Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarecraft
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 KEEP as rewritten by User:Polotet. — JIP | Talk 19:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Clarecraft
Blatant advertising. Denni☯ 02:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The article claims that it was taken directly from their website. It should be deleted as a copyvio, speedy or otherwise.Keep Polotet's rewrite. It seems to be a notable company in its field. Capitalistroadster 03:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
*Delete, speedy as {{db-copyvio}} ? --Vsion 04:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Keep, following rewrite. --Vsion 03:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as pure ad. --rob 07:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Delete adv. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 11:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Keep after rewrite. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete for copyright violations only applies to commercial content providers, which means they make their money by selling the content that has been posted, such as a newspaper or encyclopedia. It doesn't apply to advertisements. -- Kjkolb 12:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete blatant advertising, copyvio or not. And yes, copyright can apply to advertising copy as well.- Just zis Guy, you know? 15:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)- Weak Keep based on rewrite. The rewrite is good but the notability of a private company which is about to close its doors after not much more than a decade in business is disputable. Oh, and "nearly unique" grates, too. - Just zis Guy, you know? 07:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and "nearly unique" grates, too. Ugh, for good reason, it's very sloppy diction. Don't know how that slipped past my internal editor, thanks for pointing it out. --Polotet 08:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Copyright does indeed apply to advertising copy, but the special speedy criterion does not (see WP:CSD and its talk page). This is because the copyright holders are quilte likely to be only too willing to allow us to use their ad copy, while the copyright speedy is only for cases where we can be pretty near 100% sure no permission will be granted even if we ask nicely. The regular {{copyvio}} tag can be used in such cases, however. DES (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Obvvious advertising, not encyclopedic, no indication of notability.I can't find the text on the wesite given as the soruce currently, so the copyvio issue is somewhat moot. DES (talk)
Speedy DeleteAdvertising*Keep following rewrite.prashanthns- Seeing the poor quality of this article inspired me to finally make an account to provide information on what I believe is a fairly notable company, as a large scale producer of merchandise for an extremely popular series of novels. If it helps, the search term Clarecraft yields 53,700 results, and at the very least the entire first few pages are all references to the company and not from Wikipedia. There are also a number of Clarecraft products currently available on Ebay. I suspect my vote may be discounted as I'm an extremely new user, but I'll vote keep anyway. If anyone notices any Wikipedia style mistakes in my rewrite, I'd appreciate if you clean them up or let me know. I've also posted on their website's forum asking for some more information about some things I thought might fit in the article which I couldn't find on the web. Polotet 02:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, you did a nice job. Unfortunately, I think there's a difficulty with the topic (not your writing). I'm not sure they're that special, given they don't make it, and our now going out of business. One key that's needed for a business, is independent sources that gives verifiable information, and shows interest about the company beyond the company itself. I suspect such sources don't exist. Although, if found, and you add them to the article, that would increase the likely retention. If you have to ask the company directly for information that's a problem, since we can't use unverifiable information. Anyway, I hope you do more rewrites, but on topics more likely to be kept. I'll abstain for now (I really haven't spent adequate time investigating this company, and based my prior vote just on it being an ad). --rob 03:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment and the advice. Is this the kind of thing you're looking for? It's an article in a published magazine in England about Discworld collectibles which confirms some of the information in the article. I've added it to the Clarecraft entry. Polotet 03:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, you did a nice job. Unfortunately, I think there's a difficulty with the topic (not your writing). I'm not sure they're that special, given they don't make it, and our now going out of business. One key that's needed for a business, is independent sources that gives verifiable information, and shows interest about the company beyond the company itself. I suspect such sources don't exist. Although, if found, and you add them to the article, that would increase the likely retention. If you have to ask the company directly for information that's a problem, since we can't use unverifiable information. Anyway, I hope you do more rewrites, but on topics more likely to be kept. I'll abstain for now (I really haven't spent adequate time investigating this company, and based my prior vote just on it being an ad). --rob 03:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep (barely) - This is now verifiable and seems notable to some in a specific area, so I'll go along with a couple switch voters. I think even more independent sources are still warranted, but I think the original reasons for deletion don't apply. --rob 03:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Just wanted to note here that through the magic of LexisNexis, I was able to find and provide in the entry a couple more articles, along with some new information. --Polotet 07:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- As rewritten it has a much more encyclopedic tone, and at least some indications of notability. These are still marginal IMO, but just barely enough for me to switch to a Weak Keep. I note that one of the cited news stories makes a good deal of this having been one of (perhaps the very) last manufatureing establishemnts in the UK. This is a quite separate ground of notability, and should probably be mentioned in the article. DES (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- (Weakish) keep. They're not hugely notable, but Discworld is very popular; doing Discworld figurines (even if they're about to go out of business) makes them at least somewhat notable. (Oh, and Polotet? That's a good rewrite.) -- Captain Disdain 15:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Shame to see this article go to waste. TDS (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 October 2005 (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.
