Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart In Diamond


 * 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. The only "keep" opinion is by a WP:SPA.  Sandstein  08:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Heart In Diamond

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NORG. The 2 sources that mention the company are Forbes and Huffpost (that mention it in passing); Forbes contributors are notoriously unreliable as most have PR and business consultancy functions as does the author of the article that in fact only mentions this company in passing. Domdeparis (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep - In regard to WP:NORG. Heart In Diamond is mentioned here amongst others: http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/australians-opting-for-alternative-approaches-in-human-body-disposal/news-story/c2cc6e9d331c704b68441001c93e367d http://elitedaily.com/life/things-to-do-body-death/1819851/ http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/the-bloomfield-diamond-made-using-turf-from-the-ipro-stadium/story-29488198-detail/story.html http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-13/health/sc-health-0213-ashes-disposal-20130213_1_human-ashes-uncle-leo-lifegem

In some of these articles Heart In Diamond is mentioned in the same sentence together with businesses that have an approved Wikipedia page that is WP:NORG, such as: LifeGem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeGem For example, in the Chiga Tribune article: "Among them are LifeGem (lifegem.com), Heart In Diamond (heart-in-diamond.com)...."

In regard to Forbes.com and Huffpost.com as "notoriously unreliable sources" Forbes is cited roughly 12,800 times on Wikipedia which makes this statement highly disputable Huffpost is cited roughly 19,900 times on Wikipedia which makes this statement highly disputable

Verify numbers, this Google search roughly shows how many times Forbes and Huffingtonpost is used as source for an article: https://www.google.com.ar/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=1I7VWP_HA8qnxgTz0IRY&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:https://en.wikipedia.org/+%22Forbes.+Retrieved%22&* https://www.google.com.ar/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=1I7VWP_HA8qnxgTz0IRY&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:https://en.wikipedia.org/+%22Huffington+post.+Retrieved%22&* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpkersbergen123 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * reply You might like to read what I wrote again. I said that "Forbes contributors are notoriously unreliable as most have PR and business consultancy functions" what I could have added is "as an independent source for notability". Their jobs are to promote companies and this makes the independence of their articles highly questionable. This essay is interesting Essay. WP:NORG states that notability is not inherited and because a company is mentioned in the same sentence as another notable company does not make it notable by association. All of the sources that you give only mention the company in passing. There is no in-depth coverage which is necessary to pass WP:NORG. Domdeparis (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * Hi ... You might like to read what i wrote again:


 * Again, i do not agree that the article does not meet WP:NORG, it is not true that the sources just mention the company "in passing", the Forbes article is solely about this company for example. The other articles mention Heart In Diamond too, in WP:NORG it is NOT mentioned that an in-depth article is required, at WP:GNG it says "sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". WP:NRV "Sources of evidence include... reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally". I just gave 6 reliable sources. As you can read, editors are also encouraged to look at the sources not mentioned on the Wikipedia article, which makes the number of mentiones even higher. Even if 1 or 2 do not make the cut for "reliable" there will still be 4 or 5 reliable sources left that mention this company. I think you should also read this from WP:NRV "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface" As i see it, the speedy deletion proposal is based on WP:A7 i think the "speedy deletion" nomination is completely out of order because according to WP:NORG this is a business "of importance".


 * Apart from that, with my argument above i dispute that Forbes authors are PR consultants. A writer and a PR consultant are two completely different jobs. About your other point, if you would read my comment then the answer to your comment is there: I did read WP:COI and there's no conflict of interest because i am not connected to Heart In Diamond. I said i am a "consultant". As you perhaps know there are dozens of types of consultants. if you read carefully, you will see that i never said i was a PR consultant, and that (looking at any of the Wikipedia speedy deletion rules), wikipedia does not exclude certain professions by default, unless there's a conflict of interest.


 * As you can see in the broad spectrum of arguments above, there's no reason at all for speedy deletion: WP:CSD "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here". You were the one to review this page the last time too, isn't there a proper system in place that prevents the same people from contesting a the same page over and over again, to promote objectivity?


 * Perhaps you should also read this WP:FIELD "Thus, improper tagging of an article as a speedy candidate leaves more work for users patrolling the speedy deletion category, and improper deletion by administrators causes poor relations with other users, and often prolongs the situation by forcing a deletion review." and "The policy is quite clear in usage – it is meant to be used in "limited circumstances," (from which this is not one) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpkersbergen123 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete based upon the few sources that are out there, and the lack of depth of coverage, I agree that it does not meet notability per WP:ORG.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * A7 only refers to real people, individual animals, organizations, web content, or events. Too often this is applied to other articles. An article doesn't have to prove that the subject is important or significant nor does it have to provide reliable sources; if it makes a credible claim that it might be important or significant, then it is not speedily deletable. It's important to distinguish "importance or significance" from "notability" : A7 does not require that an article indicates that the subject meets a notability guideline, merely suggest that the article could be improved to a state where it does. "Credible" is added because some kid writing an autobiography of himself declaring himself to be the best lover the world has ever seen may be a claim to importance or significance, but it clearly isn't credible. The same kid, however, might be able to make a credible claim saying that he received an award from the president for saving another kid from drowning in a pool. That award may not be enough to save the article, as there may be no evidence of receiving the award from reliable sources, but it is enough to prevent it from being speedily deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpkersbergen123 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The requirements for notability have not been met - passing mentions, PR nonsense and basic confirmation that the company exists is all that I could find. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply - Again, i know my explanation is a long one, but would serve everyone involved to read it better before replying with an opinion based on facts and wikipedia guidelines rather than opinions.. From WP:NRV "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface" As i see it, the speedy deletion proposal is based on WP:A7 i think the "speedy deletion" nomination is completely out of order because according to WP:NORG this is a business "of importance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpkersbergen123 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For the second, and final, time - this is not a Speedy Deletion - this is an Article for Deletion discussion. WP:A7 is meaningless here, so there's no need to keep quoting it. Read WP:GNG - that's the page that matters here. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I also remind you that you should not be stating "keep" in bold letters more than once in a discussion. Your vote will only be counted once. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2017 (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.