Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houseology.com


 * 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 00:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Houseology.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

prodded this article with the rationale "self-promotion". I challenged it since it had already had two speedy deletion requests declined as not being irretrievably promotional. Maxkelp then put an AfD tag on, but did not complete the process, so I am doing so for him. This should not be construed as an endorsement for deletion on my part. Lady of  Shalott  14:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When I first saw this article, I couldn't believe how Wikipedia was carrying a full-page advert for an unknown minor retail website. Almost all the information was written without citation, so it must have been written by someone who knows the business but doesn't have objective evidence of any of the claims. It contained quotes from the business owner without reference to where or when it was said. It contained several links to the business's website and promotional materials. It claimed that the website contained 'comprehensive educational courses' or suchlike, but when I looked at the website, it just contained a few marketing materials along the lines of an amateur's introduction to interior design. It clearly violated the main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). In my opinion it was without doubt prime for speedy deletion, but oddly this was immediately refuted, perhaps because I had already edited the article to make it less of a marketing piece. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If this article is allowed, then an article on every web retailer should also be allowed. Allowing the article to remain leaves it open to be altered by editors with a vested interest in the business and add all the promotional marketing information and links to the website back again. Delete Maxkelp (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, this article was created earlier this year and speedily deleted for reason A7: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/index.php?user=Fashionista888&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects Delete Maxkelp (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The previously deleted article was much briefer. This is not a just a recreation of that. Lady  of  Shalott  20:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that this article is identical, but that the reason for the deletion given at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=&page=Houseology.com was deletion with speedy deletion-advertising tag, and (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)). These points still stand for the current article, and the article packed with marketing and promotional links before editing, and of any possible future edit of this page. It's not a well-known company, it's not notable, it's not important, it's a marketing ploy for a small company to promote itself online alongside major well-known businesses, and I'm at a loss to understand how anyone can think differently unless they have a vested interest in promoting this online retailer. Delete Maxkelp (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete* Fails WP:SELFPUB & WP:PROMO.  A torrent of quasi-industry, self-inspired, spam-publicity that doesn't add relevance to the argument, and rams unabashedly at times straight into WP:NOT.  Nikto   wha?  17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:PROMO and lacks reliable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2016 (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.