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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A horribly spammy article on what may or may not be a notable subject, it needs to be either drastically improved or deleted. Has been deleted by WP:PROD but contested, so here it is at AfD. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For now, speedy delete as db-spam. It may or may not be notable for the awards it won, but given the advert-style tone and the possible WP:COI problems of the author (judging from his contribs), let someone else write a more neutral article. Sandstein 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The author submitted an article that conforms substantially with standards for other company stubs. This was acknowledge the first time the article was proposed for speedy deletion, at which point it was accepted by TruthbringerToronto and modified by that user as well at which point much of the text in this "spammy" article was added. The article was deleted a month later without deletion review by without comment, however, by another user, UtherSRG. I may be new to Wikipedia, but I do not see how these actions conform with the community's own standards for the following reasons:

1. An article should afforded sufficient time for review.
2. As the author, I take issue with the questionable judgements of "spammy" articles, which border line on ad-hominem (what "behavior" is being referred to I don't know - I simply argued for keeping an article on "Modifiable Multimedia" which I hardly considered to be disruptive. I made my comments and then let it go.
3. The commentators above should specify what is spammy? Where has the article mentioned that Polar Design is significantly better than other agencies? The article simply states what this company does.
4. Examples of several other company stubs follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plank_Multimedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPN_WEB_DESIGN_INC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeweavers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itnti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_Design

I think that the company stub conforms substantially to the standards employed in reviewing and approving other company stubs. There are many less notable companies that have been accepted into Wikipedia. As editors, we should clarify whether company stubs are limited to notable companies or, as the current standards indicate, to a wider cross section. If the reasons for deletion is that the article is spammy, it seems more appropriate to propose improvements to what was written to remove any bias rather than to initiate wholesale deletion. I do not think that proposed deletion is appropriate given the examples above, Wikipedia standards on company stubs, the discription of the company. I would like to remind anyone reading this that the article was already approved by another editor and existed in the database for sometime until a stealth deletion, so the argument that this article should be deleted merely because it already was is fallacious, in this case. Endless blue 00:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a few things to clear up. Just because TruthbringerToronto removed your speedy deletion tag several months ago doesn't mean you're golden from there on out. He removed it because someone tagged it for deletion as spam. Back in August, that wasn't a reason for deletion. Now? It is. Also, when you say it was deleted without time for review...WP:PROD puts an article up for deletion for 5 days. At anytime anyone can remove the prod template to "save" the article. No one did for this article. So that's just some clarifications for you since you seem more than a little confused about this whole process. Metros232 00:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the comments, but, first of all, as I recall, the prod template was removed by Truthbringer. The article was left unmolested until sometime in late September or early October, whenever it was deleted.

Second, your comment suggests that the article may not have been spam in August but is now. For that to be true, the article would have to change substantially. When the article was posted in August, it was edited by Truthbringer and the last version of those edits is what stood. When I restored the article, at UtherSRG's instructions (to place in deletion review), I at first could not find the original text. I requested assistance from other editors on this, but no one gave me that help. I wrote something temporarily, and then I found an archived version of the article on this web site that syndicate Wikipedia content:

http://www.answers.com/topic/polar-design

Today, before submitting the article for the undeletion review, I merged that content with what already existed. As I hope you can see, that text that was added by Truthbringer (the text in the link) is pretty close to what is in the article now. Given that the text was originally added by someone other than myself with whom I have no connection other than Wikipedia, I would hope you would consider this evidence that nothing about this article has changed since late August / early September when it was NOT considered spam.

Regarding your point about the 5 day review, I had a watch set on the article but did not receive any notification by e-mail which I thought would be standard. Perhaps that was my fault, I will check my settings to be sure. Endless blue 02:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see where you're getting confused. There's no "process" to "approve" articles. Anything may be removed from the encyclopedia at any time if it does not conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this case, the first 5 companies can probably be speedy deleted for lack of context/no assertion of notability (indeed one has already been deleted), and the last has no sources, so there's a good chance that it would be deleted as well. But the fact that they haven't gone through that process doesn't mean that it's approved by anyone, it just means that nobody has taken a look at it yet. Unfortunately, though you have given sources, they're either directory entries (violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory), or press releases (which are primary sources, ie the company's). You need a third-party reliable source to write an article about the company to pass muster. ColourBurst 14:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, as far as I understand, company stubs have different standards than research. At least I have seen this in other editors' edits to save stubs from deletion. You are suggesting that the article on Polar would need to meet the same standards as an article on Charlamagne, which does not appear to be the case.

