Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Election Services

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. There is general agreement that (as well as being promotional) that notability is not supported by references. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Election Services[edit]

Corporate Election Services (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)
Please have a look at the following @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, for a deletion discussion where the case is clearer, the sources poorer, and the editor discussion is nevertheless richer, more substantial that what appears here so far: Binding_antibody. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before any editor makes the foolish mistake of taking this seriously, I'd like to remind that Fortuna changes his/her mind every 4 days--180 degrees, | see here where by my reading Fortuna was in favor of the article in a more promotional state. This has been mostly resolved with 4 editors (including Fortuna) 5-6 days ago (now April 15, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting) & I have 2 requests on the articles talk that 4 days later still have yet to be replied to. This page now makes the 5th location where this mostly resolved 6 day old discussion will now take place, part of me is wondering if I'll see this non-issue 'issue' clutter 10 wikipedia pages or 25 & then grow stale for 4 days (now April 16, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-16) & counting) with no response to my views ala the articles talk page. I'd respond directly to the "promotional" merits however you can already read about that being resolved on 4 talk pages. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 19:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That remark of mine tended towards the ironic. Hope that clarifies. (PS- "Before any editor makes the foolish mistake of taking this seriously"- REALLY?!Your defence of an article opens with an attack on an editor?!)Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No attack, just stating the uncomfortable fact that you hide behind 'irony' when you're exposed, can all editors have 100% ironic discussions here as you spent your involvement 5 days ago (April 15, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting)? We could stretch this out to 2018 with ironic responses & get nothing resolved at all, do 180s every 4 days on and on and on. That defence of mine tended towards starting out that this is the 5th page we are having this discussion on, but that seems to be an uncomfortable fact for you too since you've gone silent on it despite 18 hours to reply (April 19, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-19) & counting), and yet your reply above really didn't explain your unsubstantiated claim at all, just like on the articles talk page there are valid (non ironic) matters to be resolved that have yet to be replied to 5 days later (now April 15, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting). The irony indeed, why don't you get serious about this 6 days in (now April 15, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting), quit playing 'irony' games and maybe you'll receive a serious reply in around 6 days :-). Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, reject this analysis. The period in question may be poorly archived by digital search—I did not recheck your Bing effort—but the article currently includes a book reference, a half dozen newspaper articles, at least 4 solid online magazine articles, as well as a slew of SEC documents I have yet to look at. There seems to be no question that a company that has received this much attention, even if big-city-local, is notable enough for a good, short business article. Moreover, if the text in the article is accurate, its notability extends beyond metropolitan and regional, and touches on Fortune 100/500 companies. It's no Google, but also not Gemma's Fish and Chips, either. No, I see no merit to the notability accusation leveled against this article. [And as for general attitudes, note, an "outfit" is the organization that makes book and runs the docks for your waterfront metro, or else are things that the ladies (and maybe some gents) purchase in an apparel shop. This article, sadly, is just about a people-employing, tax-paying business. More boring than the eponymous alternatives, but still, perhaps due a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T.] Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For persective, see this article for deletion, Binding antibody. But know I am fully behind you on the matters of good grammar and in-line references. Fully and unequivocally on such, just not here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:CHANGE ABOVE TO EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP, after 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 whole days (now April 14, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-14) & counting), no editor has been able to tell anyone why it is either promotional or non-notable. Lots of hot air here, no substance to any of this. If I were editors involved with this my primary concern would be mitigating a near-future Admin block for failing after 10 days to adhere to any wikipolicy concerning article deletion safeguards. BeenAroundAWhile, I could tell the world what that statement of yours was, but you already know it because of course you as a responsible/serious editor read the article & talk pages so you already see dozens of RSs for notability and you also are fully aware that the legit search you did actually pulls up dozens of sites for this topic. So going on the 11th day (now April 15, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting), and knowing editors are reading the talk pages and still can't tell me why (aside from searches that validate this articles STRONG KEEP) how is this not a comedy productionruse? Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 19:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't !vote twice. BMK (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • BMK, isn't this AfD proof certain wikipedia editors can do anything they want for 13 days (now April 15, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting)? Glad to see someone is interested in Wikipedia principals here, but I'd start with the 'drive-by' 'one-line', 'hide-for-a-week', editors. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a clue what the fuck you're talking about. What I'm talking about is that every editor only gets to !vote on AfD once, and you !voted twice. BMK (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong motion to table. I would move to table this proposed deletion, until the following tasks are accomplished by those participating on each side of the discussion, after which discussion can be renewed:
1. Opponents of the article mark specific elements in the text with which they have POV issues, with the appropriate inline tags, so that we can see what you perceive the real issues to be.
2. Proponents of the article address the poor state of the URL-only sources, moving them to a consistent format that makes it easy for those reviewing to see the real substance, or lack thereof, of the sources on which the article is based.
