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 While there has been extensive discussion about the company and the article the questions on WP:N, WP:CORP have still to be addressed along with the concerns of WP:COI and WP:SOAP. I note that the previous AfD from August 2006 had similar concerns at that time the AfD was closed as no consensus. Also the article has under gone a lot of editing since it was list here, with a number of sources added including some that are WP:RS these sources are used to support only incidental information they offer nothing to the establishment of Notability. Comments on this AfD in general, as this isnt a vote but a discussion the box tallying "votes" and comparing this to an editors number of edits is meaningless and should not be used again. For the editors making accusations of cabals against other editors I recommend that you take your greivances to WP:RFC, it not uncommon for Australian editors to comment on Australian articles. Deletion of the article doesnt necessarily preclude recreation provided the new article addresses all concerns raised in the two afd's and its recreation has been supported through WP:DRV. Gnangarra 11:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out Now Consulting[edit]


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

I would love to delete this as CSD A7/G11, however a previous discussion on deletion resulted in no consensus, so this is now a procedural listing. Basically, i'm calling out this article as Vanispamcruftisement particularly given it's origins as created by an author with a clear conflict of interest, plus the organisation doesn't pass the I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground test. The article reads like an ad, would require a significant re-write to become encyclopaedic. This is not withstanding the use of weasel words within the article. Looking at the ghits and the references already included in the article, the majority of these seem to be primary sources being from company PR, their own websites, and the like. Thewinchester (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to point out the obvious, but coverage by Amanda Keller on breakfast/tabloid TV makes one notable on Wikipedia? Hmm... I can see an opening for fitness equipment manufacturers already. Zivko85 13:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note see long comment below - the TV coverage of the article subject is significant and a serious coverage on television, not a flippant coverage as the above comment implies JeffStryker 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I accept your right to reply, as a closing admin for other debates I would advise that comments such as above, in length terms, are somewhat of an abuse of good faith, and a ridiculous imposition on the closing admin whose time is already sparse. There is nothing in the above that couldn't be said in about four lines, and this applies to several of the IP editors and to User:JudyRobinson's comments. (I also, for the record, see nothing that actually rebuts Zivko's arguments in the above - and his two combined responses were 461 words, incidentally.) Most likely this will end up at deletion review, for the reason that no admin should be expected to have to deal with such long-winded responses to an AfD from editors with a combined total of 119 edits to the encyclopaedia, about 10% of which are on this debate. Orderinchaos 20:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


User Words in AfD Total edits Edits to AfD
Delete
Orderinchaos 396 16950 9
Thewinchester 681 2590 19
Semperf 4 4799 1
Ihcoyc 109 15346 1
Lankiveil 15 2400 1
DanielT5 138 542 4
Zivko85 490 152 5
Total: 1833 42779 40
Keep
JeffStryker 1716 39 11
JudyRobinson 1201 73 8
Agnetha1234 255 42 3
Pecheling 306 27 2
EarthaKitt 117 21 1
69.230.202.178 20 1 1
83.84.33.33 61 1 1
WJBscribe 195 14202 4
125.63.132.124 601 1 1
Madman bum and angel 17 2259 2
Total: 4489 16666* 34

* (205 excluding WJBscribe and Madman bum and angel)

