Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moss Ball Pets


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Moss Ball Pets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by a paid editor. Only two sources exist mentioning this company, both are paid product placements published in small-town newspapers. A Google search turns up nothing, and there is no other mention of Facebook Headquarters having shown this company interest. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete there are other refs but nothing that looks to me like reliable and independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The two newspaper articles appear to be in-depth and written by newspaper staff. There is no evidence that they are "paid product placements". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I found an article about marimo balls in The New York Times, so the marimo balls themselves are notable. I do not think the company is. I think the solution is to move the article to Marimo ball. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They seemed like paid promotions to me due to the "ORDER ONLINE", "lifetime VIP membership that gives you 15 percent off", "Visit MossBallPets.com" (but I may be mistaken). The main article on the subject is marimo, it is indeed notable. (Have now created a redirect to it from your link, Marimo ball) – Þjarkur (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I am a paid editor and I am a still a member of the Wikipedia community. There are many people who do not disclose their COI in the hopes of keeping their article posted. I have no issue with letting readers and editors know that I am a paid editor, instead of thinking of me as the advertising department for Moss Ball Pets (because I am not) try and remember that I am a person who is as interested in providing relevant and non promotional material for the use of the project.
 * → Click on the highlighted text to review the earlier posts that made in the talk pages on my user page and the article and my response. ←
 * Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide is not a part of Wikipedia's guidelines for COI but it is meant to be used so that new editors have a better understanding of the regulations in place with COI editing. It would probably be in all editors best interest to review the actual Wikipedia guidelines as outlined on the COI page. Upon reviewing it, you'll find that not only am I allowed to make uncontroversial edits (again, see COI to understands what this constitutes) but I am also allowed to take at least five other measures to make necessary minor improvements that could potentially keep situations such as this from arising.
 * You can view history on the Moss Ball Pets page to see how I and other editors have made continuous edits to preserve the article in its entirety while also removing any wording that could be seen as advertising or promotional in any manner. Shouldn't an editor's primary goal be to enhance the project through editing and not deletion?
 * Tierra.watkins (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment It is hard to believe that 's edits were made in good faith considering how quickly certain sources of reliable and verifiable information were deemed paid promotional content with no evidence of that in any way being the case.Tierra.watkins (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I hope "Moss Ball Pets" one day achieve the notability of Pet Rocks or Sea-Monkeys, but even then, those articles focus on the phenomena or inventors of the concepts, not the company or individual who distributed it. Perhaps the author would consider creating an article on marimo balls as a phenomena.  A quick search reveals dozens of companies promoting and distributing them.  Orville1974  (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking multiple reliable independent secondary sources covering it in significant detail as required by NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is just as relevant as the long established pages of Pet Rocks and Sea-Monkeys, a quick search will show that you can buy brine shrimp and rocks from 100's of different vendors but the companies as a brand have relevance. The Moss Ball Pets article may be a work in progress but to delete it entirely is a step backwards. In regards to the validity of the two newspaper articles they are organic and show no evidence of being a paid promotion. Personally I am an avid fan and follower of this company and they are very relevant in the House Plant Hobby Communities I am involved with. -Chris Huckeba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.87.217.22 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC) — 174.87.217.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Thank you for adding the signature to my KEEP vote, I am not familiar with all the proper tags as you can see. Pointing out that I don't have many other edits in Wikipedia however does not discredit my point of view on this matter. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.87.217.22 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you made any other contributions to wikipedia, as it happens, or is this your first one? And I see that again you forgot to sign. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nomination. The subject of the contested article is the corporation and not the type of product the corporation sells. And the article's subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Gnome The article actually was focused much more on the product before it was mostly wiped by Þjarkur. The potential is there, let's keep the page and develop it to the correct standards. Hecticlyrelaxed (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not, this is the previous version and it mainly focused on Mr. Buscay and the company, with a section copied from the main marimo article. At best it was a coatrack article. Relevant information about marimo in the aquatic trade can be added to the main article. – Þjarkur (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This should have beed CSDed.