Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFerry


 * 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. As insufficiently notable and promotional.  Sandstein  10:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

AFerry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 4.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Promotional material from WP:SPA, who seems to have a WP:COI. He's tried his hardest, over several months, but the company itself is not notable, the only coverage of are a few mentions in passing, and it fails WP:NCORP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator and principal author of this article, User:GoldenClockCar, has stated on his user page, subsequent to commencement of this AfD, that he is an employee of this company. Coretheapple (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment But before you wrote this comment at the top here I declared a COI in my talk page. And before you wrote this comment here at the top I had also explained my relationship to the company in in the thread below. Perhaps you could actually read it. I have been completely open about this from the start and I do not appreciate your attempts to suggest that I have not been. My aim is to write a neutral article. I have included for example competitors and criticism sections to help achieve this. Perhaps the article could be better but my COI is not a reason for deletion. On your User page you make it very clear that you think this should be the case. However it is not.
 * The opening statement says you "seem" to have a COI. That needed to be rectified in a more visible way, without persons having to wade through the verbiage on this page or investigating further. The fact is you are an SPA, you are here to write an article about your company. The fact that you are not tasked with that issue is beside the point. Coretheapple (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, my COI was declared from the first on my Talk page. I'm not talking about the "seems" part at the top. I don't disagree it should be clear. I object to this however "has stated on his user page, subsequent to commencement of this AfD" - this very much implies that it wasn't clear before. It was. It was on my Talk Page. I have never hidden it. You think that all COIs should not write articles. I disagree. So does Wikipedia. You think COIs shouldn't defend themselves in this forum. I disagree. So does Wikipedia. Generally, I think this is getting a bit silly now. You obviously don't want to help me in any way shape or form. We disagree with each other. Can we leave at that? Thanks. GoldenClockCar (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "So does Wikipedia"? You may want to actually read WP:COI, especially the part that says "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends." You also should read WP:OWN. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, it isn't forbidden. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also read:

"Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors."

I have done this and always been 100% transparent. Why not judge the product rather than producer? Or, if you feel the article lacks neutrality, suggest ways to improve it. I'm open to all help I can get. However, you don't do this but seem to be stuck in a rut with COI. I have not seen it given as a reason for deletion. You think it should be. It isn't. I repeat myself ad-nauseum it seems.GoldenClockCar (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's not prohibited, but it is discouraged, COI editors are asked not to edit articles about themselves and their companies and you've blithely ignored that and, yes, obviously are going to continue to do so. Yes, it is pointless to continue to reason with you when obviously you are impervious to reason. Coretheapple (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks for everything. I think we clearly disagree and probably both are getting hot under the collar when all together there are more important things in this life. Have a good weekend. I mean that. :) - don't know if smileys are acceptable on Wikipedia AfD discussions! Thanks again. GoldenClockCar (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you're very welcome and I appreciate your understanding. Coretheapple (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi. I strongly believe that the company is notable. Not only is there in depth coverage - for example - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1333267/Website-week-www-aferry-uk.html but the multiple entries (E.g. guide books) while not in depth are from multiple independent sources which according to the guidelines on notability can compensate for a lack of in depth coverage. WP:CORPDEPTH. Also while there is a Conflict of Interests (I have declared this with the connected contributor tag) I believe I have achieved neutrality in the article. Thanks. GoldenClockCar (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Thinly disguised advertising for non-notable website, written by the company and aggressively promoted in Wikipedia by an employee. A fine example of why COI editors should not be permitted to create articles, either directly or through the Articles for Creation service. What distinguishes this company from the other services that don't have Wiki articles other than the fact that it has somebody vigorously trying to put an article about this company into Wikipedia? There is only one article actually about this company, and the rest are incidental mentions. Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Because there are other similar companies without wiki articles that perhaps should have them is no reason to delete. There will always be numerous individuals, companies etc. who don't have Wiki articles. Because there is no article about x, means that there should be no article about y? Sorry, this argument is illogical and more importantly not supported by Wikipedia. What's more your objections seem based on your own personal opinions of the workings of Wikipedia (COIs not being allowed to have entries etc.) rather than any valid arguments. You make these opinions very clear on your user page. You are using your objection here as a soap-box for your opinions and not actually carrying out your duty to give an informed decision based on the established criteria for deletion.