Second, would you agree that its reasonable to read all the materials before passing judgment? There isn't a Polar Design - issued "company" press release linked from the article, so that assertion is not totally accurate. There is a press release link that was added by another editor - it was issued by a third party and mentions us. Yes, there are a lot of directory entries - again, I did not add those, another editor did (please see the original version of the article). However, one of the links that I did add is a primary source, the 2006 Web Award. Regarding other articles, I have added two links below the web award link to an article in CNN and Insight magazine about the company. I hope this satisfies your concerns. Endless blue 14:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize - I seemed to have missed a few of them. [1] is the press release I was talking about - "Polar Design... announced today the public release..." is very press-release like. Regarding the moneyCNN article, it mentions Polar Design - but it only says it's a small business and who its owner is, and gives the owner's opinions on two weeks notice. It doesn't even mention what Polar Design does, so it doesn't support the article in any way - the article is about quitting your job, not Polar Design. The last one (CPA society article) does have in-depth coverage of the subject in question - we just need more articles like this. ColourBurst 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the feedback and no apologies needed - as noted, I just added the CNN and Insight article, so you hadn't missed those. I'll look for more. Endless blue 16:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a failure of WP:CORP. Of all the references listed, only one is a non-trivial article. The CNN item is not about the company. The others are either directory listings or a newsrelease. I am not convinced (though I could be) that the web award is notable enough.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, almost as an aside, according to WP:CORP itself, it is a set of "rough guidelines" not a hard and fast bench mark. Wikipedia:Notability is clear that the guidelines are not set in stone and common sense should apply. With companies, the guidelines are too heavily biased toward public companies that automatically get coverage because of the legions of stock analysts that must cover them and generate press interest as a result. Private companies often do not attract a lot of press, but are notable nonetheless based on the calibre of clients that they serve, and the awards that they garner. In Polar Design's case, the winning of awards is one sign that this is a "notable" company in this specific category of multimedia design. A look at the web site, its portfolio, projects and clients should indicate that the company does "notable" work and is this a "notable" company. I don't dispute that the WP:CORP guidelines aren't a good starting point, because they are, but there should be other less narrow guides that we as editors use to determine notability, or else we are merely reprinting a very narrow set of commonly considered authoritative sources and not creating a truly independent source of knowledge at all (which I imagine is part of the mission, no?).

More pertinent to your vote/view, according to WP:CORP a company can satisfy notability with either multiple non-trivial articles, or third party consumer reviews. Therefore, I have just added two consumer reviews from third parties that are not reprints of press releases or anything else, as well as a third article that was posted in an online resource about internet marketing but is not a directory (i.e., the company did not have control over the content). With four non-trivial sources, I hope I don't have to go back and find more or the resource list will become too long, and I hope I have convinced you to change your view. Endless blue 02:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as insufficiently notable. Subject has not been the primary subject of multiple, third-party published sources. The only cite to a reliable source, CNN, does not even mention the company. -- Satori Son 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company's HR challenges are mentioned and its policy can be infered in the CNN article, and its explicitly named therein: "...that's not a job easily transferred to someone else since a lot of sales is based on personal relationships, said small-business owner Mark Jaklovsky of Polar Design."

