Hello! My page 'Sleek Kitchens' was recently deleted. The main reason given by one of the moderators was related to
WP:CORP. I did edit the reference links in order to conform to the aforementioned guidelines. In spite of this, my page was deleted. The content tonality was not promotional and was extensively modified to conform to Wikipedia standards. Please reinstate the page. Thanks!
Sportonion555 (
talk)
06:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The additional references provided between nomination and deletion were
[1][2][3], which have precisely the same problems as the ones previously cited. —
Cryptic06:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Hey
Cryptic, thanks for the feedback. The question was about notability, specifically
WP:CORP. Since the new reference links added were from news websites (Which I assume are authoritative) that talk specifically about the brand and the entity mentioned in the content, I was under the impression that this issue had been resolved.
Sportonion555 (
talk)
08:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse. There was no defect in the closer's assessment of consensus; to whatever extent it's subject to review here, that consensus was rational; and no significant new evidence that could have changed the outcome has been presented. I read the article after Sportonion555 improved it; the article so clearly failed
GNG and
CORP that I didn't feel the need to vote. Sport, I'm sorry this has been frustrating to you, but our notability criteria exist
for a reason (and
Wikipedia is not for promotion). Rebbing 11:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
I already gave you guidance on my talk page. The
page where you started this deletion review explicitly explains why you shouldn't extend a discussion just because you disagree. I recommend having
significant coverage in multiple
reliable,
independent sources (
?) before creating an article next time. If you are still developing a sense of the kind of sources that count as "reliable", the aforelinked pages and some time spent around Articles for Deletion will help to refine that sense. czar14:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the help
czar. Will ensure that all these things are taken care of. If indeed I manage to fix current issues, I will be able to re-create this page, right?
Sportonion555 (
talk)
14:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
If you can prove notability, then yes. However, you'll need to have all of the issues resolved when you create the article, otherwise, it'll be eligible for speedy deletion as
a recreation of a page previously deleted following a deletion discussion. Based on my searching (and the searching other people did at the AfD), it looks highly unlikely you'll be able to prove notability. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time. Rebbing 16:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) I don't think the current issue (lack of coverage in reliable sources) is surmountable, at least for now. That was the conclusion of the discussion. If more sources were to be published in the future, yes, we could revisit it, but we usually wait at least six months, a year. Also, in case no one else has mentioned it, I want to remind of WP's
conflict of interest guidelines, which asks that editors declare any affiliation to the company, if you were to have one. czar16:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Not a suitable topic, because it is not the subject of independent coverage. Any attempt to cover this company will fundamentally be promotion of it. Wikipedia is very sensitive, and very resistant, to being used for promoting commercial things, which is why
WP:CORP is is restrictive. All sources are promotion of a product, not
secondary source commentary on a topic. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
04:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Hello! My page 'Sleek Kitchens' was recently deleted. The main reason given by one of the moderators was related to
WP:CORP. I did edit the reference links in order to conform to the aforementioned guidelines. In spite of this, my page was deleted. The content tonality was not promotional and was extensively modified to conform to Wikipedia standards. Please reinstate the page. Thanks!
Sportonion555 (
talk)
06:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The additional references provided between nomination and deletion were
[1][2][3], which have precisely the same problems as the ones previously cited. —
Cryptic06:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Hey
Cryptic, thanks for the feedback. The question was about notability, specifically
WP:CORP. Since the new reference links added were from news websites (Which I assume are authoritative) that talk specifically about the brand and the entity mentioned in the content, I was under the impression that this issue had been resolved.
Sportonion555 (
talk)
08:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse. There was no defect in the closer's assessment of consensus; to whatever extent it's subject to review here, that consensus was rational; and no significant new evidence that could have changed the outcome has been presented. I read the article after Sportonion555 improved it; the article so clearly failed
GNG and
CORP that I didn't feel the need to vote. Sport, I'm sorry this has been frustrating to you, but our notability criteria exist
for a reason (and
Wikipedia is not for promotion). Rebbing 11:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
I already gave you guidance on my talk page. The
page where you started this deletion review explicitly explains why you shouldn't extend a discussion just because you disagree. I recommend having
significant coverage in multiple
reliable,
independent sources (
?) before creating an article next time. If you are still developing a sense of the kind of sources that count as "reliable", the aforelinked pages and some time spent around Articles for Deletion will help to refine that sense. czar14:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the help
czar. Will ensure that all these things are taken care of. If indeed I manage to fix current issues, I will be able to re-create this page, right?
Sportonion555 (
talk)
14:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
If you can prove notability, then yes. However, you'll need to have all of the issues resolved when you create the article, otherwise, it'll be eligible for speedy deletion as
a recreation of a page previously deleted following a deletion discussion. Based on my searching (and the searching other people did at the AfD), it looks highly unlikely you'll be able to prove notability. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time. Rebbing 16:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) I don't think the current issue (lack of coverage in reliable sources) is surmountable, at least for now. That was the conclusion of the discussion. If more sources were to be published in the future, yes, we could revisit it, but we usually wait at least six months, a year. Also, in case no one else has mentioned it, I want to remind of WP's
conflict of interest guidelines, which asks that editors declare any affiliation to the company, if you were to have one. czar16:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Not a suitable topic, because it is not the subject of independent coverage. Any attempt to cover this company will fundamentally be promotion of it. Wikipedia is very sensitive, and very resistant, to being used for promoting commercial things, which is why
WP:CORP is is restrictive. All sources are promotion of a product, not
secondary source commentary on a topic. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
04:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.