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 03:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has just as much relevance as 1000's of similar articles on Wikipedia. As stated previously, this article is similar to Pet Rocks and Sea-Monkeys articles and should be given a chance to be developed to a useful and informative piece of content for the Moss Ball Pets craze that is quickly becoming popular in the United States.  Let's keep this article and work on improving it. Hecticlyrelaxed (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Hecticlyrelaxed (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * On 23:05, 2 May 2019‎ Þjarkur removed a substantial amount of information that made this article more complete, instead of trying to fix or offer constructive edits this information was just deleted. As I have said before this article does have relevance.  Instead of tossing it away it should remain so that the community can develop it into an informative article that meets the standards of quality expected here on Wikipedia.Hecticlyrelaxed (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll note that this is the third single purpose account voting Keep here, and that they have made the exact same kind of edits as the IP 174.87.217.22 above:  – Þjarkur (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure the account 174.87.217.22 mentioned by Þjarkur was a post by me before I created my official account so no funny business is going on here. Also as part of my disclosure, as of yet this is the only article I have made edits on so far as I am well aware of Moss Ball Pets and the following they have in the House Plant and Pet community and truly believe the article has relevance. Maybe not for Þjarkur but for 10,000's of people in the United States who have joined the craze of the Moss Ball Pet.  The company obviously did not invent the Marimo Ball but they have developed the concept of the "pet" and introduced it to the masses. Just as the Company The Pet Rock did not invent the rock and Sea-Monkeys did not invent the brine shrimp.  The accusation of being a sock puppet is false.Hecticlyrelaxed (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You can strike your above vote using  as you can't really !vote using multiple accounts. Regards, – Þjarkur (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My vote above is part of new additional comments made after the relisting request was made. Please stop harassing me. Hecticlyrelaxed (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Bringing to your attention, Hecticlyrelaxed, that through voting under an alias you are violating Wikipedia policy is not harassment. I'd suggest more civility towards other editors and less assumption of bad faith in other editors, most of whom, incidentally, are not paid to be here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Due to unsigned comments, an IP address, and Hectic's comments, I'm now confused. As I look through this discussion, I see three keep !votes, but I believe they're all from Hecticlyrelaxed (who happens to be a new account that has only edited this article and the one on Marimo).  Am I tracking this conversation right?  Do we have three votes from an apparent COI (so really just one) to save the article, while every other editor has given valid reasons why this article should not exist?
 * - Above unsigned comment by Orville1974. -The Gnome (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * [Orville1974] You are not tracking it quite right. You have 3 Keep Votes, one from me when I had no account which is the IP Address you mentioned. And a second one from me as [Hecticlyrelaxed] which I thought was required as the status here went to relisted.  I am obviously not aware of the procedures here and I do apologize for that. So the third Keep vote has no association with me although I do agree with their sentiments obviously as a supporter of this article. Yes, I have only made edits on the [Moss Ball Pets] and [Marimo] page to date. That I have already disclosed, you have to start somewhere and this is a subject that I happen to know something about so felt compelled to contribute. Hecticlyrelaxed (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you for clearing that up. Please change your second keep to comment so it's clearer that you are just adding additional arguments, and not registering a second !vote.  Thank you.  Orville1974  (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Tierra.watkins created the article on 10 April, and the IP edited it in less than 48 hours later. Given 180 total pageviews in this time frame and most of them being from creator, new page patrollers and recent changes reviewers, it seems highly unlikely that the page would have randomly ended up on an uninvolved and inactive (only 2 edits before that) IP's screen.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even close. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND as they are not independent and of those that discuss the company, classic churnalism. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. If the article is about the company, it's clearly delete - no reliable refs. If it's about the species Aegagropila linnaei - it's a well developed article, with a small section at the end saying approx. "some folks in Japan sell these."  Adding "and somebody in the US now sells these" (and not much more) shouldn't be a problem. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing even worth merging in this promotional article by a coi editor. The reason we are somewhat skeptical about article writing by coi editors is shown clearly by the discussion above, where the editor tries to say that this is notable because pet rock is notable. Making this sort of absurd comparisons is in my experience almost always a sign of COI--it can actually be said by them in good faith--with enough coi, the comparison seems to make sense.   DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 4 June 2019 (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.