- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Advidi
- Advidi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability and blatant promotional. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 05:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as another noticeable example of a new company publishing or republishing advertising information, wherever that may be, and seeking any means of advertising and focusing with exactly that, the one account is a company employee himself therefore it emphasizes the advertising concerns, regardless of what comments say otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Keepas the author I'm happy to make changes - I was very cautious to keep it objective, but am open to areas where subjectivity may have leaked. There are many companies with far less notability who have had articles last for years, many with highly subjective promotion. In fact, each of the examples given in Piotrus' Op-Ed remains online in the same state cited, despite years passing. I know the logical response is "well, they should be taken down, too" but the fact is that it's not happening. The best that can be done is to adhere closely to objectivity. More than happy to reduce the content or link more sources, but many of those sources are in Dutch... I really do want to play by the rules here and believe the company is as notable or more so than many others in the space. - Little lepidoptera | Say hi here 11:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Although I know you are the author, saying "companies with far less notability who have had articles last for years" is in fact not a convincing statement because it actually emphasizes why we need to remove such advertisements, not keep and hope to change and improve them if, in actuality, it may not be improvable. The three of us have heavily nominated a lot of these and we will continue, therefore since this one is currently an advertisement, it can be removed.
SwisterTwister
talk 18:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- @
SwisterTwister: is there an essay or "WP" page somewhere that explains why this is literally the worst argument ever? --
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 19:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is,
WP:OSE.
SwisterTwister
talk 19:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see your point, SwisterTwister, and I agree, but I think my point in raising that was unclear (apologies!). I'm not asking for clarification on the reason for nomination; I'm asking for specifics, because I do believe notability can be proven in this case and I don't think my conflict of interest should be the sole reason for dismissal. I would really appreciate examples cited from what is written that highlight the issue. By claiming WP:OSE I am suggesting that others have been successful in defending their articles, and I would like to be as well (following all rules, of course). In order for me to do this, I would like to see what you're seeing in the article (beside my conflict of interest; I understand you can "smell" advertising, but it wasn't my intention to promote the company; if I can identify the odor I'll eliminate the source). Zackmann08: from the article you cited: "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." I don't consider hyperbole an effective argumentation technique ("worst argument ever"). I understand you are adamant about cleaning these up, but please understand I want to play by the rules, not skirt them; that was not my intention in citing WP:OSE (which, by the way, also states: "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." - mine was poorly contended, but I think with clarification it is valid; correct me if I'm wrong!). Either way, I do appreciate what you guys are doing and understand I'm the "bad guy" here. Really not trying to be a pain in the %$#@...! It would just be ideal to hear back "here's what you can do" rather than "here's a reason you shouldn't have done what you did" - does that make sense? - Little lepidoptera | Say hi here 07:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is,
WP:OSE.
SwisterTwister
talk 19:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- @
SwisterTwister: is there an essay or "WP" page somewhere that explains why this is literally the worst argument ever? --
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 19:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Although I know you are the author, saying "companies with far less notability who have had articles last for years" is in fact not a convincing statement because it actually emphasizes why we need to remove such advertisements, not keep and hope to change and improve them if, in actuality, it may not be improvable. The three of us have heavily nominated a lot of these and we will continue, therefore since this one is currently an advertisement, it can be removed.
SwisterTwister
talk 18:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I've stricken a duplicate vote above as the editor also voted below. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I made some further edits and believe I've removed anything that leaked my conflict of interest. As I requested in the above discussion, I would be very happy to receive specific examples which I can then address. So far the Delete comments are primarily based on "I can just tell" which is an impression I also don't want to give... I think it's notable, and I want it to remain here for that reason (in an objective state, of course, which I'm keen to ensure with help). Thanks! Little lepidoptera ( talk) 09:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, the comments are not simply based from "I can tell impressions", the article itself here is still an advertisement because it only focuses with what the company would advertise about itself, which is their services, how to contact them, their business motivations, etc, and see the current article: "information about business services, business activities of applications and advertisers, offices and how to contact them and named mentions of others"; even with a few changes, none of this has established what is needed for a genuinely convincing article. What also involves this is simply the fact this company has only existed for 4 years and is still hoping to establish itself by advertising itself, therefore there's no notability or significance. The sources themselves listed here are still not convincing. As mentioned here, when an article is so bare about this, it's simply not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- no indications of notability or importance. The article includes as section on the company's office: "The company is located in the former machine pump building in Amsterdam West, a historic building dating from...." suggesting that there's nothing better to write about. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:08, 11 November 2016 (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.
- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Advidi
- Advidi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability and blatant promotional. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 05:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as another noticeable example of a new company publishing or republishing advertising information, wherever that may be, and seeking any means of advertising and focusing with exactly that, the one account is a company employee himself therefore it emphasizes the advertising concerns, regardless of what comments say otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Keepas the author I'm happy to make changes - I was very cautious to keep it objective, but am open to areas where subjectivity may have leaked. There are many companies with far less notability who have had articles last for years, many with highly subjective promotion. In fact, each of the examples given in Piotrus' Op-Ed remains online in the same state cited, despite years passing. I know the logical response is "well, they should be taken down, too" but the fact is that it's not happening. The best that can be done is to adhere closely to objectivity. More than happy to reduce the content or link more sources, but many of those sources are in Dutch... I really do want to play by the rules here and believe the company is as notable or more so than many others in the space. - Little lepidoptera | Say hi here 11:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Although I know you are the author, saying "companies with far less notability who have had articles last for years" is in fact not a convincing statement because it actually emphasizes why we need to remove such advertisements, not keep and hope to change and improve them if, in actuality, it may not be improvable. The three of us have heavily nominated a lot of these and we will continue, therefore since this one is currently an advertisement, it can be removed.
SwisterTwister
talk 18:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- @
SwisterTwister: is there an essay or "WP" page somewhere that explains why this is literally the worst argument ever? --
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 19:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is,
WP:OSE.
SwisterTwister
talk 19:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see your point, SwisterTwister, and I agree, but I think my point in raising that was unclear (apologies!). I'm not asking for clarification on the reason for nomination; I'm asking for specifics, because I do believe notability can be proven in this case and I don't think my conflict of interest should be the sole reason for dismissal. I would really appreciate examples cited from what is written that highlight the issue. By claiming WP:OSE I am suggesting that others have been successful in defending their articles, and I would like to be as well (following all rules, of course). In order for me to do this, I would like to see what you're seeing in the article (beside my conflict of interest; I understand you can "smell" advertising, but it wasn't my intention to promote the company; if I can identify the odor I'll eliminate the source). Zackmann08: from the article you cited: "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." I don't consider hyperbole an effective argumentation technique ("worst argument ever"). I understand you are adamant about cleaning these up, but please understand I want to play by the rules, not skirt them; that was not my intention in citing WP:OSE (which, by the way, also states: "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." - mine was poorly contended, but I think with clarification it is valid; correct me if I'm wrong!). Either way, I do appreciate what you guys are doing and understand I'm the "bad guy" here. Really not trying to be a pain in the %$#@...! It would just be ideal to hear back "here's what you can do" rather than "here's a reason you shouldn't have done what you did" - does that make sense? - Little lepidoptera | Say hi here 07:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is,
WP:OSE.
SwisterTwister
talk 19:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- @
SwisterTwister: is there an essay or "WP" page somewhere that explains why this is literally the worst argument ever? --
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 19:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Although I know you are the author, saying "companies with far less notability who have had articles last for years" is in fact not a convincing statement because it actually emphasizes why we need to remove such advertisements, not keep and hope to change and improve them if, in actuality, it may not be improvable. The three of us have heavily nominated a lot of these and we will continue, therefore since this one is currently an advertisement, it can be removed.
SwisterTwister
talk 18:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I've stricken a duplicate vote above as the editor also voted below. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I made some further edits and believe I've removed anything that leaked my conflict of interest. As I requested in the above discussion, I would be very happy to receive specific examples which I can then address. So far the Delete comments are primarily based on "I can just tell" which is an impression I also don't want to give... I think it's notable, and I want it to remain here for that reason (in an objective state, of course, which I'm keen to ensure with help). Thanks! Little lepidoptera ( talk) 09:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, the comments are not simply based from "I can tell impressions", the article itself here is still an advertisement because it only focuses with what the company would advertise about itself, which is their services, how to contact them, their business motivations, etc, and see the current article: "information about business services, business activities of applications and advertisers, offices and how to contact them and named mentions of others"; even with a few changes, none of this has established what is needed for a genuinely convincing article. What also involves this is simply the fact this company has only existed for 4 years and is still hoping to establish itself by advertising itself, therefore there's no notability or significance. The sources themselves listed here are still not convincing. As mentioned here, when an article is so bare about this, it's simply not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- no indications of notability or importance. The article includes as section on the company's office: "The company is located in the former machine pump building in Amsterdam West, a historic building dating from...." suggesting that there's nothing better to write about. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:08, 11 November 2016 (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.