Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Activeion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:41, 29 June 2009

Activeion

Altough well written, this is IMO, a completely non-notable company. Article is little more than a vanity page, although not entirely. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have been tempted to tag this as a speedy deletion as spam if I had seen it without an AfD tag, but now we're here we might as well get it deleted in a more affirmative way. A Google News archive search, which, for any notable company founded in this decade in the Western world would be expected to find some sources, just finds that it's one of three products mentioned in a single sentence in Bicycle Retailer magazine. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd like to note that if you do an actual Google news search there are 4 other hits in June. The "archive" search does only return one item, because it does not seem to include the current month? I know that it's not print, but the product has made the rounds in the blogsphere (just do a regular Google search). 65.215.26.189 (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is also this article but for a company / product, there is a dearth of coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a sentence noting that Bill Nye has joined the company as a spokesman and has produced a nine minute video explaining and advertising the product. I think Bill Nye's notability & his video contributes to the notability of this company, I apologize for not including it in the original draft of the article. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So, we're supposed to have an article based on the fact that the company hired a minor celebrity for an advertisement? Let's get real. To be included in Wikipedia we need to have evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not paid-for "celebrity" endorsements. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response I was apologizing for leaving out a fact which significantly contributes to the notability of the product, but I carefully did not state whether or not I thought this meant the article was "notable enough for Wikipedia". Please be more respectful in Wikipedia discussions: we are trying to establish a consensus, not have a one-upsmanship contest. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict with Whpq)I apologise if my comments came across as impolite, and I'm certainly not trying to get involved in one-upmanship, but, to keep to the subject in hand, the hiring of the anyone, however notable, whether Bill Nye or Joseph Ratzinger or The Dear Leader himself, to front an advertisement doesn't contribute in any way to notability, and certainly not significantly, without coverage in reliable sources. Pointing out what I think to be fallacies in others' arguments is not disrepectful: it's the whole point of these discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - having Bill Nye as a spokesman doesn't establish notability. The provided referencing is to another press release. What is needed is coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :*'''Comment'''. So, we're supposed to have an article based on the fact that the company hired a minor celebrity for an advertisement? Let's get real. To be included in Wikipedia we need to have evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not paid-for "celebrity" endorsements. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 ::*'''Response''' I was apologizing for leaving out a fact which significantly contributes to the notability of the product, but I carefully ''did not'' state whether or not I thought this meant the article was "notable enough for Wikipedia". Please be more respectful in Wikipedia discussions: we are trying to establish a consensus, not have a one-upsmanship contest. [[User:Madeleine_Price_Ball|Madeleine]] [[User_talk:Madeleine_Price_Ball|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Madeleine_Price_Ball|✍]] 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
+:::*(after edit conflict with Whpq)I apologise if my comments came across as impolite, and I'm certainly not trying to get involved in one-upmanship, but, to keep to the subject in hand, the hiring of the anyone, however notable, whether [[Bill Nye]] or [[Joseph Ratzinger]] or [[The Dear Leader]] himself, to front an advertisement doesn't contribute in any way to notability, and certainly not significantly, without coverage in reliable sources. Pointing out what I think to be fallacies in others' arguments is not disrepectful: it's the whole point of these discussions. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 :*'''Reply''' - having Bill Nye as a spokesman doesn't establish notability.  The provided referencing is to another press release.  What is needed is coverage in reliable sources. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)