Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REMAGINE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

REMAGINE

In my opinion this Company Article does NOT meet the standards of the WP:CORP and therefore should be deleted. Onthost 01:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil, be nice to newcomers, and, please, no personal attacks --Perfecto

  • I think that this page originally did not, follow the terms, but has since fixed the errors. I don't think this page should be removed. It no longer looks like an add. Stargate007 02:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • First off this AfD does not care if it reads like and AD or not. Secondly user Stargate007 is a possibly sockpuppet of user:Remagine. Note how they misspell "AD" as "ADD": From REMAGINE's Talk Page: "Note This article was updated to avoid conflict with it looking to much like an add. It should now correspond with wikipedias rules and regulations. Remagine 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)" and the above comment of Stargate007: "It no longer looks like an add.".Onthost 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am a developer at Remagine, certaintly not a sock puppet of user Remagine, although he is my good friend Ian. We would like to list our company history and clients here. I believe there is some informational value and we will make sure it conforms to wikipedia guidlines for corporate listings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthew.d.stone (talk • contribs).
    • Please first read the WP:CORP then explain to us how your company meets this requirement. Also sign your posts with with ~s. Onthost 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Can you provide a link to WP:CORP please? I cannot find it, sorry. matthew.d.stone
        • WP:CORP is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP Onthost 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I would like to also note that Stargate007, matthew.d.stone and Remagine are either one of the same person or work together for this Remagine comapny and therefore contain a large bias in the comments. Onthost 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Thank you, that was very helpful. I see your concerns, but I believe that Remagine meets the requirements of WP:CORP specifically because articles have been written about Remagine authored by entities other then Remagine itself. For example, the westner new england college wrote an article about the enterpreneurialship of the founders, and can be viewed here: [1]. I can also assure you that I am a completely different person then user Remagine, as you can tell by my other wikipedia entries. I'm not sure who Stargate007 is. Thank you, matthew.d.stone
              • One University Newspaper article does not fullfill the nobility requirements, sorry! You need to show more proof, as in actual articles not just naming news papers and magazines. Onthost 02:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
                • There was also an article in the Springfield Republican which is not available online, unfortunately. I believe the above is a subjective call on Onthost's part. Can anyone explain exactly how WP:CORP is not satisfied by multiple articles written about Remagine?
                  • This was not taking from a university paper. It came from the Springfield Republican, the hard copy resides at that link. As I stated in the discussion page, the site has under gone a face lift as of Friday, it will take the next 3 days to complete at the same time I figured to make a wiki entry. If you want figures, I will post all of the data. Please read the discussion page, this has been going on all day.Remagine 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
                    • First off you have shown no proof of these articles existing, and the only article you posted was from a university and was 3 pictures. You need to show that your company"has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." and as of yet you've not shown this. Onthost 03:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without any mention of revenue figures, number of employees or customers, it's difficult to assert notability. The fact that most of the links on their website don't work leads me to believe it's a rather small operation. Owen× ☎ 02:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Update on issue The problem with the links was corrected, thanks for the feedback info. Looks like some of the site updates didn't process. Kenpo0110 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, getting a university award for existing makes this company less notable in my mind. More importantly, without any independent coverage, all the details in the article are utterly unverifiable. Delete. Melchoir 03:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Save: Did I mention that the company has a trademark with the US trade mark office ( Number 78690611)? Remagine 03:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Irrelvent since anyone can apply for a trademark. Onthost 03:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • To be fair, it's not completely irrelevant; I looked the trademark up and it consists of the word "REMAGINE". So there's at least one verifiable detail in the article: its title. Not enough, but still. Melchoir 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Well yes that is true that any one can have a trademark, anyone can have alot of things. It's a live trademark. Can I ask you something, why are you so angry onthost? So I have provided trademark proof, an article used in publication and a list of operations personal. What else is needed? Remagine 03:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Sources are needed. Where, for example, did the list of personnel come from? Melchoir 03:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 04:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Bio list has been updated, I have done everything asked. Remagine 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Except provide references, that is. Melchoir 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • SaveWow, this article has really changed. Stargate007 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Oops forgot to sign rodii 05:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing about this article indicates anything notable or tangible. They can't even spell Massachusetts correctly. If they need Wikipedia so desperately to promote their company, that alone might be proof of the lack of a legitimate entity. Their "web presence," if you haven't checked it out, consists of all non-functioning links, a stock photo of the Springfield, Massachusetts City Hall, and contact information that consists of two phone numbers and a PO Box. Googling the companies in the client lists seems to indicate that most of these are Web sites they have designed for themselve or their friends. Some of them I can't find at all. Crunch 05:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Our offices do have a physical location at: 428 Belmont Ave Springfield, MA 01108.We prefer the P.O Box as a main mailing address. As for the google result, certain personal have been known to assist friends or family members with a web site, this is no surprise to me. I can assure you that our client listing is not made up of personal friends.Client Showcase Kenpo0110 03:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I would like you to stop making edits to Wikipedia until you have nominated for deletion every article about a company or organization with a misspelled word, since that is obviously one of your criteria for notability. "Their web presence"...I don't know where to begin. Let's start with reading the previous discussion about it. Then show me where in WP:CORP it says that a web site is required for notability. Do not tell me that I am being incivil as I have called into question only your statements, not you. Unlike you, I made no ad hominem attacks against another, see your second sentence. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per Crunch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It looks like User:Remagine has created Neohorizon which I've since listed for deleted and redirected here, since this is simply the prior company (an IRC chat network). I don't consider Neohorizon a particularly notable IRC network as well, so I'd vote to delete that as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable company. A check of their website (www.remagine.net) reveals a shell with no content. To paraphrase the website intro: "Lao-Tzu, a wise man, once said... 'A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.'" If they ever take more than a single step they may approach notability. Atrian 06:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the company seems totally non-notable to me. Incidentally, i think Remagine (the album) should also be deleted. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 06:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per norm, also delete neohorizon.Onthost 06:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    1. We aren't voting on neohorizon here.
    2. You were the one who normed this for deletion in the first place. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The person behind the user name Remagine is a college student. As a fellow college student I can understand how he might not have a ton of time to juggle his business, his studies, his website, and the fact that the entire Wikipedia community has been biting him from the first minute he came here. The nomination by Onthost is, IMO, highly incivil. The fact that the nominator felt it necessary to back up the nomination with personal attacks on the article's creator for a typo makes me think that it was in bad faith, however much I agree that the article doesn't currently meet the requirements. The continued attacks regarding the state of their website disgust me. It has been explained in multiple places on site and to various concerned editors through email. What part of "working on it" don't you understand. It has no bearing on their notability. The fact that you all continue to harangue it shows me that you feel that the other arguments aren't strong enough. Argue the nomination on its own merits, not on totally unrelated facts. I currently agree with the words of the nomination if not the spirit. This article doesn't currently meet the requirements. However, I'm abstaining currently to give the article's creator time to add that which is missing. The conduct of some parties led the article's creator to email me, saying, "Everyone is ganging up on me." Remagine felt attacked and I believe that he was. I would like to remind everyone to be CIVIL. To paraphrase a Wikipedia policy: "Wikipede, a wise Wikipedia mascot, once said...'WP:DICK'WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Exactly what personal attacks did I leave for him? All Ive ever said is his article is still an advertisement and quoted the sections I felt were advertisement material, said it was still not NPOV since a company insider is the one writing the article, and said that the company does not meet the nobility requirements stated in WP:CORP. Onthost 18:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I misread your comment regarding add. I found the capitalization choices in your nomination to be questionable. I will also note that not being NPOV is not a criterion for deletion. Nor do I feel that it is impossible for someone to write an article which is NPOV on a subject they are deeply familiar with. You also seem to be on a personal crusade against this article given your high level of involvement. Not that I find anything wrong with sticking to your beliefs and continued watching of articles you have nominated for AFD, but fully 25% of your edits, at the time of my writing, are about the article in question, starting with it's nomination, or to related articles. You also placed a sock tag on User:Stargate007. I removed this as you provided no evidence. Please replace it using the EVIDENCE link (emphasis not mine) to link to your evidence. You have just over 100 edits, so I expect that this was an honest mistake. I will take OwenX's advice, as you have done, and chill out. This discussion no longer seems as vitriolic as it once did. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for obvious reasons stated above Ashibaka tock 07:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, OwenX - everyone here, including WAvegetarian, needs to chill out. WP:CORP has been cited, and the company doesn't measure up. End of discussion. