Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livemercial

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Livemercial

Livemercial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete promotional article with no evidence of notability Mayalld (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: I disagree with your assessment that this article should be deleted. It is not an advertisement and there are several external sources backing up the information for this article which are linked at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanwthomas (talk • contribs)
• Comment Wikipedia requires reliable sources that prove notability, not blogs and self-published stuff. Mayalld (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete only one of the references meets reliability criteria (of the other two one is a self-published blog and the other just a press release) and there is nothing that actually shows the compamy is notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, was a borderline speedy candidate IMHO ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Do Not DeleteComment Entry has been updated with more notable sources. Disagree with the assessment that this company is not 'notable.' It's a large employer in the Chicagoland area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanwthomas (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (changed to "comment" by ukexpat - you should only make one delete/keep statement)   –  ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Notable I live in the area where this company is based and they are pretty notable. I don't see why the article can stay if he fixes the reference problems, which appears to be the case. duneblog — Preceding comment was added at 16:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - note that the above is the only contribution so far by this user. Assuming good faith but possible SPA.  –  ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Article is practically an advertising piece, but they do seem to (barely) meet notability. Rasadam (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep-Agree that the article tastes slightly like spam, but the references are trade journals and legit news outlets. Livitup (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Actually no. The references are 1) a possibly reasonable news story from a legit news outlet 2) a press release 3) a blog. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keeping - Removed 'flagged for deletion box' and 'advert box.' Consensus was that page will stay, meets notability and reference requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanwthomas (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Removed purported closure as keep by main contributor to article Mayalld (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I reviewed their site, company seems notable but their article was not written nor referenced as per policy. They need to expend effort to fix it, advetorials do not belong in dictionary. DustyRain (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• weak Keep I do not really see much real notability, but ther eare some usable references for the company, so it qualifies under the present general notability criterion. I think this is another case showing the inapplicability of such a criterion, but some people still think it's policy. DGG (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article requires clean up and better sourcing, and may not meet requirments of WP:WEB, but as a Indiana resident I can confirm that this company has received ample coverage in secondary sources to support notability per the general notability guideline, which trumps WP:WEB. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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.