Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makeship (2nd nomination)

Makeship

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'll rip this bandaid off since this is off the main page. With all due respect to Baby Globe, I think this page in it's current state is very much borderline and imo does not meet WP:NCORP in it's current form.

Most of the references provided do not pass muster of the high bar of third-party, significant coverage. To give examples, the KSLTV, the Shacknews, the Creative Bloq, VICE and The Guardain Nigeria News only mention the company in passing after talking at length about the occassion/backstory of the collaborator for whom the plushie is being made. These should not be considered significant coverage of the company. Similaly, InnovateON.ca article appears to be a poster boy of WP:CHURNALISM, and the Techcouver article is a interview.

For what it's worth, I could be convinced that The Toy Book and Vancouver is Awesome are reliable third-party coverage, however, you could also make a argument that the The Toy Book article is a dressed up press release about another product launch (something that is explicitly discouraged by WP:ORGTRIV). I'm also not sure how independent/reliable Vancouver is Awesome is as a source.

These concerns alongside the parallel discussion on the talk page about the page's notability has led me to nominate this page for deletion. Sohom (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Sohom (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was rudely interrupted while working on User:Polygnotus/Scripts/SourceTable, and I should probably post a full source review here, but long story short Sohom is correct that the company is non-notable and a quick Google search will confirm that. It doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:NCOMPANY. Some WP:CORPTRIV and some product reviews. Polygnotus (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Canada. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 02:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the sources included in the article, I was able to find the following with a quick Google search: [1]/[2] (two different sources reporting on Makeship receiving an industry award for new businesses), [3]/[4]/[5] (same article on the company syndicated in three local BC newspapers), [6], [7]/[8] (two other articles discussing Makeship and other local businesses from Techcouver), [9] (mention in a book on the indie game industry). One of the founders was also included in Forbes' 2023 30 under 30 for his co-founding of Makeship. I would urge those participating in this discussion to keep in mind that notability is determined by the existence of sources on a topic, not by the current state of the article and its references. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing anything that meets the strict standards of NCORP. Vancouver is Awesome just regurgitates what the founder and a paid influencer have to say about the company, along with this source. The Toy Book is just reporting a company announcement. The Vancouver Tech Journal article [10] is paywalled, but unless someone is able to access it, I presume per WP:TRADES that it is unlikely to count as independent coverage. Even if it is independent, it would still only be a single source. Other sources are clearly WP:CORPTRIV or non-independent. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per Helpful Raccoon. Sources are mostly trade journals, reporting what amounts to press releases or making passing comments. The company might be on the verge of notability, but it is not currently notable enough for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocanegris (talk • contribs)