too hard to do. EMsmile (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am voting for it and also added some references to the article. The company is definitely notable, I also like that they are doing a lot of non-profit projects. If this discussion gets too many "Delete" votes, change my vote for setting Redirect to Firdaus Kharas and moving the content of the article there. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Firdaus Kharas: not independently notable; promo 'cruft. Does not meet WP:NCORP and fails WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The two keeps right above are bare assertions, unsupported by the sources. The New Yorker doesn't even mention chocolate moose media, the other interview is a one line mention and is just the founder talking about themselves and so on. The productions have some coverage but nothing substantial about Chocolate Moose media for a separate article. (incidently, the Firdaus Kharas article is also reasonable awful, with this the version before Vinlev the creator of this article too worked on it..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:57, 7 May 2018 (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.