Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversion Hub (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. clear consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion Hub

edit
AfDs for this article:
Conversion Hub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-admin closure of debate as no consensus. Re-nominating pursuant to WP:NPASR. Company has only passing mentions and no WP:SIGCOV. The remainder is press releases. Creator has contended that a few of the references are from WP:RS (which I have also debated). Even if these were WP:RS, the coverage is little and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Company advertising and promotion does not belong on Wikipedia. For an article to be created, the topic must first pass WP:GNG which this one falls short of. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm sorry you feel that using these sources is an acceptable way to SPAM Wikipedia with this content. As opposed to continuously explaining why each reference fails WP:RS and how none of them can add up to WP:GNG for this article, I just went through and tagged each one in the article. Each tag has an explanation of why it needs a more reliable 3rd party references (press release, reprint of press releases, press release from another company with minority stake in company, company's own website). The only references that should be kept are 12 and 13, although they are lists and would only go to support awards, not show notability of the company. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All three printed newspaper articles are credible references. They are three leading newspapers from Singapore. You seem to be merely repeating yourself for the past 4/5 weeks if you include the first AfD. I think other editors of the AfD need to take this into consideration. 94.56.9.68 (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPAM - Article creator is correct with their comment above. My conduct of trying to keep spam out of Wikipedia should be taken into account. In fact, I found another reference for Conversion Hub [1]. So how is Joel Fu and Conversion Hub related to Asia Food Recipe? Also, can you comment on the 1st deletion and 2nd deletion of the Asia Food Recipe article or the fact that it appears that the article was also full of sourced press releases? Either Mr. Fu has a history of spamming information into Wikipedia or Asia Food Recipe is a client of Conversion Hub who tried to spam the article on Wikipedia for them. Either way, this type of blatant promotion should not be allowed on Wikipedia. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Conversion Hub are a marketing company, I think we can all agree on that. It is clear that they have carried work out for Asia Food Recipe from the article you have uploaded. However there is no link on wikipedia, from IP addresses or users that have worked on both articles. To say that Mr. Fu is responsible for the Asia Food Recipe articles, simply has no substance as an argument. Adel4570 (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Adel4570 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - You could be correct about the same person not editing any of the three articles. Of course, you are referring to the usernames and IP addresses, not what a checkuser would find out. Regardless, I believe I will rely on WP:DUCK on this one and say based on how they are written with WP:PUFF that they are all related. Just my opinion. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of the current sources are from the company - either from the company's site or press releases - and I'm not convinced what is left is enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Happy to consider potential sources but the deadlinks don't inspire confidence. Stalwart111 15:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe the article is more than credible. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but three articles as mentioned above by the IP user are all credible PRINTED media articles. The fact one of them has a deadlink doesn't matter. This in my opinion meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Secondly, the additional references are in accordance with WP:SELFSOURCE. I don't fell that any of the points made in these references make the subject sound like something its not. The key points that are covered are about the size of the organisation and who they work with. Both these points are covered in the 3 printed media references. Adel4570 (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Adel4570 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's not really how WP:SELFSOURCE works, especially given the article itself, in my view, fails points 1 and 5 of that guideline in that the sources in question are obviously self-serving press releases, created to promote the company, and the article itself is primarily based on those sources. How very convenient that the only sources not available to other users are the only sources that might confer notability. Yeah, not going to work. Stalwart111 00:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - one of the company's main clients had an equally poorly sourced article that I've just nominated for deletion here. Stalwart111 00:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - While still assuming good faith, there are IP !votes being made in addition to the creator of the article. Not implying a sock puppet, but would request that the discussion closer please take into consideration the IP voter on this deletion discussion and the two similar IP !votes on the previous deletion discussion. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At this time it does not seem to meet CORPDEPTH or have any hope of RSes existing to cover it in that detail. