Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dulcinea Media, Inc


 * 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 marginally spam: a non-notable company and web site. Article has serious conflict of interest concerns. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dulcinea Media, Inc

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable company article created by company employees. Most of those editing this article have also spammed other articles with links to their website. The only sources in the article are: the company website, another company's website that doesn't mention the company, the third is a MediaPost article about one of the company's websites - this one could be reliable...but keep in mind, it's not about the article subject, just something owned by the article subject, the fourth is a link to another of their sites, the fifth is a press release, the sixth is a picture and the seventh is a link to the ASJA cautioning people from doing business with the subject. SmashvilleBONK! 22:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, borderline speedy delete. Makes claims of notability, but does not back them up.  If the business's only claims to notability involves media coverage of a publicity stunt it launched by hiring a naked busker, I call shenanigans. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. By inspection, appears to be an encyclopedia of sorts, gathering and report news and related-to-news topics, including good citing to mainstream media. Thus it itself could qualify as WP:RS, or at least clearly not linkspam as nom seems to think. For its own page to exist though, of course we need it to be notable, not just reliable. Their media page includes numerous links/reprints of substantial mention in media. Also, I found this recommendation by a professional librarian (it's self-pub/blog, but it's an expert speaking in her area in her official capacity, so I think it's RS). A site that claims to do something but for which there is a reliable cite stating it does not actually does support notability of the site...frauds, hoaxes, and other crap that are important enough to be reported on as such pass WP:NOTABLE. DMacks (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to reread WP:RS policy... The fact that it sometimes cites other reliable sources means those sources meet WP:RS, not this one.DreamGuy (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't come close to meeting the wp:corp notability standard. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- As someone who probably spent hours removing some of the spam links added by this company, pretty much without exception it doesn't appear to have any more reliability, notability, etc. as any other random blog site, these people are just more coordinated in their spamming than most. DreamGuy (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- WP:CORP isn't the relevant standard. This is a web publisher so it may be something a little like WP:WEB or WP:AUTH.  Publishers are known, and notable, for their reach, readership, the content they publish, etc., not for their internal corporate organization.  It's sometimes hard to get sources because they tend not to attract a lot of commentary - the media writing articles about itself is a kind of navel gazing that doesn't get a lot of mainstream attention despite the notability of the publication.  There are quite a few reliable sources that mention Dulcinea Media and its website, although I haven't yet found a significant mention in a major third party source.  There are many passing mentions in major sources, of the sort that X was covered on DM, or the CEO of DM was interviewed to say X.  If the figure of 40 employees is right it is a significant web publisher.  Alexa ranking is in the 20,000 range, which is nothing to sneeze at.  On the fundamentals, an encyclopedic knowledge of web publishing would be aided by our covering this company, and without it the encyclopedic treatment of the field would be incomplete.  Wikidemo (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't understand why we use a soft touch with people who promote themselves or their companies on Wikipedia. Their articles are never neutral, the information is rarely verifiable and the authors themselves frequently employ questionable methods (socks, etc) to try and help their case. This article was obviously written by people directly employed by the namesake of the article and so would have to be completely rewritten to come within NPOV. This essentially means the page can be deleted until the company becomes notable enough to warrant an article written by a third party. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2008 (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.