Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lip-Ink International

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. W.marsh 22:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lip-Ink International[edit]

I do not believe that this company meets the standard for notability, despite the number of links that have been added to wikipedia. The guidelines for notability state "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc." Bobzchemist 04:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would fit the WP:SPAM criteria for blatant advertising.SkierRMH 09:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete, ~~I'm a bit puzzled by this one.~~ On the one hand, it looks quite non-notable. The press coverage links provided are trivial coverage, possibly based on PR releases, and don't even point directly to the claimed sources—they link back to the company's web site. And a cosmetics company that owns a patent is about as notable as a country music star who owns a cowboy hat. And I see no other serious evidence of notability, and the article does have a strong flavor of pork products. On the other hand, the creator and sole editor appears to be User:CatherineMunro, who is a WP admin! which is about as far from the single-purpose account I expected to find as you can get. I've left a message on her talk page, maybe she can provide some useful input/insight. Xtifr _tälk 12:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I had actually forgotten I'd done this one. Looking back on it, I'm uncomfortable with it myself. As someone who often struggles to make ends meet month to month, I do freelance work for hire on another site (usually copyediting and web design), and I was asked to use my Wikipedia experience to write a properly formatted and referenced article on this company in return for $75. After some consideration, I decided that the company was notable enough, in part because of the successful patent challenges against Revlon and the like -- little guys usually either lose or are bought out when fighting the cosmetics giants. I thought I'd done a decent job to make it a straightforward and non-fluffy article, but yeah, from today's perspective I'd agree it is a bit, er, porcine.

I was careful to explain to the clients that once the article was released to the wild, it would be at the mercy of the community -- that I would not be trying to "protect" it from editing or deletion on their behalf. Thank you kindly for offering some respect to my experience here, Xtifr, but the company and the article should be judged on its own merits, not on mine.

Please note I wrote this article well before the recent controversy over User:MyWikiBiz happened, and before Wikipedia:Conflict of interest was written; I would definitely no longer accept money to write any article, and I rather regret having done this one even though there was no policy against it at the time. I certainly should have thought to declare the 'hiring' on the talk page. (For the record, the only other work I've ever been paid for concerning Wikipedia was an external research project on categorization, which did not involve any editing.) Thanks for catching this Bob, and for giving me some notice about it, Xtifr -- I'm pretty sure I can guess where it's going to go from here. :) — Catherine\^talk 04:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, thanks. I was afraid that I, as a relatively new editor (though fairly long-time browser/reader), was overlooking some obvious reason why this article deserved to be kept. I'm relieved to find that my judgement skills are not that badly flawed. :) I'm no longer puzzled, and agree that nothing inappropriate happened, since this was a while ago, and you gave them fair warning. (For that matter, they've probably gotten their money's worth.) Xtifr _tälk 09:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe that the honest admissions of Catherine fully justify deletion. Also, no one should attack Catherine for this, despite her being an admin. Honestly, what person who was struggling to make ends meet wouldn't take $75 to make an article? --The Way 06:49, 14 November 2006 (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.