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, with no malice. I have some empathy for the guy who created the page, and he's done a reasonably good job of cleaning it up, I just don't think it conforms to WP:CORP. I hope he does well and earns a place, but until then... - Dharmabum420 11:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet criteria in WP:CORP. That said perhaps a transwiki to Yellowikis is in order. Movementarian 12:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete can't find any evidence of public listing, no evidence of media coverage outside of Springfield, Mass., no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've fixed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohorizon to have its own AfD, rather than a redirect to here. Anyone who voted here on Neohorizon, please re-enter your vote there. Owen× ☎ 15:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, WP is not the Yellow Pages. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My comments about the content and quality of the company's web site are important, I think, because the web site is presented as evidence for the significance of the company. If there is no substance on the site, it's difficult to judge whether the company is notable. Regarding the poor quality of the article, I think that's also relevant, because if it is indeed a notable company based in Massachusetts, I would expect they would be able to spell the name of the state corrrectly. Particularly since they claim to be in the communications field. Crunch 15:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per KillerChihuahua. --kingboyk 16:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Aaron 18:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the recent addition of citations to the article. Please view them. From WP:CORP "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles..." The article includes multiple citations from mulitple newspapers. "Non-trivial published work" refers to the article, not the newspaper, as noted by the sentence quoted above. That means that this company meets the minimum criterion established in WP:CORP. Any delete nominations that do not address this, or simply reference the nom, must be called into question as they do not take into account that information meeting the criteria of WP:CORP has been added. There are only two ways around this: claim that WP:CORP is merelly proposed and therefore not worthy of citation (in which case the nomination is invalid), or that WP:CORP should be changed to keep what are non-notable companies (I feel that this is one) from getting in. Whether you like it or not, these four newspaper articles establish notability per WP:CORP. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as full citations weren't given before the creator was chased away thereby eliminating any hope of getting the full citations. Yes, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, even though I don't think it would have met notability guidelines. Of course, we'll never know now, will we?
  • Where are these multiple non-trivial published works? All I see are non-verifiable references to possible stories in the Springfield Republican which seem to be stories related to student-run businesses. The Grinspoon award was/is an award given to high school and undergrad college students across Western Massachusetts participating in business classes and/or undertaking entrepreneurial ventures. Wikipedia is not a place where we show off about our college extra-curriculur accomplishments, even if they do make a profit, and Remagine has yet to show financials, another way to meet the criteria of WP:CORP. Crunch 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, to all, give me a break with the whole spelling of Massachusetts. Are you telling me you never overlooked typos when typing an article really quickly? I also had to spend all my time defending myself in the discussion which caused me overlook items in the article. As you can see, Mass is in more than one location on the page. As for the website, I explained its situation numerous times in other posts, can you drop it?! If you want to see the web site prior to Friday’s new upgrade use a cache system or web archive site. Thanks Remagine 19:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That misspelling was just one indication of the lack of viability of the article. Yes, everyone makes typos, of course (the article was, and still is, full of them). The point was that the combination of a poorly-written article, lack of evidence of anything particularly notable and nothing to meet the demands of WP:CORP were clear indications for my Delete vote. The point of this discussion is to determine whether to keep or delete the Remagine article and it's the article that's in question. I did not intend to make it personal. I was commenting solely on my viewing of the article, its substance and the claims it makes and trying to compare those to WP policy. Crunch 20:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I found one of the articles the user was referring too; it’s the 8th item down on this link. News Page It looks like you can’t read the whole article unless you pay for it. TwilightCat 20:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly. As I pointed out above, they received an award along with a bunch of other students for entrepreneurship. It went in the newspaper. Many things are printed in newspapers. I don't believe this fits the definition of non-trivial. It's an award given to college students for work done in a college class or activity. Again, see WP:CORP. This is the last I'm going to say here on this. I'll put other comments, if any, on the article's Talk page. Crunch 20:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Many things are printed in newspapers." Indeed. Newspapers print lots of ads. --Aaron 22:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment : That article emphasized on the name REMAGINE and who it was made up of. At the time, we were the only established business that was making a profit to win this award. The CEO of monster.com was at the event to discus the award. You can see another reference to the News Letter here. News Letter. Take care. Remagine 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No more notable than