Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moozement


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Moozement

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD, after discussions with the author, I don't feel that the "killerstartups" and "Artic startup" ref are truly independent reliable sources. I have been unable to find other sources, so I think that this does not meet general notability guidelines / WP:ORG.  Chzz  ►  06:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Agree regarding exclusion of KillerStartups as RS, with only result with is used as a "what links here" is to a speedy deletion request in 2007. Artic Startup seems fine, but just having a short generic quote from them does not constitute WP:GNG. Appears to be only self-promotion with regards to the purpose-built account just for managing that article subject to WP:COMPANY. Datheisen (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tackling first the point of "purpose-built account". You can see my account has been created in 2004 in the Finnish Wikipedia. True that this is my first article in the .org. Second is the notability. So we now agree that Articstartup is ok to be used as a reference, correct? This said, I didn't fully follow "having a short generic quote from them" Is the point a) that the number of (good) references is not sufficient in the article? b) the use of the reliable Arcticstartup reference in the Moozement article is too, let's say superficial? c) something else? Jarno Alhonen (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A single mention in a single publication does not constitute notability. A google search turns up nothing but company profiles, there are no news stories found in search. One outside reference alone that is strictly informational is specifically mentioned to require additional sources to become closer to notability.
 * Ok, fully understood. I will still do some additional work to find more references plus check the WP:POV. If not successful let's delete. Jarno Alhonen (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per definition of WP:SPAM, WP:COS and others, you quoting your own company's tagline makes it subject of AfD discussion. Even if not deleted (which I still would suggest), there are WP:POV matters to clean up.

As for the account, you only have 2 conribs from 2006, both of which are small stubs. Everything else is related to the article on your company and it would almost certainly be very difficult to find anyone who would call this anything else than WP:SPA. If you have an alternate account, that would make this account a puppet in which case the consequences could be worse than just having the article on your own company deleted. If you can find an outside party to find more media sources or some from publications that explain more of the "Why?" of your company and not "Why not?" reason for an article, I'd encourage you to have them do it. Datheisen (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "you only have 2 conribs from 2006" So? Your initial argument was that my account is set for the purpose of writing the Moozement article, not about how many articles I may or may not have. Setting the account for the purpose of this one article, as said, hardly seems possible is if my account was set up in 2004... For the other accusations. No, I do not have alternative accounts in wikipedia besides "jalhonen". No, I do not work for this company. Jarno Alhonen (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, even if the account was set up for other reasons, it's evident per its contribution log that it has only been used for the purpose of this article since January 2006. That would make it a single-purpose account for promotion instead purpose-built. I entirely admit to the error, but the end result is no different. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — startups are fairly seldom notable and it would need to attract a lot of buzz in the media to provide notability. Clearly, few blog publications are not enough to establish notability. --GreyCat (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's summarise and close the topic

 * I don't agree to WP:SPAM or WP:COS as I said. I don't work for Moozement. Feel free to google my Facebook/Linkedin accounts and trust me when I say there is no one that has the same name. :)
 * We agree that Arcticstartup is to be considered a realiable source, but this alone is not enough. When starting to write the article, maybe I then had a optimistic view on what is accepted. I would still say that Killerstartups would justify just as Articstartup.

I propose that I will try to work on the article for one week, let's say 3rd of November. In this time if notable references are not found and added (+ WP:POV)) we'll delete. Agreed or not? If not, what's the counterproposal? Jarno Alhonen (talk)

Strong Disagree -- An article not completed is not grounds for protection, but of course you may edit/improvement before the AfD period is finished and differences will be seen before final evaluation. There is absolutely no reason to close the topic where there is no consensus on either side of the matter. My evaluation alone isn't enough to assure deletion, just as your view alone is not enough to justify keeping.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Killstartups is not even close to Arcticstartup in terms of quality and scope, and it would be extremely hard to convince me otherwise short of examples of that site in media or other particularly relevance since google searches and news came up with nothing. Especially because the sites reviewed and listed there are user-submitted and the authors of the entries are an unknown person whom you cannot contact, it doesn't really qualify as a peer-reviewed secondary source. Datheisen (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Jalhonen, if the article is deleted via due process, then you can always request a copy in your userspace - if, subsequently, you are able to add sufficient sources, then it will be fine to add it back. In the meantime, if other users consider that we cannot 'fix' it, then it should be deleted via this process.  Chzz  ►  20:18, 24 October 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.