Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stripped art

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stripped art

Ad for nn company Delete --JAranda | watz sup 08:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This complaint states that the entry in question is an "advertisement for a non-notable company."
To address this I have demonstrated below::
(1)What an advertisment is...
(2)How this article is no different from similar, existing articles which could under the definition applied also be construed as advertisements.
(3)What makes something notable...
(4)How the subject of this entry is "notable."
(5)Therefore, this entry should be approved and included in Wikipedia.
(1)WHAT IS AN ADVERTISEMENT?
source:: www.dictionary.com
Advertise: To make public announcement of, especially to proclaim the qualities or advantages of (a product or business) so as to increase sales.
(2) Does this article aim only to "proclaim the qualities or advantages of 'stripped art' so as to increase sales"? No.
It describes an organization objectively, but does not promote the organization.
It describes the organization in a manner similar to that in which Wikipedia describes Playboy. How can one then allow Playboy to have a Wikipedia entry, but not Stripped Art?
(3) Notability?
WHAT MAKES SOMETHING NOTABLE?
source:: www.dictionary.com
adj Notable: Worthy of note or notice; remarkable:: notable beauty; sled dogs that are notable for their stamina.
This definition does not say that something is "notable" only because thousands of people know about it already...
But it does say the thing must be "worthy of notice."
Now, the fact that thousands of people already know about something could make it notable. But not necessarily. Millions of people are aware that Brad Pitt left Jennifer Anniston. Is it notable? Is it worthy of putting in Wikipedia? No.
Then we need a different test. Let's look to the definition of notable, then.
Worthy of notice. What makes something worthy of notice? Well, why do we have Wikipedia in the first place? To educate through informing.
What does this article do? It informs people about a unique business and a unique business concept that yes, thousands of people do already know about. But that shouldn't make it notable.
Then why is it notable? Because the business model can be applied to funding other kinds charities. There is a method, and method can be adopted by others. That is "worthy of notice." And a lot worthier than a great deal of the content already on this site.
-----james.j@consortiumbank.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.130.160 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 10:27:52 UTC
  • Delete, nonnotable. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08::36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn ad. Created by one persistent user, who argues against non-definition of notability, but does not give evidence of notability, see Talk:Stripped art. --jnothman talk 08:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please re-evaluate your positions based on the arguments above. -----james.j@consortiumbank.com
    • Done. Position not changed. jnothman talk 10:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable and advertising. Nothing to reconsider - simply stating the dictionary definitions of notable and advertising doesn't change the matter at hand - that the article is about something not the former and is definitely the latter. ●REDVERS HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS 09:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have not simply stated dictionary definitions. I have applied the meaning of the definitions to the situation at hand. How have you done the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.130.160 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 10:27:52 UTC
      • Okay then. My vote remains delete, because simply stating the dictionary definitions of notable and advertising doesn't change the matter at hand and neither does applying those meanings selectively to the text. Happy now? ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete my criteria for notability are increasingly liberal - but this is nowhere close. No alexa rating - no evidence of exteral discussion/review or media interest. AFAICS no neutral information available - outside the website. Thus the significance is unverifiable (even minor schools have ofsted reports) --Doc (?) 10:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The jury has found that this article needs to be deleted. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no evidence I can find for this thing's importance, interest or even existence, except for a website. Wikipedia Is Not a Links Directory. As well as being non-notable, the subject is barely verifiable. The Land 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Research turns up no published works whatsoever by independent sources (no newspaper features, no corporate histories or biographies, no consumer reports) on the subject of this company. The WP:CORP criteria for inclusion of companies are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 11:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and border line advert per the author's (?) notability argument above that "Because the business model can be applied to funding other kinds charities. There is a method, and method can be adopted by others...". This would appear to be a clear indication that the article is at least in part intended to be an advertisement for the company's business model.
forgot to sign my comment--Isotope23 15:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Marcus22 15:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn ad. AndyJones 17:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN spam, remove before it makes it to Google's cache. --Madchester 21:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of existence outside of one website, and creators argument for 'original business model' is more likely to get this to qualify for original research than notability without wider reporting. Average Earthman 22:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of verifiability, notability, and as advertising. MCB 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I appreciate the author's contribution and his/her arguments for keeping the article, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. The article is an ad as written. If it were rewritten to assert notability, and it could be proven, perhaps my vote would be different. - Sensor 00:07, 2 November 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.