Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Clinic Ltd.


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Cell Clinic Ltd.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:PROMO article. Claim to fame is that the owner gave 1-2 sentence quotes to major Canadian papers about selfie sticks when they first came out. No substantial coverage as needed by WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This page is still growing. Wikipedia isn't an exclusive, closed off site. We only created it 5 hours ago. I will be able to contact the man leading the company for more information as well as PDFs of articles in print newspapers, and things will follow. What harm can this article do to have to put it up for deletion? Jkmarold55 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The harm is that it does not meet our notability criteria, appears to be promotional and was deleted as such as a draft earlier, and the fact that you refer to we which suggests you are working with the subject to create the page. All of these undermine the credibility of Wikipedia, especially the promotional component. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Tony, I deleted the draft because I was stupid and thought that in order to publish it, I had to create a new Wikipedia page that was live. Thanks. Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to bludgeon the conversation, but that is simply not true. DGG tagged it as purely promotional and SeraphimBlade deleted it under CSD G11. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Tony, I forgot. I moved the draft over to a new page after they abruptly deleted it. I thought I had to publish it. What platform deletes drafts before they are finished? Drafts don't cause any problems. I thought I could actually finish it on a live post, and I wasn't allowed to on a draft, or something. Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not for free advertising for two stores/15 employees in British Columbia. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not promotional, nor do we intend it to be. I have no affiliation with the company whatsoever, and I was creating the page with a friend of mine, not the company. My friend is a lot more knowledgeable about Wikipedia techniques than I am. If this was free advertising, we would be flaunting it on websites, featured pages, etc. Rather, the only people who are going to visit are those interested in the company. Wikipedia is an ever expanding database of information, and I don't think growing companies should be excluded. Its inclusion does not cause any harm whatsoever. I don't think that Wikipedia suffers from more inclusion of small businesses; rather, I believe it helps it grow. Whether or not it's well known or not, we still have more content than the Moe's Southwest Grill page. Let me know what you think. Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia. Would you expect to see this in Encyclopedia Britannica? Of course not. Why would you think it's appropriate here? The comparison to the 600-location Moe's Southwest Grill is head-scratching. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. A 600 location Wikipedia page gets little attention or improvement, yet us little guys barely have a chance to grow or establish notability. Wikipedia is notoriously different from resources such as the Encycopedia Britannica. You won't find company descriptions and individual person bios (of people who aren't internationally famous) in it. They aren't even of the same class. Can't be compared. Respectfully, Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You've just condemned the article out of your own mouth. Wikipedia is not for entities to "grow or establish notability". It's for those that already have it. You've also established that you have a WP:conflict of interest ("us little guys"). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No conflict of interest. I don't know these people. I just speak in first person plural. Jkmarold55 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:NOT. Article fails to establish notability and is nothing more than a business listing. Articles about "local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts."  CBS 527 Talk 10:47, 30 March 2017 (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.