Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomf

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Boomf}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Boomf}})

The fact that 6 out of 7 references here mention the Middleton name in their headline suggest that this business was only covered by the press because it was founded by the now Princess of Wales' brother. WP:INHERITORG states that an organization is not notable merely because a notable person was associated with it. The company went into administration in 2021, see [https://uk.style.yahoo.com/james-middleton-not-concerned-investigation-110000371.html here] and here[expired token, link not available]. I don't think the company would be considered noteworthy on its own merits without the named associations. The creator of the article also appears to be a SPA, who exclusively wrote about, perhaps for promotional reasons, Boomf. Uhooep (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment It would be against consensus to argue that Boomf is notable because it is associated with James Middleton. At the same time it is against consensus to argue that a topic with significant independent coverage is not notable because it is associated with James Middleton. We should consider the coverage that exists, not speculate about why it exists. Gab4gab (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to James Middleton. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded. Looking at the references, all of the information has been provided by the company and/or a company exec (e.g Middleton) and there is no "Independent Content" - i.e. "original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc" *about the company*. There's a review of the product but that doesn't provide sufficient in-depth information about the *company*. I'm unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability so a Merge is the best option. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge and/or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

:Unsuitable for its own article as per nomination. Links to James Middleton seem to be a good reason to merge with a redirect to his article. Karnataka (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.