Talk:Aniboom

This page was proposed for deletion by David Gerard (talk · contribs) on 14 August 2016 with the comment:
Promotional-style article with lack of third-party references since creation in 2008, tagged since 2015
It was contested by Jpcase (talk · contribs) on 08-16-2016 with the comment:
A Google News search reveals numerous third-party sources for this topic. I've added a very small selection of them to the External Links section, including one from the New York Times.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AniBOOM → Aniboom – Common name. Even their press releases say Aniboom [1]. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:CAPS AND WP:MOSTM also play a role. The fact that even the company itself does not use AniBOOM appears to make this case a slam dunk.--174.93.164.83 (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Created CSD#G7 to have admin perform this move. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

PROD

The article needs a dramatic rewrite. I worked on it in 2008. Not even entirely sure the company is really still around. The home page redirects to a YouTube channel, and there is no recent news (less than a year old) from the company. Maybe it needs an Aniboom was article. I'll try to find the time to make some fixes and do some research, and I'd love some help, but if we can't fix it, then I support the PROD. If we can fix it, then let's let it remain when fixed. --FeldBum (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jpcase restored it and added a pile of claimed sources to the bottom. The NYT and one of the TechCrunch were the only ones that seemed to be third-party editorially-checked content, as opposed to passing mentions (one listed article literally only mentioned that its subject had worked at Aniboom, and that was the entire relevance) or reprinting company-sourced claims apparently unchecked - and I removed the three-quarters of the article that still didn't have a source. Hopefully Jpcase can add substantive material to the article from RSes that aren't passing mentions, and make it into something worth keeping - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]