- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolute Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article for a card shop which claims notability due to an award - but that award is non-notable, being given by a non-notable card retailer trade magazine. This aside, the article is written in an overly promotional style making it a candidate for speedy deletion (not nominated as such to allow the claim of notability to be discussed). I42 (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is justified because the company is a well renowned, well established, award winning business - the awards were held in London, and the award body sells copies across the UK; its a large news source. The shop was voted for by hundreds of customers, and is therefore a well known, renowned business. Also, the article is not "overly promotional" at all! It simply states what it stocks. I therefore oppose the deletion on the grounds that I believe that the article is fully justified and a notable business; selling items across the world. Blaze42 (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the evidence it is a well-renowned etc business? None is provided apart from the award (which I assert is non-notable) and all I can find is directory listings. The article is entirely promotional: "The company also sell a wide range of other useful items", "The continually expanding official Absolute Cards Website" and "allowing the company to stock a wider range of cards and other items", for example. Even if written in a more neutral manner, this detail of what it provides would still be promotional. What an encyclopedic article should be concerned with would be the company history, its impact on the local community etc. I42 (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're wrong there. I have stated "The company also sell a range of other associated items" because they sell many other items related to cards; "The continually expanding official Absolute Cards Website" because more cards are added each day; "allowing anyone to order from the range of cards from anywhere in the world" because you can order cards from anywhere in the world.
- Also, as stated in WP:ORG, the company has had secondary sources: Press releases written about them in in local newspapers; The shop can also be seen in the 2007 film Hot Fuzz - both these interviews are "reliable, and independent of the subject". Blaze42 (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I am wrong, why did another editor clean it all up? And if it's not promotional, why did you restore the fact that the website delivers worldwide? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Local newspaper coverage is unlikely to establish notability even if you provided some evidence of it - local newspapers generally feature local shops and businesses; some local newspapers features incorporate advertising in this manner. Notability requires something more than the norm. "Press releases" are primary sources, though the context suggests you did not necessarily mean press release in this sense. Being "seen" in a film filmed in the area asserts no notabilty at all. I42 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I note also that you created the company logo. A WP:COI further suggests that this article is being used for advertising. I42 (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You were wrong because the quotes you used were from an older revision, and I explained why they were there. Just because someone else edited it, does not automatically make you correct - the editor changed a few things around, not "cleaned it all". I uploaded the logo I found from the site - that in no way whatsoever suggests that it is for advertising - its a logo..... How many people do you think would read about it to make it worth doing so for advertising? Not a lot. Also, the award which was held in London is out of the norm; this included with the interview of the shop owner shows that it was more than just an "advertising slot". I said "with worldwide shipping" because that is a fact - no advertisement there.Blaze42 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The text I quoted was what you wrote, and was from the article as it was at the time I quoted it. True or not, your choice of things to say and the way you said them are promotional. That the website offers international shipping is of no encyclopedic interest, but if you want to promote the shop then that's clearly a point you want to make. According to the text you attached to the logo, you "created this work entirely by myself". If you created the logo you have a connection with the company and, as noted, a WP:COI is an indicator that you may be using Wikipedia for advertising. You have provided no evidence of this interview; perhaps if you did we could assess it (but I reiterate - local news articles are not of high significance), nor is the trade magazine which made the award, or the award itself, shown to be notable. I42 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not make the logo - I chose that so I could upload it, and then change it later; it is rather annoying that other options are not present when uploading logos, etc. I shall state once again, I do not wish to promote the shop! I have already stated this fact. If you feel that the worldwide shipping is advertising - which I do not - then feel free to remove it. What I wrote before, was not promotional - granted, it was not completely of encyclopaedic standards, but then again, you decided to come along and jump at the article when I had just finished writing it; not really allowing for any changes, which - as you can clearly see - I made later. Also, I will try and find the newspaper interview. Any help with this matter, and improving the article would be appreciated. Blaze42 (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The text I quoted was what you wrote, and was from the article as it was at the time I quoted it. True or not, your choice of things to say and the way you said them are promotional. That the website offers international shipping is of no encyclopedic interest, but if you want to promote the shop then that's clearly a point you want to make. According to the text you attached to the logo, you "created this work entirely by myself". If you created the logo you have a connection with the company and, as noted, a WP:COI is an indicator that you may be using Wikipedia for advertising. You have provided no evidence of this interview; perhaps if you did we could assess it (but I reiterate - local news articles are not of high significance), nor is the trade magazine which made the award, or the award itself, shown to be notable. I42 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You were wrong because the quotes you used were from an older revision, and I explained why they were there. Just because someone else edited it, does not automatically make you correct - the editor changed a few things around, not "cleaned it all". I uploaded the logo I found from the site - that in no way whatsoever suggests that it is for advertising - its a logo..... How many people do you think would read about it to make it worth doing so for advertising? Not a lot. Also, the award which was held in London is out of the norm; this included with the interview of the shop owner shows that it was more than just an "advertising slot". I said "with worldwide shipping" because that is a fact - no advertisement there.Blaze42 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I note also that you created the company logo. A WP:COI further suggests that this article is being used for advertising. I42 (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I am wrong, why did another editor clean it all up? And if it's not promotional, why did you restore the fact that the website delivers worldwide? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Local newspaper coverage is unlikely to establish notability even if you provided some evidence of it - local newspapers generally feature local shops and businesses; some local newspapers features incorporate advertising in this manner. Notability requires something more than the norm. "Press releases" are primary sources, though the context suggests you did not necessarily mean press release in this sense. Being "seen" in a film filmed in the area asserts no notabilty at all. I42 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the evidence it is a well-renowned etc business? None is provided apart from the award (which I assert is non-notable) and all I can find is directory listings. The article is entirely promotional: "The company also sell a wide range of other useful items", "The continually expanding official Absolute Cards Website" and "allowing the company to stock a wider range of cards and other items", for example. Even if written in a more neutral manner, this detail of what it provides would still be promotional. What an encyclopedic article should be concerned with would be the company history, its impact on the local community etc. I42 (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable per WP:COMPANY, sole reference is specialist industry award of unspecified notability, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. I'll try to re-write it a bit to remove WP:PROMO tone. MuffledThud (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the article is better now, because of how you have re-written it. As I said before, as stated in WP:ORG, the company has had secondary sources: Press releases written about them in in local newspapers - this, in conjunction with the Retas awards in London, both these interviews are "reliable, and independent of the subject". Blaze42 (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable, blatant COI, and utterly pointless addition to wikipedia. Perhaps Blaze 42 would like to say what his/her actual name is, if he isn't Nigel Thomas, the shop owner's brother?? Happy to meet up for a coffee in London to help resolve this issue. Franciselliott (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I don't live anywhere near London - would be many hours worth of driving! Like I said before, I'm not actually related to that family - they probably don't even know me! Blaze42 (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.