Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freebiejeebies (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. MBisanz talk 13:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freebiejeebies

edit
AfDs for this article:
Freebiejeebies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article was speedy deleted but restored by consensus at DRV following substantial improvement in userspace. Questions remain about the strength of the sourcing and whether the article does in fact meet WP:WEB. The appropriate place for that discussion is AFD not DRV so here we are. This is a procedural nomination as the DRV closer so I personally have no position. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:RS : I reviewed this and believe the author of the reference is regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand and that the source directly supports the information as presented in the article - I clearly say that the reference is from a forum, but believe this forum is large, established and independent enough to pass and the source is appropriate to the claims made, particularly as the reference itself is from the senior moderator of the forum. Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I will leave a judgement on the reliability of that source to the closing admin. For me it fails, but more experienced editors here may disagree with me, something I will be content with. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE CHANGED I am the original author and have only just noticed that the article has been restored. I have added many more references and adjusted the whole article to be more objective. All the comments above are therefore outdated. Please could you review the article and make constructive comments, I am open to all suggestions for improvement. Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that in no way can this article be accused of not being notable. A reference from an international magazine should be enough to support any article. The website is relatively small (if you want to compare it to Microsoft of Google) and therefore this reference is the strongest available. Why should any article on wikipedia be removed solely on subjective opinion that 'more' references are required. There is no other company by the name of 'Freebiejeebies' and therefore this article is not falsely taking up another's place, it does not harm other articles by existing, and is now fully objective in its writing. I am happy to improve it even further, but before you reply with big bold 'delete' comments, why not make a constructive comment? Thanks very much. Simon2239 (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's go through those points one at a time, referring back to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
    1. "A reference from an international magazine should be enough to support any article".
      Refuted by WP:GNG — "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (My emphasis on the plural s of sources.)
    2. Why should any article on wikipedia be removed solely on subjective opinion that 'more' references are required.
      WP:N includes "Multiple sources are generally preferred."
    3. There is no other company by the name of 'Freebiejeebies' and therefore this article is not falsely taking up another's place
      Straw man. See WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
    4. it does not harm other articles by existing
      WP:NOHARM.
    5. is now fully objective in its writing
      That's necessary but not sufficient.
    6. but before you reply with big bold 'delete' comments, why not make a constructive comment
      If editors feel that the article should be deleted, they are entitled to that viewpoint.
    I hope you understand where these arguments are coming from. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeez, you love your cliquey rules, with all those obscure letters and terms I feel your subjective points are all the more strong. So much for wikipedia being free information, you lot just like ruling your clique with a bottomless pit of WP:lettering to justify yourselves. Simon2239 (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot possibly see how that comment strengthens your argument. Stifle provided you with a great deal of help in the comment. It simply appears that it is impossible to meet Wikipedia's needs with the article for which you show genuine enhtusiasm but can provide no real substance. Please conduct yourself with civility, something I feel is borderline here, and recognise that no-one is taking any of this personally, except, perhaps, you. Let's face it, Freebiejeeebies is currently just not notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that is just another subjective notion. What gives you the right to determine what is in a public free access encylopedia? Half of these guidelines were no doubt written by people like you to permit you to justify deleting articles by less experienced users. The more time I spend on here, the more of these ridiculous 'WP:' statements come out of the woodwork. Sorry, maybe you should all just realise that the point of wikipedia is free knowledge - you have no right to control what knowledge is appropriate like a bunch of dictators. You're all just a big clique and I believe it is to the detriment of wikipedia. The Sole criteria for inclusion should be objectivity and fact, my article meets both. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.193.180 (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Speedy deleted, CSD#G11 - Advertisement masquerading as an article; notability still not evident (it seems to be saying "X Company is notable, we do the same as X, therefore we're notable, which isn't true). Even after the "changes" mentioned above, this is still has to go. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a "constructive" comment. It says no such thing. Furthermore, I've never quite understood this greatly flawed argument of an 'advertisement masquerading as an article'. The only way people will find this article is by searching for 'freebiejeebies', which they could do on google or any other search engine and get much less objective information without a balanced viewpoint - unlike this article. No, your argument is fatally weak. Simon2239 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like an advertisement (offering a variety of gifts to users... They have a large number of partner companies... Partner companies include several UK household names... coverage in the media is beginning to grow as more people receive gifts.) and it claims inherited notability (In this way it is similar to companies such as Gratis Internet (aka. Freepay) which is is one of the largest 'freebie' websites and was established in 2001.) whilst at no point giving a hint as to its own notability. I know you're really wanting to keep this advertisement up (is it your website?) but what part of this argument is weak? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also take issue with the sources you are using in the advertisement. Only two of them actually mention Freebiejeebies (T3 in passing, from what sounds like a press release; and some forum for people to advertise their membership of this affiliate scheme); the rest mention other schemes but not this one. On that basis, I've changed my !vote above. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that someone searching for "freebiejeebies" will end up at the company's website in the absence of this article. No problems there, then. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right. All of that argument is weak. The T3 reference is not 'in passing' and provides plenty of notability, more than enough for this article to exist. Simon2239 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You and I will need to agree to disagree on this. My opinion (delete as spam) stands. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a delete as still reads like an advert promoting the site, despite the All the comments above are therefore outdated instruction given by the single editor still wanting to retain the article. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If everyones main argument is going to be that it 'reads like an advert' then I would be happy to change the first sentence to 'claim to offer' if this will put this argument to rest. Anything else that does not read to some editors satisfaction can also be changed, in fact - go ahead and change it! Yes, I want this article to stay - so change the tone to satisfy yourself, I've done my best to do this. I still believe the notability argument is a no-goer so the only argument left is the apparently 'reading like an advert' that is continually asserted - change it, tone is very simple to alter, why delete an article on a subjective assessment of the tone when this is easily adjusted. Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have again re-written the first paragraph and believe it to now be completely free from any hint of 'reading like an advertisement'. Simon2239 (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Oscarthecat - Has created a further new version. Simon2239 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not notable - only third-party mention is a (press release) mention in passing in T3 magazine. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No - it is both not a press release and is not 'in passing' - incorrect. Simon2239 (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't deny it being the only mention? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I also disagree with you on that. Simon2239 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you're still not providing the other reliable, third party sources for your website. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE. Additional edits to article are not improving its quality. This article has absolutely no value in an encylopedia and is simply a ploy for advertising from a completely unknown company. 66.208.14.122 (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown to you - but over 100,000 hits on google. Perhaps an encyclopedia article would help educate you? Simon2239 (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see 100k+ hits on google and a lot of this hits I do see have nothing to do with this company. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps. This isn't my company - I have no interest in advertising it for personal gain. Simon2239 (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think advertising concerns are still the matter. The fact is the company is simply not notable enough for inclusion here. See WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2008 (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/Freebiejeebies_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140559253"