Also as one of the Western Australian editors I resent the suggestion we are voting as some kind of block. If that was the case you would have about 9 from Western Australia. We're all established editors, we've all been involved in AfDs before. Several established editors from other states and elsewhere in the world have also voted delete. In fact as the table above shows, all but two of the established editors have voted delete (with all respect to those who didn't as people have the right to vote whatever way they choose). There's been 2.5 times as many words spoken to keep the article, two-thirds of which have been by two editors with few significant contributions outside this AfD and one of which is highly involved in editing of the original article. I have absolutely no history with this article and this subject, but I cast an informed vote and got attacked for it. I see the same has now happened to Zivko85. Most of the keep votes don't even *try* to address Wikipedia policy and make vague claims about unverifiable sources. On WP:N, a cornerstone policy, and on WP:V, another cornerstone policy, this article utterly fails. It's just another company that's good at self-promotion. A page in some Dutch textbook and a badly-formatted article in a Dutch newspaper that quotes the company founder almost to a word (ever heard of advertorial?) convince me even further that this article has no place on an encyclopedia. (I do realise the irony in this raising the "delete" word count, but yeah...) DanielT5 21:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I did not wish to offend you DanielT5, and can only apologise if you took offence, I hadn't yet noticed you also are from the same State of Western Australia. I was observing that of the delete editors (as it now turns out) a majority are from such a small population State as yours. I thought your table interesting but also the observation at the top of this page "please note that this is not a majority vote". It is a bit of a moot point to rely on perhaps since the nominator of the article is by far the most frequent contributor to this AfD, and it doesn't advance the key argument we are all meant to be focusing on, namely WP:CORP. I apologise for being amongst the more verbose commentors JeffStryker 22:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re state - WA has a population of over 2 million. Even by Australian standards we are overrepresented in terms of admins, featured and good articles and active contributors, and our wikiproject is probably the most active under the Australian banner and looks after over 2,500 articles about itself, notwithstanding editors' contributions to other areas. As such it's not entirely unexpected that our editors, who vote in a range of current AfDs (and not infrequently on opposing sides!), would end up commenting on a controversial AfD which is Australian in focus. I would guess most, like myself, saw it come up on Australian deletions - I'm entirely unsure where the IP and other editors discovered it. Re Thewinchester - about 4 of those edits would have been simply those instituting the AfD, and several were edits or corrections to the user's own contributions. Orderinchaos 22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JeffStryker - your comments above clearly show that you've ignorant to the discussion at hand. OIC has already beat me to a comment on the state. Nearly every discussion bar some necessary deviations and inclusions has been about notability in one form or another, which obviously relates back to WP:CORP. From WP:CORP
The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations1 except for the following:
Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself — whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.2 Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy.
Sorry, but the core citations and the DagBlad piece being used to assert notability for the company fail the above test in WP:CORP, clear cut and dried. Additionally, the Australian projects are some of the most active WP projects around, and users often converse frequently both on and off WP about issues of the day and the goings on. Making a thinly veiled suggestion that editors are acting like a Cabal is not only patently false, but shows a clear lack of understanding how WP works and project members collaborate. I've already had to remind you once on Assume Good Faith and it shows that you need to go back and read it, again. Thewinchester (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been trying my best to see and find Good Faith throughout this process. Some of the language on both sides of this debate - I think - veered off the temperate road, but that again is not the determining issue to resolve. I note the footnote number 2 to the extract you selected states: The published works must be someone else writing about the company... A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. I see no evidence other than unproved assertions that either Amanda Keller, or Philip Kotler or the International Herald Tribune have approached their coverage of Out Now on any basis other than as a notable subject for non-trivial coverage in its own right. When I watch/look at these three alone (even without all the other evidence various 'keep' editors referred to) I remain quite convinced of notability. JeffStryker 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, how did you miss the key point in the quote from WP:CORP, and this entire deletion debate? You admit that these are published by another company, and as WP:CORP states that (And i'm paraphrasing the policy here) material re-printed by other people based on a press release or other works where the company talks about itself ain't notable. You're trying in seventeen different ways to suggest WP:CORP says something other than what it says in regards to the issues at hand, and each time you single handidly end up proving the article and subject do not meet WP:CORP. You also continue on stating that contributors to this AfD have tried to assert that Amanda Keller, Philip Kotler and International Herald Tribune are not notable, which is a self-beneficial reading of the discussion. The notability by association is contested due to the nature of the comments or articles attributed to them, as these are considered by definition primary sources and not meeting the notability requirments of WP:CORP. This is not withstanding that trying to use Amanda Keller who is at best a B-Grade TV Presenter/Radio Announcer as a notable source is just beyond beleivable, as she has no authority or standing in these kind of debates bar having access to a captive audience day in day out. Thankfully, all the AfD's i've had to pursue thusfar on the Category:Companies of Australia cleanup have just not got to this level, because it has been a bugger of a category to clean up. Getting rid of this article has proved particually cumbersome due to a previous AfD and a bunch of single issue editors who've swooped down to protect an article which has not been shown by any of the contributions to be notable specially when placed in the context of company policy. Frankly I have no idea how so many single-issue editors became aware of this and decided to throw their two cents in, but i'll go out on a limb and suggest that there's either a company flunky who's got this article on watch (Which screams Vanispamcruftisement) and has called a bunch of you into action, or there's been some other way of getting the message out that's not been exposed yet to the community at large. I have not seen one single convincing comment which goes to disproving the lack of notability of the organisation specially when weighed against WP policy, and I strongly suspect that the closing administrator will see it that way as well. Thewinchester (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really have not enough time left for this process so thankfully a decision will soon be made. So far as Good Faith goes - we can all benefit from trying to adhere to that assumption in our comments. I mentioned above in my first posting why I've watched this article for some time. I don't want to inflame things, so will not respond to the other points you made above - I think we have all 'been there, done that' in this AfD by this stage to understand the others' viewpoints clearly enough - even if we don't share them. JeffStryker 15:13, 24 May 2007 (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.
More