Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinderdance International Inc


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Kinderdance International Inc

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

This page is very obviously self-promotion material written entirely by someone affiliated with the corporation. It is a perfect example of "What Wikipedia is Not: Advertising or Self Promotion." At the very least, this page is non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico Catrix (talk • contribs) 18:02, 15 December 2009

To illustrate: just look at the corporate website. It has a link saying "Visit us on Wikipedia!" That link is right between "Visit us on Facebook!" and "Visit us on Myspace!" Obviously, this company thinks that wikipedia is some cheap self-promotion social networking site.


 * Comment I would say there is a distinct odour of spam, but not a perfect example of the type. It is at least written in a wikified style, rather than a brochure through the letterbox style. I'm concerned about the notability and referencing. Both the worldfranchises one and smittysplanet go to a page that seems to indicate a problem over registration of the domain; the Minority Franchising one goes to an apparent advert (by the wording); the IFA one also reads like an advert or directory entry; Franchise Mall is a directory. Then also, the Entrepreneur page 'cannot be found', and as to World Franchising, 'The requested URL /franchises/Kinderdance-International.html/ was not found on this server.'. Not looking good so far. What's left? The Company Site. Definitely not good. The creator of the article, Nunscio, says on the article's talk page 'I am new at this and want to be sure it is a good article, what can i do to make it more like an encyclopedia and less a pamphlet if thats what it seems. I did my best just to state the facts.'. Nunscio created the article, and has only made one minor edit otherwise. Interesting that someone is so keen on the company that they 'have done have done a lot of research' (quote from talk page), but not come up with anything reliable. Possibly there isn't anything. I've just scanned through the first 100 ghits and found an amazing number of franchising opportunity sites (looks like a quarter of the world is trying to sell another quarter's franchises to the rest of it). One 'dance' site - which turned out to be a directory. Personally, I'd have tagged db-spam and db-inc together. OK. Come on the supporters. Prove those awards - and the notability of them - and demonstrate the real notability of this company before I make up my mind. Peridon (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Very promotional in tone. Note frequent use of ® and ™ symbols. If kept, needs to be cleaned up and given a factual tone. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 05:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Seeing as no reliable indications of notability have appeared since my comment above, I'm going for delete - without prejudice. If the necessary references are found, by all means re-create. This is an interesting AfD - a virtually SpA created article nominated by an SpA. There's a hidden story somewhere... (Is one a successful franchise holder, and the other one whose business didn't work? That's one trouble with being a writer - you see plot lines everywhere.) Peridon (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep. I added some references and removed the &reg; symbols. I think the references added today add up to notability. - Eastmain (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since the article now has a criticisms section, I don't think that it should be dismissed as promotional. - Eastmain (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be OK. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 21:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The criticism section has been deleted. I wrote it before I realized that it was possible to submit an article for deletion. If this article does survive the Self-promotion test, I still recommend that it be deleted for lack of notability. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to create notability where none existed independently.Nico Catrix (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)NicoCatrix
 * Comment I have just re-viewed the references given. Of the five originally given, two are still dead (going to what looks like someone who would be happy if you wanted the domain name...), and only one even remotely possibly contributing to notability - and I don't trust it as it's a franchise trade listing. OK. Now for the new ones. The Orlando business one is info from the company. The Austin one says they're opening three sites. So? The Birmingham one is an 'interview' article with a franchisee - who isn't going to say anything bad, is she? The same applies to the accessmylibrary one. Nothing third party or neutral in any of them, to my mind. Don't trust me. Look for yourselves. Peridon (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2009 (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.