Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ButN


 * 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. Adsyvb, are you aware of out sister project which, unlike Wikipedia, does allow original research? You might be better off there with what you are trying to do. E-mail me if you want to to retrieve a copy of the article for use elsewhere. SpinningSpark 18:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ButN

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been recreated in two separate pages and keeps getting csd tagged, however the editor claims the company to be notable. In difference to that fact I'm listing the article here to give the creator a chance to defend the work and make his case to the community about why the article should stay on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article is not well written, but I did find reviews in Fox News, The Marketing Site, Business First Magazine, Sydney Morning Herald, Marketing Mag, Conde Naste Traveller. Despite this, might be a case of too soon. JTdale   Talk 11:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, for lack of notability. This product has been launched by FedEE on November October 4, 2014  and a little more than one month has not been enough to acquire notability. The media campaign that has been launched to advertise the new product has produced an handful of articles dedicated to it.
 * Be aware that these articles are not independent reviews by secondary sources but only news about the launch of the product and, in good part, report the statements of a representative of the company. As a consequence, all the statements attributed to the company representative (quoting him or paraphrasing what he said) are considered a primary source of information. Beside that, I have found also a small citation of ButN, maybe spontaneous, in an article by Fox News dedicated to a different product.
 * To sum it up, I have not found any evidence of notability because, other than the primary sources and the typical effects of a marketing campaign, no noticeable amount of secondary sources has been found. All the hints lead to a promotional activity and, at best, this is a classical example of WP:TOOSOON. ► LowLevel (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am the author of article of butN. As explained earlier as part of research work in the graduate program which required me to look up companies which are competing with LinkedIn and write an article about it on Wikipedia. Whatever I could find about it I have written and kept a neutral point of view. Adsyvb (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I did note on Adsyvb's talk page that their course tutor needs to work with Wikipedia norms, rather than against them. (Asking people to write directly promotional articles, supported by the businesspeople involved in the site on the talk page, isn't in this spirit.) I proofread it a bit but on reflection, I agree with JTdale above that this is a bit WP:TOOSOON despite the assertions of significance necessitating an AFD rather than speedy. LS1979 (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lstanley1979 JTdale TomStar81 I have done some editing on the page. Please have a look. Adsyvb (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the problem is not necessarily with the text of the article (long lists of website features written that way still come across as promotional, but I can see that for your project the article needs to be more than 'this website exists', so this is partly where you're on a collision course with Wikipedia editors), but whether the business qualifies for Wikipedia right now. Lack of notability is not something that can be fixed right now; butN simply needs more time in general use to qualify for a WP article.


 * You also need to go back to your tutor and explain Wikipedia is not a free webhost for college projects writing about businesses that currently fail notability guidelines; presumably there are a number of places where you could upload text about butN which aren't open to public scrutiny in order to discuss LinkedIn's potential competition.


 * I think at this juncture you need to read the guidelines/policies/etc pointed out to you and understand the limitations of Wikipedia's system as regards this assignment, based on what people are saying about butN's notability. LS1979 (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lstanley1979 I have been looking up data / links / articles regarding ButN on a regular basis and whatever I will comes across will be cited in the article. Adsyvb (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone I have found one more article with regards to butN. Not sure if I should cite it in the wikipedia article. Please have a look at it and advise. Here is the link: http://startups.co.uk/butn-robin-chater/ Adsyvb (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No - I'm afraid that's still a self-published source. Interviews with site administrators are still not proof of notability, since anyone can write that as advertising copy; notability and reliable source guidelines need editorial control and oversight, and a third-party discussing the site without just quoting the founders. LS1979 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Too soon.Charles (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2014 (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.