Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailaho


 * 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. I'm sorry Barnabas321 but the consensus here is that this search engine isn't notable yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Bailaho

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No lead section, little context to understand what this company actually does, and all references are from the company itself (plus one externally hosted press release). Cmprince (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article has a lot of issues. It includes only original research, reads like promotional material, contains an excessively large amount of text -- 2,700 words (with no verifiable sources), and the table of contents is just ridiculous. The author of this article needs to start from scratch and read Wikipedia's advice on how to write better articles. StandardSwan (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with the previous posters; seems like unnotable bussiness spam. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a lot of references from foreign sources to the article, because one of the reason why the article should be deleted was that references were only coming from own sites of the company. So this is changed now. Otherwise please let me know, what I can do better on the article before the article will be deleted. I am a newcomer on wikipedia. The article shouldn't be business spam o.s.e. It is a translation of the existing article in another language version of Wikipedia. --Barnabas321 (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now I also added links to WIKI pages to get a higher quality of the article and also I added two references more from foreign sources. --Barnabas321 (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now there is also a lead section with a little context to understand what the company actually does. This was one of the reasons why Cmprince suggested this article to delete. So now this is corrected. --Barnabas321 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Barnabas, thank you for taking note of the issues with this article and trying to correct them. If this company is notable, then I definitely do not want to see this deleted! Unfortunately, I still see some problems.
 * More third party references would be helpful to check that the company is notable, but the ones that you've provided are all front pages of websites. Do you have actual articles to link to that specifically feature this company?
 * Generally, why is this company notable? The article should explain why in the lead section. I am still having a hard time figuring out what this company actually does, and if it is actually notable.
 * While you include links to other wikipedias, they are all written by you, so those articles in other languages may have the same deficiencies as this one.
 * After reading your user page, you appear to have a conflict of interest. While you aren't forbidden to edit pages with a conflict of interest, it is often frowned upon and your edits will be viewed with more scrutiny.
 * I am not sure that these problems can be solved, but you may want to get some help with this. I see that there is no German language version of this article; since this company seems to be based in Germany, you may be able to find more help there. I don't know that we can be of much help besides asking you to fix these things. Cmprince (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, but I do find a bunch of press releases. The sourcing in the article is insufficient as noted above. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

DELETE - This article/company is not notable in any way. Ovr&#39;apint (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is notable. Specially I didn't wrote an article about the company behind the business directory, because the company isn't notable. I wrote an article only about the product (the business directory), because the business directory is notable, because of lots of USPs, innovatice features and special functions against other products in the same range.

Now Cmprince wrote, that a lead section with little context is missing to see what the company actually does. But this is not an article about a company. It is just an article about a product of a company. It is like Google and not like Google - the company. Even because of this the lead section sais enough about the product; what the products is and what it does. I thought, if I would here write more about the comapany, it would be business spam. And this is what I didn't wanted to do.

About the links I set to reference sources yesterday: Cmprince wrote, that I set the links just to the landing pages of the reference giving websites. But this is exactly what I wanted to do! Because in the text where I set the references I wrote about the marketing activities of bailaho. I wrote that appear advertisements of bailaho on several websites. To show this like an evidence I linked to the websites landing pages where the advertisements always exist. So readers can go directly to the landing page of the websites and there they will see an advertisement from bailaho. At once I didn't set these linkes in references, but after Cmprince wrote it would be better to add more references from foreign sources than always from the company itself, I did it.

About the comments of Ovr&#39;apint: Just to say "This article/company is not notable in any way.". How he could know this??? Maybe it is a topic about a range far of his interests and knowledge!? Where are the reasons, that Ovr&#39;apint writes such a comment? I think it is notable for all people with knowledge, passion and profession about search engines, B2B-marketing, online-marketing. Even interesting for people with interests in international marketing or for companies with target groups in Europe - specially in the German spoken areas.

Even it is interesting for the user, who uses the service(s) of bailaho. Even it is interesting for each of the 1,300,000 companies listed in the business directory.

Once more I want to explain, that I didn't wanted to do business spam here. I like Wikipedia to much to do this. I only wanted to explain what the product is and what it is able to do. I didn't used slogans, marketing text o.s.e. to catch people or to offer anything or to find customers o.s.e.

Anyway I will work on this article step-by-step to make it better. --Barnabas321 (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday I set also links inside Wikipedia. This I did to make the article better. --Barnabas321 (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Proof of notability is the responsibility of the article creator, not the commenters. I think you misunderstand what "notability" in Wikipedia means - it is explicit coverage of the subject by (preferably multiple) independent media sources - see Notability. The fact that the article cites absolutely no such coverage is the reason for deletion on the ground of the subject being non-notable. The references that you cited aren't references, because they don't seem to mention Bailaho in any way.
 * If it isn't blatant advertising, it can still be advertising. Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites on the planet and such an article would contribute a lot to the company's reputation if it stayed. There's a lot of websites where you can "explain" what is the service that you represent. Wikipedia is not the right place for that, for many reasons. — Yerpo Eh? 13:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I know, that it is the responsibility of the article creator to proof the notability. This is what I did before creating the article. An appr. 30.000 sign article I don't write just for fun. After my oppinion a notability exists. Reasons enough see above. The commenters here have doubts about an existing notability, so they have to bring an evidence why the article has to be deleted. But nobody brought it. Only everybody wrote, that the article has to be deleted, because it has to be. This no reason!

I don't know what Yerpo wants to create here with his comment!? "Wikipedia is not the right place for that, for many reasons" - and even "for many reason" is not enough explained! If there a so many reasons, where is the problem to bring here some of them???

All comments against the article just have the content like "The article has to be deleted, because there is no notability." But where are the reasons? Because of the oppinion of the commenters here it decides, if an article is able to be published or not!?!? I brought reasons, why the article has to exists. I also brought references and evidences. The other commenters here only wrote, that the article has to be deleted, because it is so. That cannot be the way in a discussion???

Once more I want to explain, that it is no marketing entry about a company. It is an article about a product with a lot of USPs and with a lot of users and a lot of registered and recorded companies; a product with a lot of innovative features and functions. So this article is interesting for a lot of people with interests about SEO, search engine, business marketing, online marketing, a.s.o. --Barnabas321 (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, "a lot of users" isn't proof of notability. Only explicit coverage by (preferably multiple) independent media sources is a proof. You have provided no such proof, so it seems that Bailaho is not notable. Notability and Verifiability explain this. Please read and understand those pages before you continue with this discussion. For start, you can then provide at least one article about Bailaho that is not a press release in some other journal or newspaper. Then we can change our opinion.
 * Other reasons for the inappropriateness of your article are explained on the page Conflict of interest. Yes, this is a marketing entry, because the company's representative wrote it. — Yerpo Eh? 08:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have combed through the referencing in the article. I have removed the huge list of references to the front pages of websites.  Those do not verify any information and aren't really a source at all.  I've tagged references from Bailho's web sites, and from press releases as a primary source.  This leaves only one reference that isn't a primary source.  It is a business directory listing (Xing) which appears to simply print whatever content was provided by the company so it's really not any better than a primary source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2012 (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.