Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elika Associates


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Elika Associates

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Minor recently-founded company with passing mentions in a couple of news stories. Created by User:Elika2010; see also Paid_editing_(guideline)/Noticeboard. Rd232 talk 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I have already talked to editors about this, I used the username Elika2010 to make the article because it was the first article i made, I have already been told about COI, and assured editors for AFC that i have no part in this or Andy's page i am currently working on. Elika2010 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Elika2010 (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete combination of marginal notability, and the high probability that the article was solicited, make this a delete for me. Rs sources only mention company or company's employees in passing.  Coverage is weak, integrity of article is suspect.  The Interior (Talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete If there is a problem with the sources why did i have to find other ones than the ones I used for AFC! I worked on this for days and worked with editors to find RELIABLE sources in witch i did! I see nothing wrong, instead of being vague about the integrity of article, point out what exactly is wrong with this? I followed all guidelines to see how the editing process works, and i gathered my subject, sources and put it together with help of other editors from here in AFC...
 * See WP:COMPANY. Rd232 talk 00:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The guidelines have been followed, with the help of AFC editors, and information added, removed and changed as the sources to fit the guidelines. Elika2010 (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I performed a Google search on the company before accepting. The company does have well established coverage. I felt that there were enough sources to accept the article. I will do a few style fixes and tag it for rescue. -- Alpha Quadrant   talk    16:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alpha, could you link those sources? The Interior (Talk) 19:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Particularly this, the prweb sources are unreliable (a payed publisher), but there are still three good sources there. There are some other sources that could be found thought this search. It being presumed to be a major company in Manhattan, and had three good sources, so I accepted. Best, -- Alpha Quadrant   talk    17:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Obvious huge COI here. I think it would be better to delete and start over, rather than allowing someone who is being paid to advertise on Wikipedia to succeed.  If we allow these people to make money by creating spam articles, then we are setting ourselves up for a lot more spam articles to be created.  Also, sources are quite weak, most just passing mentions or regurgitated press releases.  Snotty Wong   express 19:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete- I could just about be persuaded that the subject of this article could stand on its own two feet, but the coverage is rather trivial and run-of-the-mill. But I have to agree with Snottywong- the damage we would do to Wikipedia by allowing it to be exploited by paid marketers and spammers far, far, far outweighs the minimal gain we'd have by including coverage on this borderline subject. Better to nuke it and start over. Reyk  YO!  22:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Checking the references shows that almost every mention of the company has been added to the article, and the conclusion is that the company does not satisfy WP:CORP since the only mentions are very minor, or appear in articles not about the company, or appear in places where it is standard that every similar company will be mentioned sooner or later. It is very hard for a small realtor started two years ago to become sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedic article, and there is no evidence that this company has made that leap. Wikipedia is not a directory of all realtors, and if this article were accepted there would be no criterion to exclude any other realtor. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: coverage is mainly in primary sources & trade rags, with only occasional & tangential coverage in more mainstream publications. Combine this with the obvious self-promotion/COI concerns (and I would note that Elika2010 has exacerbated those concerns by participating, quite incautiously, in this AfD, in violation of WP:COI -- giving very little reason to assume that they wouldn't continue to edit the article), and I do not think keeping this article would be a wise decision. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: couldn't find good sources... it's mentioned in the NYT but nothign to really write a page about Arskwad (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't care who created it; all I care about is that articles satisfy policy, and I don't think this one is notable. Some COI editors create good content, and some COI editors create content that doesn't satisfy existing content policies; why create a new rule that prohibits both - hence excluding good content - when we already have perfectly good rules that deal with the latter quite specifically? bobrayner (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Articles reads more like self-serving advertising to me. As Reyk said better to nuke it, start again and write a proper article, if possible.Petebutt (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2010 (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.