AFerry is mentioned, once or multiple times, in almost every single UK national newspaper website - in fact you'd be hard pressed to not find a mention. Furthermore it is mentioned in books by almost every single English language guide book brand. It is a very notable company and my COI has not hindered in making this article neutral. Furthermore, as you admit there is in-depth coverage. And as stated previously, what is more the non in-depth coverage can also support notability as shown in WP:CORPDEPTH "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." A small reference e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cruises/10091887/How-to-see-the-Mediterranean-by-ferry.html (in this case a small paragraph) does not necessarily make it incidental.

This article was also created via articles for creation as you allude to and this should be taken into consideration. It should also be pointed out that Barney the barney barney was involved early on in removing the article even when being created so may have a personal point to prove. Thanks for your consideration. GoldenClockCar (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It should also be pointed out that Barney the barney barney and my volunteer colleagues, would much rather be doing something useful and don't really want to be wasting our time having to deal with people intent not on writing about interesting stuff, but making money. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, you don't know my motivations and I don't know yours. I do fully appreciate all those people that try to help. It is human nature, however, to not appreciate those that try to delete and remove at every turn. The company isn't my company and neither do I have a high level position and neither was I tasked with doing this. I am not being paid to do this - it is a Sunday afternoon - not many people would get paid to work on a Sunday! I simply honestly believe the company I work for is notable enough for inclusion. After rejection after rejection, however, it becomes very frustrating - not necessarily your fault. However, you can't trust my motivations - or indeed know them, and neither can I trust or know yours. Forgive me if it is the case that your immediate request for deletion was not based on your previously held convictions which you arrived at having looked at the article in progress. E.g. You state that the references are not in depth. That was the case, but no longer. My first impression based on the speed of your response was that you didn't read it fully. Again, forgive me if I am wrong. I should also mention that I am more than happy to make edits to improve my article. However, as I stated previously I firmly believe it is notable enough for inclusion. Perhaps not in the current form - despite being moderated and deemed notable enough for inclusion via articles for creation. And as you mention I've spent quite a few months on this. I'm sure you can understand my apparent frustration. I can certainly understand and appreciate that you guys aren't paid. Well. I'm not being paid to work now on a Sunday and I'm not being paid to write a Wikipedia article - but I do 'have to deal with' people that, certainly on the face of it, seem more keen on hindering than helping. Thank you. GoldenClockCar (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Further comment from article creator. Since creation I also found these references. None are incidental. E.g. Not just part of a list etc. The author has made a deliberate choice to include the website. There are competitors and you can book direct but these authors decided to talk about AFerry.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ee61b8a-82cc-11e0-b97c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2n5wmcEpy (paragraph - behind a firewall but can be seen with the free subscription)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cruises/10091887/How-to-see-the-Mediterranean-by-ferry.html (about a paragraph)

http://www.postoffice.co.uk/six-ways-have-affordable-summer-holiday (brief but prominent mention at the start of the article)

http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2004/oct/16/travelwebsites.internet.guardiansaturdaytravelsection (again about a paragraph)

I was advised to not make edits to my article but I think that these again easily prove notability. The FT, Guardian etc are reputable publications. Thank you. GoldenClockCar (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh please. In quoting the guideline you left out the sentence that followed: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. That's all there is. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh come on. I read the examples of incidental and these aren't it. It's that simple. And there is in depth coverage. GoldenClockCar (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)




 * Strong delete None of these suggested sources is actually about AFerry - it gets a passing mention, rather like a news article on a chocolate bar might mention it's available at my local sweetshop - it doesn't make my shop notable! Emeraude (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi Steve. There is nowhere where it states that all references must be wholly about the subject in order for the subject to qualify as notable. However:

-- This article is wholly about AFerry: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1333267/Website-week-www-aferry-uk.html.

-- This article is wholly about the AFerry app: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/travel/appoftheweek/4945218/aFerry.html

Secondly, can you clarify what you mean by suggested sources? If you are referring to the list of articles above then these were simply put as further evidence of the scope of coverage from notable, independent, verifiable sources. They were not put forward as sources that might be needed to "rescue" the article as you seem to be alluding to. The article was written via the WP:AFC articles for creation process and to be in main space was already deemed to be notable enough for inclusion.

Given your misunderstanding of the above and and given the fact that you seem to have not been able to find the articles from the Mail or The Sun leads to the very clear conclusion that you did not fully read this thread and certainly didn't fully read the article. A cursory glance should be more than is required before a vote is cast. And solely in my opinion, when that is clear, I believe that the vote should be discarded. However, luckily I have read that these debates are decided by logical argument and not just a tally of votes from cursory readers such as yourself.

