Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wotif.com
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The result was withdrawn, the nomination was initated by the creator (who clearly wants the article kept, per the 09:34, 20 November 2007 comment) because a user wanted the article deleted, a view which has such been repealed by this user (at least temporarily). Daniel 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wotif.com
See Talk:Wotif.com - speedy removed by 2 people, but I see no harm in getting consensus. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — the subject is notable from where I sit, as evidenced by both several independant reliable sources and personal knowledge (I know that isn't sufficient evidence, but the reliable sources are). Suggestions that this is an advertisment are ridiculous in my opinion, as it's written in a perfectly neutral manner. Merely having an article on a notable topic does not make it "advertising". Daniel 09:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The independent reliable sources are articles that could be about any corporation in the world (one is about the company getting a new CEO, the other two are about how the company is bidding on another company). Do we really want articles about every corporation out there? This company is not significant and the existence of this page only provides free adspace for the business. The news articles can be found through google news and all the other information from the page is directly from the website (which make the article suspect). Daniel, we disagree on the definition of an advertising. Ads can be neutral! Yes, every wikipedia article on a business is an advertisement because these pages raise consumer awareness. This is why we need to limit articles about businesses to those that have notable reasons for existence. Also, please avoid using the terms "laughable" or "ridiculous" in responding to well-reasoned arguments if you don't actually respond point by point. For a more in depth analysis go to the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wotif.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsein (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Accusing an established Wikipedian of creating an advertisment for a company implies bad faith. Don't throw stones, thanks. Daniel 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- On the talk page I specifically indicated that I wasn't accusing the creator of intentionally making an advertisement. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. Instead, I was just using the hypothetical to prove by extension that all non-notable business articles function as ads and could be subject to manipulation and therefore none should exist. Yes, I'm saying that there should be NO articles about business that aren't significant, whether or not the intention was nefarious or not. That is my stance and I stand by it. Is there a place where I could discuss this more generally or should I just use test cases? Mitsein (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- How about the talk page of WP:CORP? Trying to change policy through speedy deletion nominations and articles for deletion debates is not practical nor effective in this situation. Furthermore, to change Wikipedia-wide consensus on this issue, the discussion has to be at a centralised location such as the policy talk page, because deletion doesn't work on precedent. Daniel 09:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Still getting used to the consensus process. Also, when I nominated it for speedy deletion I was unaware that there are literally hundreds of similar articles on business that I personally would not consider notable. Whether I like it or not, this seems to be the norm. Please don't misinterpret this encounter as an attempt to bypass wikipedia regulations, I was just unaware of the situation. Mitsein (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- How about the talk page of WP:CORP? Trying to change policy through speedy deletion nominations and articles for deletion debates is not practical nor effective in this situation. Furthermore, to change Wikipedia-wide consensus on this issue, the discussion has to be at a centralised location such as the policy talk page, because deletion doesn't work on precedent. Daniel 09:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Ads can be neutral! Yes, every wikipedia article on a business is an advertisement because these pages raise consumer awareness. This is why we need to limit articles about businesses to those that have notable reasons for existence" - I'm sorry, but that is as I described it above. We have no limit on bandwidth, and this meets our primary notability criterion (multiple independant reliable sources). If you wish to dispute the merits of our fundamental inclusion policy, or whether we should put a limit on the number of articles on Wikipedia, then this isn't the right venue. Daniel 09:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- On the talk page I specifically indicated that I wasn't accusing the creator of intentionally making an advertisement. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. Instead, I was just using the hypothetical to prove by extension that all non-notable business articles function as ads and could be subject to manipulation and therefore none should exist. Yes, I'm saying that there should be NO articles about business that aren't significant, whether or not the intention was nefarious or not. That is my stance and I stand by it. Is there a place where I could discuss this more generally or should I just use test cases? Mitsein (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Do we really want articles about every corporation out there?" - Yes, about every notable corporation. This is one. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 09:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Accusing an established Wikipedian of creating an advertisment for a company implies bad faith. Don't throw stones, thanks. Daniel 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Verifiable third party sources are available; demonstrating notability. --DarkFalls talk 09:36, 20 November 2007 (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.
