Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The7stars (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 December 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 02:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The7stars

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only possible claim of notability is unsourced, and I'm unable to find any sourcing to prove it. As such, this is a non-notable company. As Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses, this advertisement does not belong. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination fails wp:gng Theroadislong (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is the same after canvasing, notability has not been shown.Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. —Theo polisme 11:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{Above vote still stands, even post-cavassing. —Theopolisme 17:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep. Anyone checked out the previous AfD? A shedload of sources were found there, but User:Cindamuse removed a whole bunch of information 11 hours before this AfD was opened. I'm going to cite the sources that were stated as making this pass WP:GNG: [1], [2] and [3]. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at those sources ... certainly didn't convince me. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD and Lukeno94. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteReferences appear to be primarily subscription websites, except two which link to other wikipedia pages. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anthony. ~~Additionally, in its present state the article has only one reference - to an ad agencies directory which nowhere near pass WP:RS.~~ Max Semenik (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The latter concern has been rectified, however my !vote still stands. Max Semenik (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except the majority of them aren't subscription websites, so...what's the argument? Silver seren^C 11:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BWilkins, what the hell are you doing? The moment Lukeno told you that the information in the article had been removed, you should have re-added it so that the AfD voters could be properly informed about the article. The fact that you didn't is rather damning.

The article subject is clearly and obviously notable. It has tons of news coverage over years and is one of the most talked about media agencies in the world. The sources speak for themselves. Silver seren^C 10:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me? I reviewed those ref's as noted above, and found them lacking. It's most certainly not my responsibility to add what I considered to be crappy references back into an article, and it's certainly not "damning" that I didn't do it. I find your attempt to personalize this more damning than anything else (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is lacking about the refs? They're news coverage of the subject. And regardless of your opinion of them, you should have added them back in, as the removal of them clearly was not an improvement to the article. Silver seren^C 11:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Note that the content and sources previously removed included a roster of employees and clients sourced to press releases masquerading as reliable sources. ~~Not even close to news coverage. It simply doesn't meet the threshold for independent and reliable sources.~~ Cindy(talk to me) 11:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While there are quite a few sources that are rooted in press releases, I believe that the new citations added by Silver are enough to establish notability for this organization. Sure, I would like to see more, since I only see two as anywhere near significant, but still, it squeaks by for me. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 07:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So i'm guessing that's a no, it wasn't a mistake. You have no proof that they are press releases. They have authors and are articles in reputable publications. How exactly are they not news coverage? Silver seren^C 11:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're going to badger the nominator, anyone who !votes to delete, and then WP:CANVASS those who !voted to delete as well? Rather surprising and disturbing behaviour from you SS. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Informing them that, when they voted, information had been missing from the article is not canvassing. I do the same thing when I improve an article in the middle of an AfD. That's the whole point, after all. Silver seren^C 20:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment. @Silver: In essence, it comes down to differentiating between content intended to inform and that intended to promote. In making an assessment of the copy, it is clear that the content and sources were ultimately sourced to information culled directly from the company, i.e., an announcement that the company had gained another client. Great for the company, but not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 13:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added further information and references into the article that are not "an announcement that the company has gained another client". I hope you find them satisfactory. Silver seren^C 01:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't check the sources from the previous AfD, for the precise reason that it convinced multiple experienced editors that the article should be kept - and it was a 2012 AfD, not an early one when restrictions were laxer. I'm confused as to why this viewpoint could suddenly have changed. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It may be quite possible that the participants in the previous discussion did the same thing that you did here. That is, neglect to personally review the citations offered and/or relied on the assessment of others to play into their recommendation on the validity of the article. Just a thought. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 19:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly doubt that two experienced editors and the person who took it to AfD would all do that. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been asked by Silver seren to reconsider my !vote. Having reviewed the references (again) my position is unchanged. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment On further research it seems that Silver Seren has actively canvassed every editor making a !delete comment here, except Cindamuse for whom the discussion happened here. I am not happy about this, particularly as the editors in question include three very experienced admins. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, it is not canvassing to notify you that improvements have been made to the article and to please take another look at it. I did not tell anyone to change their vote, I told them to look at the article. If that resulted in them changing their vote, then that was on them. Silver seren^C 20:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have expanded the article from what it was previously. Please take another look. Silverseren^C 04:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for your work on this article, Silver. At the same time, while you may have acted as the great physician by adding some needed sources, in my opinion, I think your bedside manner could use some tweaking. Nevertheless, your work is appreciated. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 07:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thank you. And apologies for getting upset. I understand why you consider the "sales" references as you do, even if I disagree with that. I've just had to deal with too many AfDs where people try to strip down the article in order to get it deleted and I automatically assumed that's what was going on here. I see now that I was wrong in that assumption. Silver seren^C 08:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. Even in my own mind I have no consensus. . I am not sure of my own view on sources like this; they are probably PR-influenced as would be almost all coverage in the topic area, , but still substantial, and I could equally well have argued on either side. I don't consider a rank of 34th in the world as significant in itself, but it would be higher nationally. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, from you that's a delete LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:30, 22 December 2012 (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.