Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freebiejeebies (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 13:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Freebiejeebies
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was speedy deleted but restored by consensus at DRV following substantial improvement in userspace. Questions remain about the strength of the sourcing and whether the article does in fact meet WP:WEB. The appropriate place for that discussion is AFD not DRV so here we are. This is a procedural nomination as the DRV closer so I personally have no position. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete having examined the latest version of the article, I still believe it falls under ADVERT. --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, though I am doing a little work in it to see if it can be turned into a useful article, I fear this may prove impossible, at least at this stage in the site's life. For me the issue is citations from sources that are not forums, blogs, etc.  The advertorial can be rewritten, which I am having a crack at. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've done my best with it, but I see nothing that I have done that reverses my recommendation. I am happy to be persuaded by the work of others, however. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all blogs are by default unreliable, so they shouldn't be treated as such - like you did. - Mgm|(talk) 00:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to reinstate, after all this is Wikipedia. I do not perceive RSness for those I removed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment following the article creator's note below that the article has had substantial changes, I have reviewed it again. While I see references, I do not see sufficient that make me believe that this passes WP:WEB.  I do not accept the forums and blogs quoted as WP:RS, though may be persuaded.  I do appreciate the work that has been put in to the article.  I simply see this as an article "before the website is ready for one", and suggest that it be deleted but left unsalted, thus able to be recreated in the future when sufficient notability has accrued to it.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:RS : I reviewed this and believe the author of the reference is regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand and that the source directly supports the information as presented in the article - I clearly say that the reference is from a forum, but believe this forum is large, established and independent enough to pass and the source is appropriate to the claims made, particularly as the reference itself is from the senior moderator of the forum. Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I will leave a judgement on the reliability of that source to the closing admin. For me it fails, but more experienced editors here may disagree with me, something I will be content with. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see nothing here but an advertisement for a non-notable company. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still an ad. The last section isn't even specifically about the site. The rest is bloated with trivial info too.- Mgm|(talk) 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - One of those GPT like, annoying sites. WP:ADVERT, and not really notable. David WS  (contribs)  00:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I was the only voter in the first nomination, and it hasn't changed at all. It's still an advertisment. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I maintain my recommendation to delete after the edits mentioned below. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

ARTICLE CHANGED I am the original author and have only just noticed that the article has been restored. I have added many more references and adjusted the whole article to be more objective. All the comments above are therefore outdated. Please could you review the article and make constructive comments, I am open to all suggestions for improvement. Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that in no way can this article be accused of not being notable. A reference from an international magazine should be enough to support any article. The website is relatively small (if you want to compare it to Microsoft of Google) and therefore this reference is the strongest available. Why should any article on wikipedia be removed solely on subjective opinion that 'more' references are required. There is no other company by the name of 'Freebiejeebies' and therefore this article is not falsely taking up another's place, it does not harm other articles by existing, and is now fully objective in its writing. I am happy to improve it even further, but before you reply with big bold 'delete' comments, why not make a constructive comment? Thanks very much. Simon2239 (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's go through those points one at a time, referring back to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * "A reference from an international magazine should be enough to support any article".
 * Refuted by WP:GNG — "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (My emphasis on the plural s of sources.)
 * Why should any article on wikipedia be removed solely on subjective opinion that 'more' references are required.
 * WP:N includes "Multiple sources are generally preferred."
 * There is no other company by the name of 'Freebiejeebies' and therefore this article is not falsely taking up another's place
 * Straw man. See WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
 * it does not harm other articles by existing
 * WP:NOHARM.
 * is now fully objective in its writing
 * That's necessary but not sufficient.
 * but before you reply with big bold 'delete' comments, why not make a constructive comment
 * If editors feel that the article should be deleted, they are entitled to that viewpoint.
 * I hope you understand where these arguments are coming from. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeez, you love your cliquey rules, with all those obscure letters and terms I feel your subjective points are all the more strong. So much for wikipedia being free information, you lot just like ruling your clique with a bottomless pit of WP:lettering to justify yourselves. Simon2239 (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot possibly see how that comment strengthens your argument. Stifle provided you with a great deal of help in the comment.  It simply appears that it is impossible to meet Wikipedia's needs with the article for which you show genuine enhtusiasm but can provide no real substance. Please conduct yourself with civility, something I feel is borderline here, and recognise that no-one is taking any of this personally, except, perhaps, you. Let's face it, Freebiejeeebies is currently just not notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is just another subjective notion. What gives you the right to determine what is in a public free access encylopedia? Half of these guidelines were no doubt written by people like you to permit you to justify deleting articles by less experienced users. The more time I spend on here, the more of these ridiculous 'WP:' statements come out of the woodwork. Sorry, maybe you should all just realise that the point of wikipedia is free knowledge - you have no right to control what knowledge is appropriate like a bunch of dictators. You're all just a big clique and I believe it is to the detriment of wikipedia. The Sole criteria for inclusion should be objectivity and fact, my article meets both. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.193.180 (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 


