- 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. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Webbed Feet UK
- Webbed Feet UK ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a web design company, which makes no strong claim to passing WP:CORP. The sourcing here is entirely to primary sources (a business directory, a list of members of its local chamber of commerce and one of its own websites), with the exception of a single local newspaper article which namechecks its existence while failing to be about it. This is not the type of sourcing it takes to get a company into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: As the nomination says, an article sourced to a business listing and a local paper mention, and my searches are not locating better. A firm going about its business but not of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD ( talk) 07:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
We have several local newspaper articles about our company but they are not available online, we have the clippings here but don't know how to use them in regards to referencing. 81.149.15.65 ( talk) 09:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing against such articles being listed (either here or on the article Talk page), though obviously they are more awkward for others to verify. However please note WP:AUD. AllyD ( talk) 09:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Would a scan of these clippings be sufficient as long as the reference links to the scanned image uploaded to Wikimedia? We also have stuff like this http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/business/business/10997268.Aaron_s_breakfast_club_talk/ which is one of our Directors speaking at local events, just wasn't sure if it was usable. 81.149.15.65 ( talk) 13:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- The "breakfast club talk" article doesn't assist at all, because it's not coverage of the company — it's just a blurb announcing that the company founder is giving a speech about something. It takes more than simply being able to verify that a thing exists — we need coverage in which the company is the subject of substantive reporting, which isn't the same thing as simply being mentioned in articles about other things. I also need to advise you to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules — being a direct representative of the company does not mean you can't edit the article at all, I assure you, but it does mean you need to take extra caution to ensure that you're not crossing over the line into misusing Wikipedia as a public relations platform rather than a neutral encyclopedia. Bearcat ( talk) 15:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:CORP], WP is not a business directory. Not notable, one of tens of thousands of businesses. MB ( talk) 18:53, 25 June 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. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Webbed Feet UK
- Webbed Feet UK ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a web design company, which makes no strong claim to passing WP:CORP. The sourcing here is entirely to primary sources (a business directory, a list of members of its local chamber of commerce and one of its own websites), with the exception of a single local newspaper article which namechecks its existence while failing to be about it. This is not the type of sourcing it takes to get a company into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: As the nomination says, an article sourced to a business listing and a local paper mention, and my searches are not locating better. A firm going about its business but not of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD ( talk) 07:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
We have several local newspaper articles about our company but they are not available online, we have the clippings here but don't know how to use them in regards to referencing. 81.149.15.65 ( talk) 09:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing against such articles being listed (either here or on the article Talk page), though obviously they are more awkward for others to verify. However please note WP:AUD. AllyD ( talk) 09:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Would a scan of these clippings be sufficient as long as the reference links to the scanned image uploaded to Wikimedia? We also have stuff like this http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/business/business/10997268.Aaron_s_breakfast_club_talk/ which is one of our Directors speaking at local events, just wasn't sure if it was usable. 81.149.15.65 ( talk) 13:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- The "breakfast club talk" article doesn't assist at all, because it's not coverage of the company — it's just a blurb announcing that the company founder is giving a speech about something. It takes more than simply being able to verify that a thing exists — we need coverage in which the company is the subject of substantive reporting, which isn't the same thing as simply being mentioned in articles about other things. I also need to advise you to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules — being a direct representative of the company does not mean you can't edit the article at all, I assure you, but it does mean you need to take extra caution to ensure that you're not crossing over the line into misusing Wikipedia as a public relations platform rather than a neutral encyclopedia. Bearcat ( talk) 15:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:CORP], WP is not a business directory. Not notable, one of tens of thousands of businesses. MB ( talk) 18:53, 25 June 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.