Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiti4Hire

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. Unfortunately the "delete" !voters make the stronger arguments here. All the sources provided, including the new ones added during this discussion, are not the in depth coverage required by WP:GNG. If this changes then this article can be recreated/restored. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti4Hire[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This is a recreation of a page originally created by a banned editor (thekohser) as part of a paid editing bid. The company is nonnotable as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. I can't find any more coverage than the primary sources, press releases, and passing mentions used to source the article currently. Also I would argue WP:DENY should apply here due to this editor's past history with the site. Them From Space 21:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle misfired on another user. Sources seem mostly unreliable or trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think WP:DENY is relevant, but I can't find any significant coverage of this company, as would be required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the user that recreated the page. Upon seeing the Google Cache version of the page, I thought there might be some notability to the subject and that it certainly shouldn't have been deleted under G11 (or G5, for that matter). I tried discussing it with the deleting admin, but he wasn't really interested in talking, so I just went ahead and recreated the page. I'm not going to vote in this AfD, I feel that, if this article is going to be deleted (or not), that it is proper for it to get a full discussion from the community. Silver seren^C 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this the same version that was deleted, or did you write it yourself? SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is close to the same version, yes, though I did reword some things and re-arrange some parts. That's why I made the comment on attribution on the talk page, which was mentioned to me afterwards (I hadn't known that you have to attribute to other editors if you use their work on Wikipedia). Silver seren^C 19:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - honestly, it's just not notable - Alison ^❤ 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to weak keep - the new references that have been recently added put it over the line, IMO - Alison ^❤ 12:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we are better off having this than not. The current sources while not spectacular, make this acceptable I think anyway... And I really don't think that how the article was created should influence its outcome provding it doesn't contain POV... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources are quite a way below spectacular - they are pretty rubbish - 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all primary sources (no use for establishing notability) and 5-7 are trivial mentions in either local (6+7) or unreliable (5) sources. 8 does not mention the comany except as a credit and the text in the article is obviously trying to use the celeb's notability to demonstrate that it is notable. 9 could possibly provide some evidence of notability, but since we can't see it, this is difficult to say and it sounds like it might well be similar coverage as to in ref 8. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but nearly the entire content of the sources are devoted to the company's output. Birmingham Mail is an acceptable source as is the West Midlands Police.. It notable enough to be mentioned in multiple publications... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources (8, 9, and 10) from Birmingham Mail (two different features) and West Midlands Police about two newsworthy installations directed by the company. Even though these are only "local" coverage, that hasn't stopped Wikipedia before. This would seem to bring the article just over the notability line, and previous comments may wish to reconsider. Disclosure: I have not been paid to act here. And, I work one Saturday morning a month with troubled youth, some of whom have been arrested for illicit graffiti. - Juicy mailman stews (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those mentions discuss the company in any detail, they only reference it in passing mention as a part of different news stories. Them From Space 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne032009 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Anne032009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Of course we are better off having this than not. Several independent print newspapers have focused on the company's community work, and one of its exhibits (the T-34) is itself a Wikipedia article. The only explanation for deleting a properly-sourced article about a verifiable company is simply spite over its author. We don't do that here at Wikipedia. Don't call me shorely (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, none of the sources discuss the company in any great detail, which is required by the notability guidelines in order to have an article. Them From Space 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what's found at your link to WP:GNG, it informs us: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The entire contents of some of the referenced news articles here focus quite entirely on the community involvement and projects of the subject company. Therefore, it exceeds the codified standard of "more than a trivial mention", and your "none... in any great detail" is a misinterpretation of the rule. Sorry, but even the policy instructs us that this is a clear keep. Don't call me shorely (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Only two "reliable source" citations are provided at the article, and they mention the company only in passing (one a paragraph, one a bare mention). Nothing found at Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2011 (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.