Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiply (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shiply[edit]

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

Many citations do not meet the verifiability criteria suggesting the article also, when cleaned up, would not pass the notability criteria.E2daipi (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —E2daipi (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, blatant advertising, not notable in any way. Last version in 2009 was deleted for same reason. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Entirely unambiguous advertisement for an online business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy delete. What is the rush? You will just make the creator of the article mad and think he/she was railroaded. Suzukix (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While there has been an issue of conflict of interest with the company editting this article, the content is not in such a shape as to be irredeemable spam. With respect to citations not meeting verifiability, I am unclear on why the nominator believes this to be the case. There are primary sources (company's own web site) and press releases being used. However, the references also include an article in the New York Times which features the company as the primary subject. Ditto for BusinessGreen, The Evening Standard, and The Telegraph, as well as significant coverage in The Times, and The Telegraph. Aside from BusienssGreen, all of these are well-respected major newspapers and certainly represent the reliable sources we would expect for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The intervention of the company appears to be an isolated incident, which did not affect the content of the article. Hopefully, they will learn how we work here on Wikipedia. Orangemike was probably in a rush when he added the COI tag, since the edits of the user Shiply were promptly reverted, with no other significant involvement in the editing of this article. Otherwise, as Whpq mentioned previously, the company is notable, featured in enough reliable sources. I also agree with the comments of the reviewing admin of the first speedy deletion request, considering the article informative, and not particularly promotional. I added some other new sources and I wikified a bit the content. If the others agree, I don't find necessary the current tags. I am not sure about the intentions of the user who requested the deletion. They have no other significant edits except Shiply, for 4 months and they deleted the inquiry of the user Shiply regarding this issue. On the other hand, they notified me about this Afd, as an user who edited this article some time ago, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on. Gatyonrew (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My intentions for the AfD nomination was solely to complete Batoutta's nomination for deletion as they had improperly added {'{subst:afd1}'} rather than {'{subst:afd2}'} and so the article was directing discussion to the incorrect talk page. I asked in the help center-a reason why Gatyonrew was notified of the AfD (the article creator was also notified)-and was given full instructions on how to proceed.

In regards to Shiply's comments on my talk page, is this, to me, a libelous statement and Wikipedia has policies to deal with COI-as Shiply found-so I believe I was right to remove an unsubstantiated claim. If anyone has evidence to substanciate me not having a neutral point of view please follow the correct procedures to block me for COI.

In regards to my verifiability claims for the AfD. This, I believe is a misunderstanding of the definition within Wikipedia and its implications to a NPV. Allow me to explain my understanding.

The verifiability wikipedia policy states here that :

"The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability."

My understanding is that three factors are of importance and not one. If only the publisher is considered this means that Whpq is incorrect in their statement to keep based on verifiability? Whpq has just considered one component of three that are relevant. With this being true Whpq's argument of being used by Gatyonrew with respect to "reliable sources" is logically also incorrect.

The reason I make a big point of this is that many of the citations appear to be company press releases badly refactored-if you read the articles in the context of a timeline-and alongside the companies press releases-you will notice some changes in wording that appears similar to the outcome of Chinese whispers. The verifiability of these citations is called into question as badly refactored primary sources by a verifiable publisher does not constitute the aforementioned reliable sources paradigm set out by Wikipedia. Use my talk page or the article's talk page for discussion. Another discussion topic in my opinion is that if a reliable source cites a primary source, is this now reliable? This is a discussion topic based on some citations in the Shiply article.

I understand that my editing of only one article until recently is of concern, but, is this something that a bot should pick up on and notify me of? I do not believe that just editing one article is bad. In fact I refute it as this specialisation may lead to a better outcome in article quality. I am new to Wikipedia-as an editor-and this was an article of interest to me and thus a good place to start. Furthermore, if you revert to before my edits you will see that the article was very-take this as you will-different. My edits have been attempts to cleanup and wikify this article, and as such I hope that my neutrality is not called into question again without any evidence as this is libel.

In regards of the company not affecting the content of the article I disagree as they were reverting changes-ones based purely on verifiable fact-as they have recently concluded a legal "dispute" with another company and they wanted it to be perceived as a complaint and also placed the information further down the page, maybe in an attempt to reduce visibility. The Shiply instance of COI does still affect the article, it is the first reason I went to the help centre; and consequently the reason why Shiply was banned. I had to take these measures as I was close to being automatically blocked based on the Three revert rule. So to remove the COI edits affecting the article the Contraversies section needs to be moved back to its original position, and then if this position is disputed the talk page should be used to discuss and decide upon the correct positioning without the influnce of the CIO user.

Whpq's, you, refute your claim that BusinessGreen is respected? May you decide and edit your vote accordingly?

I do find that many people jumped the guns-so to speak-with their votes for deletion without taking the time to really understand the reasons for the AfD nomination, discuss, and the conclude a keep or delete vote. Is it possible Smerdis of Tlön, TenPoundHammer, and Suzukix could edit their vote with reasons based on the AfD nomination? Should these be deleted as they do not vote with respect to the AfD nomination?

Thanks for the help with the article Gatyonrew, I was getting a bit lonely editing the article [almost] by myself. E2daipi (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reliable sources are one that are independent and have a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight in the selection of topics to cover. All of the the sources I pointed out that I believe establish notability are such sources. With respect to Business Green, I only pointed out that they aren't a major well-known daily circulation newspaper like the other ones are. With regards to the company editting the article, that really has no bearing on whether we should delete the article. To take an extreme example, if Nike PR people made wholesale changes to the Nike article to paint themselves in a better light and sourced it to their own press releases, would be respond be deleting the article? Of course not, because the subject is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reliable sources quote

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.

My point is that three things affect reliability, not one. You vote based on one, and I deem that to be insufficient for your argument to hold. Are these reliable authors? Did these article appear in print also? Is the article consisting of badly refactored primary research?

With respect to the company editing causing COI, yes agreed. When exclusively looking at COI, this alone is not grounds for deletion. I did not state that this, and this alone as the reason for deletion, only one of the reasons for nomination. I will change the position of the controversies-to revert the COI edits-section and post a discussion on the talk page to decide if this is the correct place for it to remain or if a consensus decides it should be positioned elsewhere. I will remove {'{POV|date=March 2011}'} {'{COI|date=March 2011}'} from the article as this is no longer an issue, and remove the COI reasoning from this nomination.

When the issue of verifiability is solved I believe the AfD process will be complete? E2daipi (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - I !voted based on these sources meeting the definition of reliable sources. Researching the history of the author of the New York Times article is way beyond what is necessary to establish it as reliable sources. If you truly, and honestly believe that an article from the New York Times does not meet our definition of a reliable source, you are welcome to post at the Reiable sources noticeboard. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep. It did get some media attention. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The significant coverage in reliable sources found by Whpq (talk · contribs) allows the company to pass Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2011 (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.