Additionally, there are three sources listed there, including the CNN one. Its just your opinion that ZDNet and Insight are "unreliable", but they are considered major sources of information for technology professionals and accountants, respectively. Endless blue 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One article, even in passing mentioning Polar Design, is enough -- nay much more to warrant enough notability for Wikipedia. In fact, if this were merely a passing mention in CNN, I would say to delete the PD article, but there is simply too much presence on the internet. SoreThumb 3:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep due to sufficient internet-presence coupled with sufficient published presence. There are multiple companies that are currently supplying a small market, but this does not mean that they are negligible. Furthermore, the presence of multiple online articles about Polar Design ceritfy that this is not just a small case here: this company has had international impact. I can't read Slovakian. Has anybody found any Slovakian articles about PD as well? I doubt that any other English-speaking contributors here could vouch for the impact in Slovakia as well. SoreThumb 3:05, 1 December 2006

Suggest An additional Slovakian translation/sub-text page with Slovakian sources, if applicable, as well. SoreThumb 3:05, 1 December 2006

— SoreThumb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Gay Cdn 21:34, 1 December 2006

Comment Wikipedia:Don't_bite_the_newbies. Just because I have recently created this account doesn't mean I haven't been learning about Wikipedia constantly through reading articles, or even making a rare or outdated edit.... I have also done articles on other Wikis. I'm not going to go claim WP:NPA, because it's not like my constant review of WP is implicit. SoreThumb 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised Thanks to the additional reference from SoreThumb, namely Create Magazine. I just added an additional reference to one of the company's projects, AmericanPresident.org, that the NEA and the American Library Association recognized (see Polar_Design for more info). When considering notability, I contend that reliable reference to the company's projects are nearly as important as references discussing the company directly and should be taken into account as well when considering WP:CORP or WP:N generally. Finally, I just cleaned up the article as well for grammar, style and advert tone concerns. Endless blue 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 04:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Relisting as article was greatly expanded late in the AfD. --W.marsh 04:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Latest version is well referenced, and plainly notable. --Jayron32 05:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current version seems acceptable. Could an administrator please restore the pre-deletion history? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a web design firm. It isn't particularly large. They happened to build a couple of vaguely notable sites, but probably most firms have. It isn't even an independent firm (it is a division of a firm called "IMS".) Out!!! --Brianyoumans 18:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  

Question 1 How is this firm's purported industry, "web design", relevant to its notability? (Incidentally, the correct industry is Interactive_advertising or the firm could be described as an Interactive_Agency, but that's neither here nor there)

There are industries that are very visible to the public (automobiles, cellular phones) and there are some that are not; web design is something marketed mostly to other businesses, so it has in general little public visibility. This doesn't mean that none deserve articles, but it doesn't help their cause. --Brianyoumans 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2 Is the firm's size a measure of notability? I did not see anything about company size in WP:CORP.

Size certainly doesn't hurt; if nothing else, being the largest firm in an industry is a claim to notability of sorts. --Brianyoumans 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3 Please explain how being a division is lack of notability. Take a look at MRO_Software or Informix, both divisions of IBM. Clearly a division or trade name can have notability, but I'm wondering what your reasoning is?

Certainly divisions can be notable, but it seems to me that "independent web design firm survives internet crash" is a more notable business story than "web design division supported through crash by fat pockets of corporate parent". --Brianyoumans 06:40,

Response Thanks for your answers. I think we can imply that you are retracting your objection to the firm's deletion based on size. "It doesn't hurt (to be large)..." is neither part of WP:CORP, nor an intelligble benchmark or requirement for notability. The converse is not denied by your statement (i.e., "it hurts if you are small or medium sized").

You have also accepted that being a division does not reduce notability, which is implying retraction of that point since your original reason was that simply being associated with a parent company was someone a reason to claim non-notability. You've restated that into a straw man argument, attempting to focus attention on one particular citation about the company's support during a few years while ignoring the rest of the article that states the company also survived by changing its strategy. Frankly, that's blatant bad faith.

That leaves your comment about B2B industries' visibility. Based on your reasoning, entire swathes of Wikipedia should be removed because they are "not very visible to the public". I contend that this logic is a reach to justify your pattern of hasty deletion as evidenced by your user record (see below).