 * ps. Image now added. If it is going to cause trouble then it can be removed as the article itself is the main concern. Simon2239 (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Speedy deleted, CSD#G11 - Advertisement masquerading as an article; notability still not evident (it seems to be saying "X Company is notable, we do the same as X, therefore we're notable, which isn't true). Even after the "changes" mentioned above, this is still has to go. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a "constructive" comment. It says no such thing. Furthermore, I've never quite understood this greatly flawed argument of an 'advertisement masquerading as an article'. The only way people will find this article is by searching for 'freebiejeebies', which they could do on google or any other search engine and get much less objective information without a balanced viewpoint - unlike this article. No, your argument is fatally weak. Simon2239 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It reads like an advertisement (offering a variety of gifts to users... They have a large number of partner companies... Partner companies include several UK household names... coverage in the media is beginning to grow as more people receive gifts.) and it claims inherited notability (In this way it is similar to companies such as Gratis Internet (aka. Freepay) which is is one of the largest 'freebie' websites and was established in 2001.) whilst at no point giving a hint as to its own notability. I know you're really wanting to keep this advertisement up (is it your website?) but what part of this argument is weak? ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also take issue with the sources you are using in the advertisement. Only two of them actually mention Freebiejeebies (T3 in passing, from what sounds like a press release; and some forum for people to advertise their membership of this affiliate scheme); the rest mention other schemes but not this one. On that basis, I've changed my !vote above. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that someone searching for "freebiejeebies" will end up at the company's website in the absence of this article. No problems there, then. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah right. All of that argument is weak. The T3 reference is not 'in passing' and provides plenty of notability, more than enough for this article to exist. Simon2239 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You and I will need to agree to disagree on this. My opinion (delete as spam) stands. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Still a delete as still reads like an advert promoting the site, despite the All the comments above are therefore outdated instruction given by the single editor still wanting to retain the article. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If everyones main argument is going to be that it 'reads like an advert' then I would be happy to change the first sentence to 'claim to offer' if this will put this argument to rest. Anything else that does not read to some editors satisfaction can also be changed, in fact - go ahead and change it! Yes, I want this article to stay - so change the tone to satisfy yourself, I've done my best to do this. I still believe the notability argument is a no-goer so the only argument left is the apparently 'reading like an advert' that is continually asserted - change it, tone is very simple to alter, why delete an article on a subjective assessment of the tone when this is easily adjusted. Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have again re-written the first paragraph and believe it to now be completely free from any hint of 'reading like an advertisement'. Simon2239 (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks User:Oscarthecat - Has created a further new version. Simon2239 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's still not notable - only third-party mention is a (press release) mention in passing in T3 magazine. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No - it is both not a press release and is not 'in passing' - incorrect. Simon2239 (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But you don't deny it being the only mention? ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No I also disagree with you on that. Simon2239 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet you're still not providing the other reliable, third party sources for your website. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE. Additional edits to article are not improving its quality. This article has absolutely no value in an encylopedia and is simply a ploy for advertising from a completely unknown company. 66.208.14.122 (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unknown to you - but over 100,000 hits on google. Perhaps an encyclopedia article would help educate you? Simon2239 (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see 100k+ hits on google and a lot of this hits I do see have nothing to do with this company. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ps. This isn't my company - I have no interest in advertising it for personal gain. Simon2239 (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think advertising concerns are still the matter. The fact is the company is simply not notable enough for inclusion here. See WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * AS STRNONG A DELETE AS POSSIBLE. This is becoming a waste of everyone's time. It's clear to every editor but Simon2239 that the article is not acceptable. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per request, I've cleaned up the article to make it at least accurate, however it should still be deleted. Nearly all the "references" in the article have nothing to do with Freebiejeebies and only generally talk about referral marketing. The only two "references" are a press release and an anonymous forum supporting the site. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think these edits (or perhaps later edits by you) got reverted by Simon. I wonder how long we continue this discussion with everyone wanting it deleted but just Simon wanting to keep it! --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He reverted your edits as well. The changes have been replaced with an explanation on the talk page and he's been warned - 3RR. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment.What you want should not come into it - screams of bias - your previous decision to speedy delete has been overturned and been shown to be completely the wrong decision as admin. This IP address user only edited the article to attempt to weaken it. Simon2239 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)'
 * Simon2239, I'm sorry if you feel accuracy weakens your article, but I disagree. Please take specific concerns to the discussion page and do not simple revert edits. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your actions demonstrate you hypocrisy, why not go back to editing you Gratis Internet article and keep your bias to yourself. Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - When the references supplied don't even mention the name of the subject, then it becomes pretty clear that there are no reliable sources to establish notability. But even more important, it fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to me to be a definite delete, fails WP:WEB and verifiability Paste (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This seems like it's getting out of hand and could use some admin intervention. The one user defending the article (Simon2239), seems to feel he owns this article, repeatedly has reverted contstructive edits with no explanation and has become belligerent. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They are being reverted because you are attempting to weaken the article because of your bias towards your article of Gratis Internet. You have not discussed any of your edits. Simon2239 (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My only bias is one for accuracy. Each of my edits has an edit summary and further I have started a discussion with the explanation of my edits on the article's talk page. You have refused to engange in any meaningful discussion. Your actions as warned have been reported to administrators. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's easily spotted as an advertisement and should be deleted. It seems only one editor feels this is notable, and is edit warring to the point of lockdown. The sooner this can be done, the better. Dayewalker (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- I echo the comment by Whpq about the provided references that don't even mention the company. They just talk about giveaway companies in general. There is nothing about Freebiejeebies in the Wired News article nor in the first BBC reference. If the editor defending this article continues to engage in personal attacks and edit warring he risks admin intervention. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Request for Closure. The article is protected so is unlikely to be improved even if it can be.  It looks to me as if a consensus has formed and it ought to be a straightforward matter now to lay this discussion to rest.  I haven't seen so much boldface font for ages! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:14, 20 November 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.