Can I propose we do these two things, between now and 1200 EDT, 4 May (beginning of the day, that Monday), after which we reconvene to decide? Otherwise, I will cast a strong vote reflecting that this article is far more neutral, and apparently about a business of far greater notability, than many other unchallenged ones here (and will request experts to come on board to review of all aspects of this proposal and its aims). Cheers, Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: My father, rest his soul, purchased most of his wife's and children's holiday gifts from the hardware and tools section of Sears, I myself used the company Parker Hannifin mentioned in the article as a BTB vendor many years back, I have fought with and and been reconciled to a feisty editoress with Market in her name, have competed earnestly against Pfizer (and likely have consumed some product of theirs at some point, but not by the handful), have consumed manifold soft drinks made from cans produced by Alcoa, and at one point (Lor' forgive) dated a woman named Sallie Mae. Despite all these, I believe the forgoing to be an honest, unbiased attempt to do right by this issue and article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, nice to see you again Leprof (full disclosure Leprof and I have assisted each other a few times in the past). Second, I have wanted to clean up the references in the article as evidenced by the history and my submitting it to the tech message board here, but alas we are on day 12 of this hall-of-mirrors adventure. So I have no qualms with point 2.
Most importantly, with point 1, the problem with this entire endeavor is that a few editors who as best I can tell just like to play games over 12 days (now over April 15, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting) are more than willing to tag everything in site then disappear for a week when you confront them with why or most importantly how they can show good-faith by actually using 12 days (now over April 15, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting) to improve the article.
Nothing on this page after a week (and really 12 days ((now over April 15, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting)) do I see as legitimate, reasonable or valid, and trust me I've waited for something, anything. This is not a 22 day (now over April 15, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting) problem (with reference to your good faith May 4 date), at most this is simply a few days on the articles talk page 'problem', which interestingly enough these 'label happy' editors have done their best to ignore standing concerns there for 12 days.
There is a place on wikipedia for 22 day manufactured 'issues' (now over April 15, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting) from editors who hide behind 'irony' and then change their minds or ignore valid questions every 4 days, not here, but I'm starting to think if I'm asked about this after 22 days I'll be putting it on that forum.
I do thank you for your good faith effort to neutrally mediate this LeProf in a way that seeks to bring sides together, I'm not against good-faith improvements to the article as evidenced in several areas, I'm against hit-and-run non-issues wasting our time. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 05:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Market, but you do me greater justice than I deserve—I cringe at articles whose sources cannot be easily reviewed, and simply wanted to see the article move toward being unquestionably acceptable (made all the easier if I can really vet the references). However, the analysis of the sources that I could do was supportive (see the Bing mention above), and I have no questions as a scientist-turned-businessman that this article's subject is important enough. Have a go at those sources, and we'll see if anyone gets to work and substantiates any negative claim, meanwhile. Now, I have to add my own disclaimer to my earlier posting. Cheers, Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding third-party sources of substance. The references are loaded with non-substantive links. #'s 4-6, 13, 19-20, 23-24 are all directory entries. #14-17 is the company's own web site. #22, 28, 30 have only a mention #27 doesn't mention it at all. This is reference cramming, and not only doesn't help, it wastes people's time during AfD's. LaMona (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "Keep" Mona, consider:
"I'm not finding third-party sources of substance." False
"The references are loaded with non-substantive links." False
"#'s 4-6, 13, 19-20, 23-24 are all directory entries." False
"#27 doesn't mention it at all." False
"This is reference cramming." False, April 14, 2015, read
"and not only doesn't help." False, APRIL 14, 2015, read what editors like you thought by launching 5 talk pages.
"it wastes people's time." True, block Fortuna if you're going to complain.
"during AfD's." False, see my 1st comment, r-e-a-d, this is a 13 day one-word insult lie.
I will happily accept your apology. Can I lie about editors for 13 days, make unsubstantiated allegations of them violating policies then run away for weeks and not reply to their talk page inquiries? No, so neither can any editor leaving a comment on this page, if you have good faith you will exercise it by reading the mess that a certain editor created with 5 talk page one-line insults & then hiding for a week (now over April 16, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-16) & counting) without responding to reasonable good faith inquiries. If an editor wishes to comment here maybe r-e-a-d at least the comments on this page, and really r-e-a-d all other 4 pages that the 'one-word insult' 'hit-and-run artist' 'hide-for-a-week' (now over April 16, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-16) & counting) editor was reading when they decided to as you put it "waste people's time". We do agree on that. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 03:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and promotional BMK (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Truly fascinating, did you read anything here? Is an editor's vote considered when they parrot unsubstantiated allegations that have unanswered reasonable challenges going back a week, and on the articles talk page? Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
duh, no, i only does whatz all da udders duz cause i aint got no brainses.
You kmow what, you can stick your comment where the sun doesn't shine, sweetheart. If you don't like the way I !voted, based on my own personal evaluation of the material, there's nothing much you can do about it, but insulting me rates right up there at the top of the list of shit you can do which will make it absolutely certain that there's no possible chance of changing my mind. Now, stop being a jerk and hassling editors who disagree with you.
(Oh, and yes, my !vote actually does count. It's enough to make you cry, innit?) BMK (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page, except you just edited my words there. I'd ask (for the 2nd time in 3 hours) if you read my two April 26, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-26) questions & if you intend to answer, but per usual with this unreasonable (violation of wikipedia policies?) AfD no answer to my April 26, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-26) reasonable questions to you. So 100% non-responses going back April 16, 2015; 9 years ago (2015-04-16) & counting. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 07:07, 26 April 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/Corporate_Election_Services&oldid=1137736953"