There are many topics in Wikipedia ranging from obscure academic ones to corporate ones that 99% of the public does not know about. But that is why they are here - the world of information is so great that you can't expect the "public" as you so deftly describe it to be aware of every fact. If you then limit Wikipedia to only such facts, you are essentially proposing that we dumb down this information source to topics like Britney Spears or Coca Cola. I'm not proposing that anyone post absolutely anything, but notability is not determined by a rule based on what the majority or even a large part of the population knows - its based on whether the information is important or useful, which in the case of Polar_design may not be to a physicist or historian, but might be to a graphic designer. More importantly, notability is determined based on guidelines described in WP:CORP that are clear and met by this article, which you and other editors seem to choose to ignore for reasons that go beyond reason. I think that your pattern of hasty deletions of other articles (see User_talk:Brianyoumans#C.2B.2B_books) underscores this 'deletion without reason'. Based on the "strength" of your answers, I know you won't be convinced to reconsider your vote, but hopefully other editors reasing this will know what I'm talking about and vote based on accepted community principles. Endless blue 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is always upsetting to have one's integrity questioned. It is certainly true that one of my main activities on Wikipedia is deleting articles, but it is also true that when I vote on other persons' AFDs, I can go either way. If I am a deletionist, it is also true that TruthbringerToronto (who I have a great deal of respect for) is a well known inclusionist. It is also true that Sharkface217 can probably be considered an inclusionist, which is perhaps why you left a message on his talk page to come vote here (which he did, although he quite properly cautioned you on your talk page against doing that sort of thing.) As to some of your other points: I do not agree that I am withdrawing my objections with regards to size. WP:CORP is only a rough guide - it says so at the top. Also, size would factor in to the second criteria for corporations, ranking in industry listings by reputable third-party firms. I admit my point with regard to the notability of divisions was weak, but I think there are also other situations and reasons why a division is inherently less notable. And I am certainly not advocating that Wikipedia only cover industries that are in the public eye, but I was pointing out that Wikipedia is by and large by and for the general public, and the general public is less interested in businesses that serve primarily other businesses. --Brianyoumans 08:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I understood the three criteria in WP:CORP to be additive, not cumulative. In other words, WP:CORP is written so that you only have to satisfy one of the three, not all. Based on that, I don't see how the article can be disputed for notability. As concerns your point that WP:CORP is a rough guide, I agree, but that can swing both ways. I've tried to convince you and others that recognition through awards is as valuable as press coverage. I've obviously failed with you, but personally I believe this notion is important. It is not helpful to niche communities that are part of the so-mentioned "general public" and that have an interest in niche topics to have a standard of 'importance' in place that relies exclusively on articles in the mainstream press. This will exclude a significant portion of companies and articles that are not important to the mainstream, but are nonetheless notable within a particular area of study. I do appreciate your reponses though, and I would add that you've earned my respect through the, regardless of our difference here. I frankly find the one-line explanations placed next to Keep or Delete votes based on a cursory skim of an article demeaning to editors time and effort spent contributing. Thank you. Endless blue 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for your answers. Endless blue 19:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reason given in the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom gave "A horribly spammy article on what may or may not be a notable subject" as a reason. I've spent considerable time adding references to satisfy WP:CORP and revising the text. The nom proposed revision as one solution. I asked this already of the nom, but have received no answer, and so I ask it of you - could you point out what is considered spammy? Otherwise, may we assume you're providing a hastily construed opinion? Thanks. Endless blue 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is insulting. The article reads like a company portpolio. The companie's website was linkied in the first words for God's sake. ArmAndLeg 04:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are thousands of web design firms, most of whom have at least some notable clients. I see nothing that makes this one exceptional. The article is clearly self-promotional from an SPA. Fan-1967 22:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Fan-1967 - you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to make note of your violation of WP:NPA in your tone and hasty comment considering the edit histories of the three contributors (yes, there were three - try reading the entire thread). Further, the presence of 1,000s of companies does not invalidate that all of them may or may not be notable - I think what matters is whether the standards of notability have been met, not who the author is or speculation as how many other "similar" firms exist (without citing similar degrees of notability). Endless blue 22:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had only one significant editor, you. A few others have made minor typo and formatting fixes. Again. I see nothing which makes this company exceptional or notable, and I have no desire to see Wikipedia become a listing board for all of the similar companies. (I'm sorry if you consider it a personal attack that I state that the article is clearly self-promotional. Others can view the content and make their own judgement.) Fan-1967 23:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, your mistatement of the facts indicate that you are at best careless and have not read the thread.
The article was originally started by me, edited and expanded by TruthbringerToronto, then prodded without reason, as far as I can tell, and without any notice placed on my talk page by UtherSRG (not strictly a guideline violation, but frowned upon in the deletion guideline recommendations). Weeks later when discovering this, I did my best to rewrite and restore the original content, as has been discussed earlier in the thread (which you are declining, intentional or not, to read properly). The article was then resubmitted and submitted for AfD, at which point I and one other user, SoreThumb expanded the references. You are mistaken because you are probably only looking at the current version's history, which does not reflect the history of the article prior to its first deletion. As you must know, article histories are not available to non-admins after they have been deleted, but you can consult with other admins if you don't believe me. I maintain again based on the foregoing that you are in violation of WP:NPA by criticizing me with little basis in actual fact, instead of providing reasoned criticisim of the article itself.

