Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WA007

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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WA007

Non-notable website. Article is written in the 1st person, so it's obviously a vanity article. prod was contested by original author Geoffrey Spear 16:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I originally prodded this article which was removed by the author. Non-notable company. Vanity article. Dipics 16:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an advertisement. SliceNYC 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - ditto. --Bootblack 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. -- Whpq 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with some sort of Atomic Ray Gun, violates WP:VAIN in ways I never wanted to imagine. WilyD 16:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remain Active page is in accordance to other web firms listed on WIKI examples being 2advanced and Avenue A/Razorfish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:GDWA007 (talk • contribs)
    • Neither of those pages are a policy, a guideline or even an essay. The article in question violates WP:V, WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN - these are hurdles to cross if it is to be kept, but so is WP:CORP. Until is passes all three of those, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. WilyD 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as article fails to provide verified evidec as to why WA007 satsifies WP:CORP. And the article is blatant WP:SPAM and vanity.-- danntm T C 16:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • First of all, this article gives us the perception that it is used to advertise. The text is written in first person. Second, all of the links are external links. Here in Wikipedia, we use internal links, which link to other pages on our encyclopedia. Third, this article does not provide an introduction and does not provide preliminary information about the organization, an example shown here. If you believe this article could be improved to be an article fitting our requirements, I will vote "keep". This is not a vote, just a comment.--Edtalk c E 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • QuestionNot sure why all the hostility. Contributors will prove the importance of WA007's influence in web design and artistic movement. I understand that the article is in violation of WP:VAIN. But why are those articles stated above allowed to remain active if they are obviously are violating the same policies.--GDWA007 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Nobody likes spam, unless it's fried and served with Ketchup. The other articles pass all of the listed criteria that this article does not, most notably WP:V WilyD 17:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment At the very least, the second article you cite above was created by an active editor with many edits to unrelated pages. I see no evidence that he's a principal in the company in question. The first one may very well be a vanity article, but it should be noted that the existence of one article doesn't justify the existence of any others. If the two articles you cite do indeed violate WP:CORP and WP:VAIN, they should probably be deleted as well. Geoffrey Spear 17:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The page will have contributors that are not associated with principals. It is just interesting to note that if one does a search on wikipedia for "web design agency" there are some that have just a simple paragraph and external links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GDWA007 (talk • contribs) .
    • GDWA007 (talk · contribs), you appear to be the Gianni D’Alerta mentioned in this article. Please see these guidelines for people writing about their own companies, in particular the advice that if you cannot find sources independent of you and your company, don't write. Also please note that "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. All articles must adhere to our policies, irrespective of whether other articles have slipped through the net. Uncle G 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is written in the first person, and is full of peacock terms about the company and its members. It is not an encyclopaedia article. Looking around for sources to see whether this company satisfies WP:CORP and an article could be written using the aforementioned guidelines, I find reams of directory entries repeating the same corporate blurb, and no other material from anyone other than the company at all. There is no mention to be found of this company outside of its own promotional material. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host, nor a soapbox for promoting companies, and self-promotion is not the route to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The WP:CORP criteria are not satisified. Delete. Uncle G 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article subject does not meet WP:CORP guidelines, but more importantly it is not verified with reliable 3rd party sources.--Isotope23 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I have included outside sources that are written by third parties to show actual references to the company and its principal, which now complies with the WP:CORP criteria section 1 of outside sources.--GDWA007 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, all the sources - except the last one - are interviews with or about James Begera. This makes a case perhaps for an article on Mr. Begera (or not, depending on if you view them as reliable sources, but it doesn't really meet WP:CORP because the articles would need to be focusing on WA007... not James Begera.--Isotope23 19:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment James Begera is WA007. Like Steve Jobs is to Apple.--GDWA007 20:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Neither of the flash animations are accessible, and the other external links make no mention of this company whatsoever. We need published works that discuss this company in detail, not ones that don't even mention it at all. Since you mention Apple, please read the References, Footnotes, and Further reading sections of Apple Computer. You'll see independent magazine feature articles, news articles, and even entire books about the company. Those are the sorts of things that we are looking for. If such things don't exist for a company, then it does not belong here. Uncle G 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep until all concerns are resolved. The references provided are usable according to WP:CORP. I think this article might just show some promise. Now I know that this article doesn't look that much great yet. But it is official policy to AGF. We should at least give it a few more days while trying to write a quality article.--Edtalk c E 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Neither "until all concerns are resolved" or "give it a few more days" are rationales for keeping. The AFD process already gives articles several days, and editors are strongly encouraged to edit articles to address any concerns brought up in the AFD discussion during that time. Please read the Guide to deletion and familiarize yourself with the process. Uncle G 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable with fewer than 18,000 google hits. Wording of article is more of an advertisment than a claim to fame or notability. will381796 22:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable spam, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Even the one link that isn't about James Begera links to a site where he is a judge, so the awards aren't very independent. If only the article had been about the "WA007 Rear Frame Assembly" from the Visio template, you could have got at least two references. Yomanganitalk 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wow... I really thought that WA007 was noteworthy and tried to bring up as much web material as I could find. As I am not an expert on the company. Interestingly enough within the web community of designers WA007 is well known. The real shame as I mentioned before is that there are other companies that do not have citations are allowed to be kept in Wiki. The reference stated above about 2advanced, after this conversation was slated for deletion as well. And now magically its not. I'm a fan of WA007's work and their influence on popular web design can be seen everywhere. And for the person that states they cannot see the flash sites cited as references, download the plugin. It's easier than bashing everything that i write on this article. These are my last two cents. If WA007 is not wiki material then cut to the chase and delete it.. but I request of you all to reference the term "web design agency" and mark all the infidels for deletion. Because if a company WA007 has good work then others with less need to be stricken.

--GDWA007 00:38, 17 August 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.