However, lets continue with your chocolate bar analogy but lets move it back to the real world. It is extremely unlikely that a travel booking website in the price comparison field would get full and exclusive coverage in an article - although even that exists as in the two examples given. Much more likely is that it would get references in articles describing where to find deals or how to save money. This doesn't mean that those references are trivial or made in passing. They simply provide a normal and natural context.

However, what we can look for is where an author has made a clear decision to make a note of the website and to highlight why it is useful or valuable. In other words the reference isn't trivial or made in passing - such as a list of suppliers of a product (like a chocolate bar) or any other examples of trivial coverage given in WP:CORPDEPTH.

References like the one in the Guardian, given above, where the first line of the article is "If you want a map showing most of the ferry ports and routes, the best bet is aferry.to. Click on the region you are interested in. The site also has port maps and information of varying usefulness (aferry.to/ferry-ports.htm)." are clearly not trivial.

I could go on but I think arguing my case with someone who casts a vote without reading is probably a stupid and futile effort. GoldenClockCar (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could go on, and you have. Since you are an employee of the company, I think that it is best that you cease lobbying on this page. Coretheapple (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly entitled to defend my work using logical arguments. This is the THIRD time in this thread that you have decided to bring up my COI. Please. We all know your feelings and opinions on COI from your user page. However, they are just that. Opinions and feelings.
 * And we all know that you think the company you work for is terrific, and that it should have an article. It is not necessary to make that point after every "delete" !vote. This would be the case even if you didn't work for the company, which by the way would have been obvious whether or not you disclosed your COI. Coretheapple (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Coretheapple I fear if we go on we will denegrate into pointless argument. Let's agree to disagree for the moment. Strike you as okay? Thanks GoldenClockCar (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The website has won an award that is apparently somewhat prestigious in its sector, it's been reviewed by the Daily Mail and the app was reviewed in The Sun (United Kingdom)s travel section... Bellerophon talk to me  20:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment In my responses above I may have not shown enough restraint and from now on will try to be more restrained and to not dominate this discussion quite as much. Please forgive me if my tone was domineering or bullying. Thank you Coretheapple for pointing this out. GoldenClockCar (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete on principle. It's not a good idea, or allowed, for commercial editors to edit articles directly. Instead, Aferry should go through the Articles For Creation process. Delete the article and let's start over there. It's more important to uphold this principle than to debate the technical merits of this particular article. Herostratus (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi, thanks. It already was created via Articles for Creation. See my talk page . Thanks for your interest in this article. GoldenClockCar (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Oh. Well, in that case another editor wrote the article then? That's different I guess. Not really familiar with AFC. (However, the history shows you as the initial and principal writer, so not sure what to think.) BTW, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion, GoldenClockCar. It's not about article content. It's a about a governance issue, whether an article should or should not exist. People in your position aren't supposed to try to influence governance decision. You need to stand down, because to the extent you don't the narrative then changes from "Aferry paid a guy to write an article" to "Aferry paid a guy to deliberately corrupt the operation of Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia" and that's a different narrative and you might want to think about if that's what you want people to take away from this. (The person closing the discussion will probably ignore your remarks anyway on these grounds.) Anyway, Delete on general anti-corruption grounds, since GoldenClockCar is too bound up in this whole thing for a fair reading of the situation. Delete with no prejudice against recreation later by a disinterested person. Herostratus (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. COI is no reason to automatically nuke a page, and it seems that has been diligent about following process, declaring COI, and seeking consensus & review on edits to his employer's article. The article does a good job of reflecting neutrality and is very well sourced. We seem to have established here that the business is notable and worthy of its own page. If there was an issue with COI on the page, that would be an issue to be cleaned up by neutral editors, not burned to the ground just to build it up from scratch again. , you should post suggested changes on the article's talk page, and refrain from editing the article directly. Wikipedia policy does not forbid it, but you can see from the discussion going on here that the community frowns upon it, as there have been many instances of editors with a skewed POV advocating their positions in opposition of the community and causing all sorts of problems. Not that I'm saying you have. Look through the history of Falun Gong and the many, many, many disputes referring to that article if you want a primer. (Not recommended)