As concerns your allegations that my account is an SPA, I urge you or anyone to review my contribs) which has included an attempt to author an article unrelated to this topic as well as extensive participation in the AfD and CfD debates.

You are engaged in a personal attack because you are making unsubstantiated, factually incorrect claims about the nature of my edits to distract users from the fact that this article has achieved notability guidelines, which is the point. Anything else is just extreme deletionism. Endless blue 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would comment that your edits prior to December 2 are almost all to articles related to Polar Design. The major exception would be an article on 'Modifiable Multimedia', since deleted by AFD. Brianyoumans 08:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that. I stand on my record as having contributed to more than one article prior to December 2, and humbly admit that I'm an imperfect, somewhat new editor. I believe, however, that I'm rapidly gaining experience in Wikipedia's ontology and AfD debates and that my contributions have been worthwhile. Everyone is free to judge whether I'm an WP:SPA account, but I don't think I am based on the above and, in fact, your comments too. Endless blue 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the article demonstrates notability through its references and otherwise, then it should be included. If there are stylistic problems, fix them. I think the article is acceptable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Non notable--even the awards are trivialDGG 03:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm. Putting the industry awards aside for now, you're asking everyone to believe that the NEA and American Library Association (which you probably are part of, based on your user page) are not notable? Endless blue 03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the NEA and ALA were necessarily judging the web design; I would imagine that the kudos were largely about the content that was available at those sites. --Brianyoumans 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point DGG made was that the awards were "trivial". That is what I addressed. You're talking about something else.

Your (new) point, that the award is not for the "web design" just re-exposes your confusion about this firm's actual industry, which is not web design. The thread covers that already.

Further, no web site with that much content can operate without good usability, design and either a database or content management solution. The content would be useless if the software to support it wasn't up to par. Any firm that can produce a site that receives this kind of national recognition deserves interest. A firm that does it over and over deserves consideration as "notable." And yes, there are many such firms, and yes, they should be listed in Wikipedia just as many other topics that may not seem notable to you (like C++ books, see User_talk:Brianyoumans#C.2B.2B_books), but are to others who have taken an interest in them and ensured that the articles meet basic guidelines of notability. Endless blue 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above points of internet notability. Also note that this company has won established awards. Sharkface217 04:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising a NN company. WMMartin 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable company with references that are basically directory listings and press releases. Even the award is non-notable: hundreds were handed out in 2006; you can pay a fee to nominate yourself. The "standard of excellence award" is the lowest category of award.Glendoremus 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every major award requires that you pay a fee to enter, including the Webby Awards, which are the best known among web awards. Regarding the one award you speak of about, there are "hundreds" of awards given because there are typically several industry-specific and technology-specific categories, and most entrants do not win recognition. As far as the "lowest" category, other winners in that category include notable firms like 2Advanced, so its hardly a damning observation. Endless blue 20:51, 9 December 2006 (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.