Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milan Direct

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 without prejudice. There was a reasonably firm consensus that the original version was promotional in nature (which there is a specific policy against as part of WP:NOT). I have taken notice and appreciate Esquivalience's removal of most of the content to create a stub version. Unfortunately, it is my belief that an article in its current condition, could have been tagged or deleted as WP:A7 had it been encountered by New Page Patroller. With this in mind, I am calling a "delete" result here but note that writing up a new article free of bias remains possible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Direct

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

Created by undisclosed paid editor in violation of Wikimedia Terms of Use. Reads like a advert, as the whole article is Milestones/Acheivements, and the company fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The company appears to be notable enough to have its own article, though a rewrite of the article is necessary to remove the more advert-related content. O N R (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Notice to all editors here! Joseph2302 the AFD nominator is taking this issue personal. He has nominated this same article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "undisclosed paid editing". He has really made me cry for the past 24 hours. I don't know why he's attacking all the pages I created so far. He nominated all of them for speedy deletion and then for AFD. There must be vested interest in his mind. I've already alerted Admins about this issue via the appropriate means. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although it's discouraged Paid editing isn't forbidden..., Anyway all that aside notability does seem to be there for this company and Personally I'm not seeing much promotional crap here that warrants deletion or WP:TNT. –Davey2010^Talk 03:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Promotional. BMK (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As promotion--it is possible it might be notable, but the references here do not show it. Paid editing, even undeclared paid editing, is not a specific reason for deletion at AfD, but we can delete at AfD any article that the consensus determines is unfit for Wikipedia. To avoid confusion, we avoid giving paid editing as the sole reason; we do not need to. We certainly can and will delete an article about a non-notable subject, or a promotional article regardless of subject, and almost all articles written by undeclared paid editors fail on both grounds, along with a good many of those written by declared paid editors. For reasons given at WP:COI, it is extremely difficult to write proper WP articles for pay, though a few people have been able to learn how. It's a specialized form of writing, and people used to writing press releases or the like cannot easily re-orient themselves. If an editor writes a few unacceptable articles, we naturally check others they have written. Each one will be judged on its individual merits.

It is not permitted to use WP for purposes of advertising, paid or unpaid, and anyone who persists in doing so will be blocked from contributing in avoid to avoid further improper contributions. Once they are blocked, anything further they write under any username will be immediately deleted. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge Company is notable in its home country, established as #2 online retailer in Australia. Founder is also notable. Article needs to be written to be less promotional. If consensus is not to keep, then content should be merged to founder, Ruslan Kogan. Scr★pIron^IV 14:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the company may be notable, however this isn't the article to show that. I would support a WP:TNT, and a more experienced editor creating a better article about the company instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is written entirely from a promotional perspective WP:TNT is needed. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another of Hilumeoka2000's "paid editing" creations. There may be enough notability for a very carefully worded article written by someone without a COI, which would then need to be regularly monitored for advertising content, but we're better off nuking the spam first so it can get a fresh start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify: Notable company per WP:CORP; however, I have reduced the article to a stub due to a promotional POV and a violation of the Wikimedia terms of service (no mention of client). Esquivalience ^t 20:16, 21 May 2015 (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.