any of a number of non-notable companies. Paul 21:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If this article is to be removed, then so should remagine. An AFD should be applied to that as well. Remagine 22:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If you feel that it should be deleted then start a AfD for it. If you require help doing it ask me on my talk page and i'll guide you through it, or go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion. Onthost 22:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: I don't understand the connection. Remagine, you're hurting your own cause here. Take a deep breath. If you want to be an entrepreneur, you have to have a thicker skin than this. rodii 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I don't understand the connection either, however if he feels there is a reason to I will be more than happy to help him start the process, he is entilted to his opinion afterall. Onthost 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I am not saying it in anger, no worries, I am just stating it. I own the trademark to the name REMAGINE and I feel that the other name in the listing shouldn’t be there anyways. My mark falls under the category in which there’s is listed. Remagine 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. Ifnord 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG; Movementarian's transwiki suggestion has merit. VT hawkeyetalk to me 08:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • www.Yellowikis.org welcomes REMAGINE.--Yellowikis Admin 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question How does this AfD get decided and when does it get decided? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onthost (talk • contribs) 00:35, January 10, 2006 (UTC)
    • Answer After it has been up for debate for no less than 5 days an admin may come along, determine consensus and act out that consensus. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Onthost, please read the policy (Wikipedia:Deletion policy) and the procedures (Wikipedia:Guide to deletion) thoroughly before nominating further articles to AfD. If you do, I'm sure a lot of people here will appreciate it. -- Perfecto 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Agreed, doesn’t seem very fair too me. Kenpo0110 02:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Just cleaned up the article some more. Remagine 03:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      Given the number of delete votes, I would be surprised if this article were still here in a few days. If you really need to write about your company, you would be better advised to do it here or here. Otherwise you are honestly wasting your effort. Melchoir 04:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Remagine and User:Kenpo0110 have just left the project. One more newbie chased away. Kenpo was even a CVU member. Nice job. While it is possible that no one here violated policy or guidelines in their dealings with this issue, the combined effect was one that created a "hostile environment" so strong as to make him leave. He was excited about how Wikipedia worked. He had wanted to understand more about the project but got pulled into this ugly business about his adverticle. (Huh, I kinda like that neologism.) Back on point, it is instances like this where we need to step back and think about the public perception that we are giving. I was told a number of times to chill out, that no abuse or biting was occurring, and that I was overreacting. I guess I shouldn't have backed down so easily. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 10:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a constant problem. A lot of people start by creating articles on themselves or their companies; AfDing them is the correct thing to do in terms of policy, but still looks like biting the newbies. This is sad. I have recently started to userfy such things and leave a nice note ont he user page, but even this is taken amiss by some. You can't win. In the end, my delete vote stands, and I support the statements of others even if they could have been more tactfully put. Lesson to learn: explain in detail on the Userpage of a new user who creates an article on themselevs, their firm, their club, whatever, why this is a bad idea. All of which takes time. Does anyone know of a nice tactful template? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
A template would be extremely helpful IMO, I will voulanteer to start one if there isn't one already. Mike 15:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Responding at User Talk:Onthost - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers#Template Proposal. Melchoir 20:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I just want to add here that I agree with JzG. I just get really pissed off when people leave the project over disputes and hostility, be it Essjay or a newbie. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 22:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Kenpo0110 may have put a CVU template on his user page, but his user contributions page shows no evidence of him ever reverting a single instance of vandalism. Indeed, it shows no evidence of him ever showing any concern about any article whatsoever except for REMAGINE. --Aaron 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I wasn't going to say it, but it's true! Melchoir 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I wasen't going to mention it either, plus Kenpo and Remagine were the same person. Mike 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Please note "One more newbie..." Also note that said person was busy trying to defend himself and this article and didn't really have a bunch of time to work on other things. The inlcusion of that on his userpage shows an interest in the project. I feel that the particulars of this case are not really the issue here anyway. I think that we should stop discussing this article or its contributors as it is going to be deleted and the user has left. What's more important is looking more broadly at what first impressions we give to new users. There is a very relevant story on the talk page of WP:BITE. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 23:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_REMAGINE_2981.html"