 * If someone does have a problem with specific content that has contributed, that is an issue for dispute resolution and doesn't belong in AfD. Ivanvector (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User's COI are not the basis of this nomination and delete !votes, but rather depth of coverage, which is clearly not here. The only reason COI has dominated this discussion is because the article creator, an employee of the company, has responded to every negative sentiment expressed here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  07:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete  Best travel website of the week is not notable. Best of the year for a widely respected listing might well be. The article shows the typical straining after any possible source for notability typical of coi editors. The problem with even good-faith acknowledged  coi is it often leads to such efforts like that to stretch the boundaries to get the article, which would not be as likely done by a NPOV editor.  DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Emeraude Coretheapple and DGG. Not notable; a thinly disguised advert does nothing to improve this encyclopedia.   petrarchan47  t  c   19:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a great example of wikipuffery, where a page is built up to appear like a decent article in an attempt to fool editors into thinking the subject is notable. The bar for getting a website mentioned in passing by reliable sources is small. Add PR pieces to the mix and you can build an encyclopedic-looking but still promotional article about a website pretty easily. And this doesn't help the encyclopedia at all as the website need have no significant impact on the world. Thankfully we have that provision in our notability guidelines requiring in-depth analysis of the subject by multiple reliable sources. This insures that we don't become a database of every website out there, or one that sets itself up for exploitation by PR types.  Them  From  Space  19:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- COI should not be a reason for deletion, but it is a reason for concern as to whether an article has the necessary NPOV. Even if does lack a NPOV, the solution may well be to edit the article to replace the POV with NPOV.  The article mentions one competitor that appears to have a WP page and another that does not.  Unless someone is in a position to establish that one is notable and the other NN, we should have articles on both or neither.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Commment how is that no WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: do we consider the World Travel Awards to be major awards? I am leaning towards no, as I can find no significant coverage, and they don't have a Wikipedia page. Having reviewed the sources a third time, and trying to put aside the editor's COI and my preference for not biting the newcomers, this is all I'm holding on to to demonstrate notability. Weak delete because I'm sensing WP:SNOW in the forecast. Ivanvector (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Elaborating on my comment: it does appear that the World Travel Awards are widely recognized within the travel industry, which the organizers call "the Oscars of the travel industry" but which are referred to by an independent source as "(fairly) prestigious". A selection of references:    cover the awards in significant depth, and also as many links indicate that companies celebrate being nominated, let alone winning, though all of those references are inherently spammy and I have not included them here. AFerry has won several of these awards, per independent sources - though the sources are somewhat trivial, they can be used to verify AFerry's award wins.
 * Regarding the sources provided by the author (who has declared his COI):
 * FT.com Telegraph.co.ukPostoffice.co.uk and TheGuardian.com are all trivial. They are passing mentions at best, barely that, and do not establish notability.
 * Daily Mail is a fairly in-depth review of the website. This does lend itself to notability, and is an independent, reliable source.
 * The Sun is an article that's titled "AFerry" and refers to the company being named their "website of the week", but the full article is behind a paywall, and I'm not giving them my credit card number just to review for an AfD. I suspect this is a reliable source but cannot confirm. If someone neutral has a membership and would like to review, that would be helpful, but we can't rely on it based on what's here unfortunately. This is completely off-topic, but I once again assert that paywalls destroy the internet.
 * Based on one (maybe two) independent articles in major media about the company, winning international awards over four years, and many trivial mentions in independent media, I say keep as the company meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, and AfD is not cleanup.
 * As for the advertising which many editors have referred to here, I am not seeing the promotional skew. A list of neutral statements backed up by verifiable reliable sources is not promotional simply because it's about a commercial entity, nor because a non-neutral editor contributed them. If editors could point out what specifically about the article is "thinly disguised advertising" as one editor put it, we could fix it. Being non-neutral is not criteria for deletion unless it really can't be fixed, which is not the case here. Ivanvector (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] — Duplicate !vote: Ivanvector (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
 * Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but you are aware that this is the second time you've cast a !vote in this AfD? Please cross out either this one or your previous one. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, you're right. As you know this isn't a vote and I meant to summarize my additional comment in the discussion, since it's a bit wordy. I expect that a competent admin isn't going to come here and simply count the bold text and call that consensus, but if you feel strongly about it you could flag my comment with the template. In fact I did myself, just to be clear I'm not trying to stack !votes. Also, I apologize for splitting your comments, but I think you'll agree it flows better this way. Ivanvector (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the World Travel Awards, it is a public-participation poll and should be utilized with caution, especially considering the obvious publicity-consciousness of this particular operation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that about the Awards, I ignored their website entirely as selfpub'd. They say they count votes from industry reps twice versus once for public votes (so the vote is weighted) and nominees are vetted by committee. I think that winning this sort of large, well-recognized public participation contest in one's industry is still noteworthy. But I agree that caution is warranted. What do other editors think? Ivanvector (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2013 (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.