Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DemandStudios.com

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DemandStudios.com

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to DemandStudios.com. Has some links "attempting to be references" but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Riddled with press releases and SEO "self-links to their sites, Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly written solely for the purposes of self-promotion and takes a lot of information directly from their primary-source websites, a lot of which don't even support the claims they are cited for. References are all press releases/other promotional material, unreliable sources or don't mention the subject. Related article Demand Media was started by DM2009 (talk · contribs) so there is definitely something going on. Hut 8.5 19:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Article has been moved to Demand Studios, because I enjoy moving things during deletion discussions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, blatant advertising typically written in vague and glittering generalities: an online content creation studio that provides writers, filmmakers, copy editors, transcribers and proofreaders with freelance work.... a new media company specializing in distributed social media and content on the Internet. Demand Studios is a content creation platform that has provided hundreds of thousands of editorially-reviewed articles and videos to Web sites in Demand Media’s network and to other content partners. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 20:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 1. Re: Hut 8. - The sources outside of Demand Studios aren’t “press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions”. Upon closer investigation, they are feature articles from some of the most notable press outlets in the US, such as LA Times, US News, Business Week and the Wall Street Journal. In fact, only two of the nine citations lead to Demand Studios.com, certainly not “a lot of information directly from their primary-source websites”. What’s more important is that these two sections of information are Terms of Use and statement of earnings. Those two pieces of information are only reliable directly from the source. Secondly, links were said to not “even support the claims they are cited for. References are all press releases/other promotional material, unreliable sources or don't mention the subject…” If each and every link is investigated it is found that none of the articles were press releases, generated from Demand Studios (with the exception of the two cases I mentioned above) or biased toward the company. All articles simply stated what makes Demand Media unique, including facts that were cited in the article.

2. Re: WP:NOTABILITY - An encyclopedia article is nothing more than a description of something unique. Demand Studios’ way of generating content and topics is unique, as seen in the unbiased articles from outside sources. If one takes the time to read the articles from these notable press outlets, it is apparent Demand Studios and its parent company, Demand Media, are notable online platforms. 3. Re: WP:SPAM - This article is not spam, which Wikipedia describes as “abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately.” The article on Demand Studios does not solicit to its audience, since it does not say anything like “Come work for us.” It simply states its hiring process – which is something that makes the organization quite unique – in an unbiased way. It also mentions that only those qualified may apply – spam is not discriminatory. 4. Re: Smerdis of Tlon: The assumption that the article is “blatant advertising typically written in vague and glittering generalities” does not give any examples to back up this claim: a. “an online content creation studio that provides writers, filmmakers, copy editors, transcribers and proofreaders with freelance work” – Demand Studios could not be defined more simply than this. There is no bias, no generality, no advertisement. b. “a new media company specializing in distributed social media and content on the Internet.” – same note applies. Does not advertise or show bias. It is a simple statement of what the company is and does. Facebook could describe themselves almost exactly the same way and it would not be considered a “glittering generality” Emilynf1 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)— Emilynf1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The sources from LA Times, US News, Business Week and the Wall Street Journal are not press releases (though the Business Week one is actually a blog, which may not meet reliability standards). However, these articles are all entirely about Demand Media and do not even mention Demand Studios. They can be used as evidence to support the notability of Demand Media, but not Demand Studios. A substantial part of the information sourced from primary sources has been removed by myself and other editors since I wrote that comment.

WP:NOTABILITY requires that, to be included in Wikipedia, articles must have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Whether the subject is unique or not is irrelevant.

Spam on Wikipedia, as defined by WP:SPAM, is "advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spamming". This article is an example of the former. Though it does not explicitly say "come work for us" (if it did I would have deleted it on sight), the language is still more reminiscent of a sales brochure than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and does not promote any individual, company or group. Hut 8.5 10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Demand_Media_spam --Hu12 (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly we are going to see more of this type of article. Someone gets an idea to "monetize" an aspect of the Internet, and they push promotional material anywhere they can, with a properly written article that at first glance appears better sourced than most. However, Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION and the subject fails WP:CORP until some genuine WP:SECONDARY sources say otherwise. I read every reference (except for those on the subject's site) and they are just puffery used by media to fill space. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2009 (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.