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - In regards to WP:CORPDEPTH - I quote If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. - The newspaper articles do this, there are 3 individual articles all of which are independent and aren't trivial or incidental. Because the articles are from printed media, this seems to be a problem to some. However we shouldn't be deleting an article because editors can't easily view the references. It is not impossible to view these references, they are from large media outlets in Singapore. Just because some editors can't click a link to establish notability shouldn't be a reason to delete it. Adel4570 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly right - they don't need to be online. But they do need to exist. The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that the company is notable. You claim these sources exist; I, for one, don't believe you. The Straits Times, for example, has a lovely search function. Despite your claim that one of their articles substantiates the subject's notability beyond doubt, a search of their site - right here - produces zero results. Like I said above - your claim that the only sources that confer notability are also the only sources that happen not to be online (for an online marketing company) isn't going to fly. Who the hell publishes a substantial article about an online company but then doesn't publish it online where the biggest market for such news would be? Ha ha. No. Stalwart111 14:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's address the WP:CORPDEPTH issue. You quote, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." Great quote, but you need to interpret it for what that means, not what you "want" it to mean. I would agree that if you had "multiple independent sources" that they could be considered as a group to be a single reliable source and be counted towards WP:GNG. Here in lies the problem - THERE IS NOTHING INDEPENDENT here. Everything is press releases and reprints of press releases. Oh yeah, let's thrown in the company website as well because that's independent? The articles that you cite more than likely do not exist or are just additional reprinted press releases which is what it sounds like from the title of the articles. As such, your logic that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH is seriously flawed. Also, you have been rather quiet to comment on the SPAM that this company keeps putting up on Wikipedia (including this article, Asia Food Recipe, and SgCartMart). --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote the article on Conversion Hub, and want to discuss that. That is the reason I haven't joined in with your SPAM discussion. As for your other points I don't even think they are worthy of addressing.
Stalwart - You make some good points until the Haha at the end, which is incredibly childish. It surprises me that the articles aren't still online. Just to clarify, 2 of them were - the deadlink (not sure if it has been removed now), and the Zaobao article. The articles not being online for a marketing company isn't going to fly? These aren't press releases from the company, they are news articles. It is up to the papers how they display their news. They are a marketing company, would that news not be readable content for people who read newspapers? and should only be sent to internet users?? Of course not. As for proving existence of the newspaper articles, I believe this is a MASSIVE flaw in Wikipedia by the look of things. How am I supposed to prove it to you? Hand deliver a copy of that newspaper to each and every editor that questions its existence? Adel4570 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um no, your argument is a joke and I laughed; I have a sense of humour. The only sources that might save your advertisement aren't available to the rest of us mere mortals and we simply have to take the word of a single-purpose promo-spammer that they exist, they are reliable, they are significant coverage and thus the subject is notable. You gotta see the humour in that! Stalwart111 21:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a "massive flaw in Wikipedia" as you state. The flaw is with individuals who need to use Wikipedia guidelines to contribute to this discussion so a consensus can be formed. Sorry, but there is a flaw with humans that we simply do not trust something that is "fishy," which is exactly what this article is. If the article is full of poorly sourced information with links to that poorly sourced information, and the only "reliable" source provided is to a non-link source, then it smells fishy. Taking into account the previous intermingled SPAM from SgSmartCar and Asia Food Recipe, this smells even fishier. Unfortunately for you, both myself and Stalwart (sorry for speaking for this editor) have by our comments above attempted to prove your case for your; however, we have been unable to do so. Logic tells me that if this company is truly notable, there would be more online than just press releases. Tons of press releases and no online reliable source? No one is asking you to provide a hand delivered copy of the source, but you need to look at this logically and stop repeating the same bad argument about a source that may or may not exist.
The article actually falls into the definition of WP:LIPSTICK and WP:PUFF and as such the article does not stand much chance of survival unless the "reliable" references that you put in the article are somehow verified. This has NOTHING to do with a flaw in Wikipedia, but the flaw in how you created the article full of junk and then expect everyone to believe the sources that can only be verified by you. I believe at this point that the article has a case of Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability as there is really nothing that can be done to improve it or establish notability.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conversion_Hub_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137734359"