Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One hour translation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 01:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One hour translation[edit]

One hour translation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:CORP. Of the four sources, three are about "charity work" alongside other translation providers. Exactly one deals just with this company in any sort of depth, and it is from a redlinked source of unknown provenance, Common Sense Advisory. Brianhe (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something to take into account is that this was originally deleted at One Hour Translation as a creation by a User:Morning277 sockpuppet. Given the amount of SPAs in the article, we may need to open up a new SPI just to double check their editing habits. They're all pretty much stale, but someone familiar with the Morning277 accounts could probably give a yea or nay on whether or not this is an undiscovered nest of abandoned socks. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember too much about their specific styles, but I know that many socks will try to re-create an article under a different capitalization in order to avoid detection. If this is the case here, then it looks like it may have worked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I requested history merge from OneHourTranslation User:Yaronkau/sandbox so yeah, article name games are afoot. I've also found off-wiki evidence this was created for hire by the person behind Morning277; clerk ask me if you need it. — Brianhe (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my comment was too brief. I meant that a SPI clerk could ask me via email for confidential details so there would not be outing on view. — Brianhe (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the writer of the article I would like to add the following points to the discussion: (1) The article does meet the WP:CORP. I'm going to add below a list of 10 additional sources about the corp and all of them are credible and meet all the criteria. (2) You're mentioning above an evidence for something that may or may not happened before I wrote the article. I'm not aware of anything like that and no one offered me any sort of compensation to do that and I don't represent anybody. Tokyogirl79 I didn't do any name games or whatever Brianhe is referring to and in a matter of fact I'm not familiar with most of the jargon you're using. I just wrote an article on Wikipedia that I thought, as a freelance translator, that should exist. As I wrote in the article talk page I'm a freelance translator myself and this company is widely discussed among translators worldwide. (talk) I understand that you're not satisfied with the article and I can work to make it better. But please don't delete it! I will also include the new sources in the article. Now for the list of sources you need to consider:HelenBay (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

and there are plenty more, just search and you'll find out yourself.HelenBay (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". The sources I mention above are not trivial or accidental mentions. Hence, according to Wikipedia guidelines the article should exist. Brianhe The other points that you mention can and should be discussed but they are not relevant to the fact that according to guidelines the article should exist.HelenBay (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)— HelenBay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm going to improve the article so it meets the sources criteria. Brianhe please reconsider, taking into account the arguments above.HelenBay (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Striking out sockpuppet per check user evidence. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reference 1 is a blog (which is not generally authoritative) also also appears to be promotional. Reference 2 is a patent application which does not indicate notability (and may never issue as a patent). Reference 3 briefly mentions the subject as used by another service. Reference 4 is a disguised press release and discusses a proposed launch without any indication that such ever occurred or that it is notable. Reference 5 is a blog in which the subject is mentioned once in a list of others. In Reference 6, the subject is mentioned once - although this is probably the only authoritative source referenced. Perhaps if the article and references are greatly improved, I might think differently but at present this seems self-promotional.--Rpclod (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC
  • Do not delete - I have added the entry, added new information and references which I believe that are reliable. I think that the unique platform should have an entry, because there are more than a few references online reviewing the company. AnnaPaw (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following my edits on the entry's text and citations, it no longer reads as promotional, from my point of view. I wanted to check what the next steps are?AnnaPaw (talk) 10:00, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/One_hour_translation&oldid=1069209261"