Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DesignContest


 * 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'd be willing to WP:USERFY upon request. NativeForeigner Talk 18:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

DesignContest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB and any number of guidelines.

The article certainly seems impressive. But lets look at the references:
 * [1] http://www.designcontest.com/designers-join-us// :primary source - useful for giving information about the subject, but not to establish the notability of the subject of the article.
 * [2] http://www.designcontest.com/blog/why-crowdsourcing/ :primary source again.
 * [3] http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2011/04/06/improving-our-capacity-to-manage/ : WSJ blog, but with no mention of the subject of the article.
 * [4]The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki: is there a mention of the subject of the article in this book? I doubt it.
 * [5] http://www.crowdsource.com/blog/2013/08/the-long-history-of-crowdsourcing-and-why-youre-just-now-hearing-about-it/: certainly about crowd-sourcing, but with no mention of the subject of the article
 * [6] http://www.designcontest.com/testimonials////: primary source. The purported testimonials include those from:


 * http://vaporcreations.com.pandastats.net/ ; http://www.vaporcreations.com/: nothing except a front page
 * "property search real estate": no website of or near this name exists
 * a reputable commercial enterprise that prints tickets, but TinEye can find no images of these ticket designs outside the designcontest•com website
 * a "miracle pain spray" manufacturer, but again TinEye finds no images of the spray-can design outside the designcontest•com website
 * there appears to be no business of or near the name "Lightning Rods C.C." in Houston TX, nor in the rest of the world
 * [7] https://www.designcontest.ru/////: the website in Russian. While this may serve as evidence that the business has a website in Russian, this does not assist the claim of notability.
 * [8] http://www.designcontest.com/forum/forum.php///: A primary source again.
 * [9] http://www.designcontest.com/blog/: A primary source again.
 * [10] https://www.designcontest.com/help/index.php?/Knowledgebase/List///: A primary source again.
 * [11] http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/2098861/digital-efforts-draw-crowd: No mention of the subject of the article.
 * [12] http://images.businessweek.com/slideshows/20110128/twelve-sites-that-will-put-you-to-work-now: Bloomberg Businessweek is without doubt a reliable source for business news. There is no mention of the subject of the article there, or anywhere on the BusinessWeek website.
 * [13] http://www.lookatme.ru/mag/industry/industry-interview/197309-designcontest: ru:Look At Me indicates that it contains mostly user-generated content. A reliable source? It would appear not to be so.
 * [14] http://www.the-village.ru/village/city/transport/133351-logotip-metro: Again, appears to be mostly user-generated content. Shirt58 (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I removed all unuseles primary source and added sources confirming the popularity, as well as examples of cooperation with well known companies. I hope this time will be no claim. :) --SlavaBest (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Add more independent reliable sources. Now it must have significant coverage.SlavaBest (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't need the logos inside of the encyclopedic article, it's not a resume (and they're copyright, see the files' pages on Commons). Significant coverage is sort-of ok but you may want to focus more on the relationship of the subject with outside world which the outside world itself initiated — such as interest of press in its work, or user reception. (Eg. like this or that). Gryllida (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed logos examples. And soon will try add topics like you propouse. SlavaBest (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! Hopefully whoever handles this request doesn't close it too soon; I'm not familiar with the timeline (it could be anything from one week, which ends on the 20th). Gryllida (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Old Sources: All other - are new and not primary sourse or user-generated content.SlavaBest (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC) 
 * The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki - this book describes the basic principles and laws of any crowdsourcing business, and this company as well. So I left.
 * Website in Russian. While this may serve as evidence that the business has a website in Russian - so I lest it.
 * http://www.lookatme.ru/mag/industry/industry-interview/197309-designcontest and http://www.the-village.ru/village/city/transport/133351-logotip-metro are not user-generated content, so I left it too.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 21.  Mkdw talk 04:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Regards, Mkdw talk 04:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Appreciate the review of sources by Shirt58. Page appears to be advertising - WP:NOTADVERTISING and fails notability requirements per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. To me, the number of non-independent sources suggests that the editor is trying to WP:MASK the lack of notability. mikeman67 (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Review of sources by Shirt58 means absolutely nothing, because all sources have been redone, and what you say - it means that you did not even check anything. You don`t gives reasons for point of view - it means that your opinion is not objectively.SlavaBest (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to expand. For an organization to be notable and merit inclusion in WP requires that "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I've looked at all the sources cited right now. Citations like the BBB or press releases aren't reliable for this purpose - the BBB provides pages on a massive number of businesses in American and isn't "coverage", and press releases aren't independent. Other citations are blog posts or incidental mentions, not coverage of the corporation itself, which is what the policy requires. The only thing approaching coverage is the post on fusible.com about the domain selling for $40,000, but again, this isn't coverage of the organization itself, it's incidental coverage. As the WP:CORPDEPTH says, "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business" aren't sufficient. These sources don't meet the requirements of WP:NOTRELIABLE. I've done my own searching, and I simply am coming up with nothing about this organization. Again, WP is not WP:PROMO, and right now this page doesn't seem to support inclusion. That's my thinking, but happy to hear your response on this and assist on article if you feel I am wrong. mikeman67 (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I agree with you on sources as BBB. But if you take the other pages on the same topic, which for many years in the project such as: 75B, 8vo, AdamsMorioka, Airside, Mars Design, AirSpace Studio and other. I created it's certainly not worse. On many of them I found nothing. They all must be delete in this way. But they srill here in some reason.


 * I believe that such sources as Fusible.com, PRweb.com, Virtual-Strategy Magazine and Mashable.com can provide the necessary coverage. Perhaps the text may look like WP:PROMO - but if you help me, I remade it in neutral. And I still would like to try to modify the article so that she would not have been removed as well. Do I have a chance? SlavaBest (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sandbox it into a draft somewhere not indexed by search engines for a few weeks. I really appreciate the author being responsive. Gryllida (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The text was completely rewritten to accordance with the rules WP:TONE and WP:PROMO and cleaned from some mistakes. I can`t see any reason to delete this article, since it is not worse then similar.SlavaBest (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything but keep' Sadly, I don't believe that the non-neutral wording issues are behind us here, and that's going to take some time to resolve if the author believes, as she or he indicates above, that PRweb might be a useful source. I'm open to putting this into a draft until it can pass AfC or the like, particularly as the author seems to be working in good faith to improve things, but it is a hard task.   --j⚛e deckertalk 15:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately, the ed. is correct that some of their other work also has similar problems. In fact, so do at least have the articles in the category. I've listed 2 or 3 of the very worst for speedy, and tried to reduce the promotionalism of some of those that appear salvageable and clearly notable. That leaves a large group in the middle that will need to be dealt with. As others have noticed in various places, it must be more than a coincidence that articles of firms in the advertising and PR industries tend themselves to be rather promotional.   DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 10 March 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.