Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fearless Designs

Fearless Designs was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Fearless Designs
Advertising, and a possible copyvio (can't verify, because I can't find the company's web page). --Carnildo 06:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You mean this one? www.theaudiencegroup.com/fearless.html  &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Damn man you're such a loser. What do you do wait for new entries on Wikipedia and flag the ones you don't like?
 * Honestly, yes. I check the Special:Recent changes page several times a day looking for new articles that need work.  The only sort of work that an advertisement needs is deletion. --Carnildo 06:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete advertisement.&mdash;Sortior 06:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete advertisement/vanity article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:55, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. GeorgeStepanek 06:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is not an advertisement. This is simply information. Can we be civilised from this point on? Brianjd 07:19, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
 * Delete. No longer an advertisement, but not about a significant subject. --Carnildo 07:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Not significant --WEBS 08:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How is this entry different from the entry for Microsoft? Besides the fact that Microsoft is a well known company.
 * Microsoft is a well-known company, and thus suitable material for an encyclopedia to cover.
 * The article on Microsoft isn't an advertisement for the company.
 * --Carnildo 06:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neither is this an advertisement for the company. It is simply information, and I don't give two-hoots how well Microsoft is known. Also, I would agree that some information may be edited, but deletion is not appropriate.

It is you know. Let me explain: Microsoft has made major contributions to the history of computing (first microcomputer HLL interpreter, MS-DOS, Windows, etc., etc.); Fearless Designs... hasn't. That about sums it up. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:52, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)


 * How do you know it hasn't? I can find you a village in Columbia to whom Microsoft and Fearless Designs are the same babble. Your argument is subjective.


 * If you can find me a city anywhere in which Microsoft and Fearless Designs are both considered important, I'll agree to let the article in. Finding a village in which they're both irrelevant is trivial. --Carnildo 06:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If I say in Pasto, Columbia both Fearless Designs and Microsoft are considered equally important, how do you propose to prove me wrong?


 * I don't need to. You've done it for me. I know it hasn't because if it had you would have rushed to prove me wrong.  Since you are only able to ask me "how do you know it hasn't?" and "babble" about villages in Columbia rather than explaining why Fearless Designs is significant, I know that you don't have any such evidence. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 07:04, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)


 * You don't "know" anything. You are just assuming. Also, I would like to ask you to point out which part of the entry is an advert, so that perhaps I may edit it.


 * Last I checked, the whole damn thing was an advertisement. --Carnildo 07:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You need to school yourself on the meaning of the word, in that case. No need to be mindless, I'm sure if you think hard enough, you can actually present a somewhat of an argument for the deletion.


 * Thing is he doesn't need to. Most of us have our own opinion on what an advert is, and I'm pretty sure that your opinion is in the minority.  If you really want your article to survive, you're going to have to convince us that your opinion is right. We don't have to convince you of anything. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 07:23, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
 * My arugment is that this is not an advertisement. All the information is simply factual, describing an entity which is Fearless Designs. I can't possibly see how anyone can object to that.


 * Delete. It's advertising, packed in its short length with marketing-speak: "...started out as a vision...", "...who focuses on bringing quality design services to all his clients...'", "...where each person focuses on their own specialty...", "Fearless Designs became the website that it is today" And why, pray tell, does User:24.186.250.37 not sign his posts?
 * Possibly because he doesn't know how and doesn't care to find out. Also, thank you for actually pointing something out. I deleted that part from the article, hopefully to all of your satisfaction.
 * If you don't care to sign your posts, why should anyone care about keeping your spam? --Calton 10:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's move to the talk page of the article and discuss how it can be improved rather than doing it here. Deletion of sections won't be enough. Material will also need to be added. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:44, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea - see the talk page for more discussion. Brianjd


 * Delete as advertising. I could be convinced otherwise if the company is shown to be notable and the article is less of an advert (the external link is one of the first things you see!). - Vague | Rant 08:06, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * At this point I agreed that the article should be deleted but let me see if I get this right. Your main point is the position of the external link??? You have got to be kidding me. I've heard of being analytical, but this is just plain nonsense. As the original author of the article, the only reason the link is where it is is because it follows the phrase "Fearless Designs." Honestly, I don't know how your "advertisment-detection" savvy brain works, but the position of the link never factored into my thinking when posting the article --24.186.250.37 08:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The external link is no longer one of the first things you see. Brianjd 08:13, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely unencyclopedic non-notable business promotional vanity article. I can't possibly see how this subject could become notable through simple rewrites. It fails the Google test, as "Fearless Designs" only gets 144 results, many of which are accidental pairings of those two words unrelated to the NYC company, and most of the results are for a completely different company by the same name based out of Kentucky. All of the links for the NYC one appear to be for non-noteworthy reasons, typically just business listings. If we add this we might as well add every small business in the world. DreamGuy 10:36, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete advert, non-notable. Gazpacho 11:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The company is not well-known or notable in any way. David Johnson 12:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: Business ad. Geogre 15:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be non-notable. Sillydragon 20:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable Edward 20:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete we'll certainly not be bullied into covering random small businesses. dab 22:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "bullied?" I like your choice of words. I don't understand it, but I like it. --24.186.250.37 23:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete Cdc 23:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep [[User:Nygengsta 18:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Despite the signature, the above was posted by User:64.12.117.10. RickK 00:12, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete it. Valid reasons are above.  &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. --Improv 06:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Stupid ad. Cribcage 07:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Serves no purpose in an ensycl.. encycol... wikipedia! --Mceder

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.