Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octomover


 * 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 abakharev 06:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Octomover and SAMMUT Inc

 * Added Jean-pierre sammut

Contested Prod. Advertising for non-notable product and company. Google comes up with two hits for the product, and it's not clear they're even relevant. Fan-1967 14:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sir / Madam, The above accusation is untrue. There is no Google-hit for SAMMUT Inc. Re: Octomover. Yes, there is a "product" bearing the same name. I have contacted the owner of the site and asked for his opinion about the co-indicence. I am awaiting his reply.  Sincerely,  Jean-Pierre Sammut,  MALTA, Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Pierre Sammut (talk • contribs) 2006-08-24 14:22:33
 * Comment In that case you have confirmed that this article should be deleted. Please review Wikipedia standards for notability of corporations. If there are no google hits for your company and product, they do not belong in Wikipedia. Fan-1967 14:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Spam - delicious, delicious spam. WilyD 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sir / Madam, This is an act of injustice!!! All and sundry know that WIKIPEDIA is actually FULL of indirect advertisements DE FACTO. Why are tons of other pages tolerated while mine is being persecuted?  Please, I ask for your kindness and compassion. Please, let me set up my genuine business without sabotages. I have had already enough trash from  my country's government. Please, give me a break.  J.P. Sammut — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Pierre Sammut (talk • contribs) 2006-08-24 14:33:26
 * If there's other spam about, I'll be thrilled to delete it too - WilyD 15:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are other articles which should be deleted, true. That does not affect these, which should also be removed. Wikipedia is not free webhost for advertising. Fan-1967 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is unfair that SUBTLE marketing is tolerated while OVERT information is chucked out. It is VERY unfair! J.P. Sammut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.128.20 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per Fan-1967. This product is not notable; the same goes for the company.  J.P., the articles are not being deleted just because they are advertisements.  They're also being deleted because they do not meet Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NOT and WP:CORP.  Srose   (talk)  15:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah, it's an ad. Yeah, the product and company are both non-notable. No, the company doesn't get any Google hits. No, the company's CEO (or whatever) cannot save these articles. -- Kicking222 15:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sir/Madam, this is top-most crazy! I am still in my very early days ... and you expect me to fulfill the criteria stated in your commandaments as if i were YAMAHA or CHRYSLER ?!?!! Gosh!  Listen, my product can help the elderly and the disabled to live a better life. If you elbow out my page, you will feel guilty for the rest of your life. Please, try to understand. Pleasssssssssssssssse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.128.20 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-24 15:15:46
 * The article on the company is a mis-placed Yellowikis entry, and the article on the product is, of course, unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. el_falcone
 * Dear Uncle G, at least you have got some good sense in your brains! Thanks. I wish to yell a loud "get lost" to all the others! J.P. Sammut (Comments irrelevant to AFD discussion elided to ensure debate does not degenerate.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.128.20 (talk • contribs)
 * (Comments irrelevant to AFD discussion elided to ensure debate does not degenerate.) Fan-1967 15:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * DELETE Non notable SPAM ccwaters 15:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment He also created Jean-pierre sammut. Is that a seperate AFD? ccwaters 15:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Added to AFD. Fan-1967 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (Comments irrelevant to AFD discussion elided to ensure debate does not degenerate.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.128.20 (talk • contribs)
 * Our rules for company articles are quite clear, and are based on the fact that you are an unknown person, with an unknown company, selling an unknown product. (Comments irrelevant to AFD discussion elided to ensure debate does not degenerate.) Fan-1967 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (Comments irrelevant to AFD discussion elided to ensure debate does not degenerate.) Am i SELLING a product? A sale-offer would bear a PRICE, right? Did i quote any price in my page?
 * What's wrong with the JP Sammut article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El falcone (talk • contribs)
 * The only possible claim to notability ("delegate" to Korea, whatever that means) fails Verification from Reliable Sources, and would not be enough to make him meet Notability guidelines anyway. Fan-1967 16:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, do you KNOW by any chance that THIS person, Frans Sammut, happens to BE my FATHER?!?! - J.P. Sammut — Preceding unsigned comment added by El falcone (talk • contribs)
 * Relationship to someone encyclopaedic does not make you encyclopaedic WilyD 16:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in here, but I noticed it in SRC - we do have rules and policies here, specifically WP:CORP and WP:SPAM which you should read. If you don't meet those rules, then the accepted wikipedia policy is to delete that article. Have you read those articles yet? And have you considered any way to edit the article to make it better fit those rules? ST47 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are companies like Adidas, Nike and ArmyLite given special treatment? - CM — Preceding unsigned comment added by El falcone (talk • contribs)
 * Because there is encyclopaedic, verifiable information on them. WilyD 16:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El falcone (talk • contribs)
 * Like they exist, and are well-known, and make products people have heard of. Fan-1967 16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC
 * What's ArmyLite anyway? It doesn't have an article here. --Metropolitan90 16:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, per WP:SNOWBALL. (Comments irrelevant to AFD discussion elided to ensure debate does not degenerate.) -- Merope 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can someone be kind enough to point out the phrases which infringe Wiki's rules ?
 * That'd be every last sentence. Please see WP:SPAM, WP:V, Wikipedia is a many headed beast, but she ain't a free webhosting service WilyD 16:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the evidence showing that I'm a REAL DPRK-Malta delegate:http://korea-dpr.com/kfaorg/official_delegates.htm - J.P. Sammut
 * www.korea-dpr.com has often been featured on the CNN and SKYNEWS. Wlii you be skeptic about these too?!?!
 * For the sake of learning anf knowing, can someone point out the BAD parts of J.P.'s article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.128.20 (talk • contribs)
 * Which one, J.P.? Fan-1967 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, here are some of the big points
 * Every last word is original research - none of this information comes from reliable, third party sources - he's writing is because he's researched it himself. That makes the entire article unacceptable, per WP:OR
 * Every last word is unverifiable. The article does not cite a single, reliable source.  That makes the entire article a violation of WP:V, a policy which cannot be overridden by concensus.
 * The bottom half of the article is contact information for the purpose of promoting the company - all of that is in violation of WP:SPAM - it's just a piece of spam he's trying to drum up some business with.
 * The article repeated uses phrases like "An octogon is better than a square when it comes to turning, because it doesn't have corners that will hit furniture." - this is a violation of non-negotiable policies like WP:NPOV
 * The company itself fails the guideline of WP:CORP for inclusion.
 * There are plenty more, but I hope the more egregious ones will give you the flavour of the problem. WilyD 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Companies are non-notable spam, and the biographical article is also thoroughly non-notable. Almost to the point of speedy deletion. The Korean Friendship Association might be notable, I don't care, but it is not so notable that every person (Comments refactored to ensure debate does not degenerate.) connected with it deserves their own article. Especially if they write it themselves. Jdcooper 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And there's nothing to indicate that being a "delegate" to the Korean Friendship Association means anything. Nothing identifies this person as any kind of official representative of the Maltese government. Fan-1967 16:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Fan-1967, you were the first one to complain against my pages. Can you please POINT OUT which parts you found infringing the Wiki-Commandaments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.128.20 (talk • contribs)
 * The number one commandment is Verifiability from Reliable Sources. We cannot get any independent verification that a product called the Octomover, or a company called Sammut, Inc, even exist. Fan-1967 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To watch it, you must have Codecs on. [Codecs = compressor + decompressor] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.128.20 (talk • contribs)
 * Can you please all of you watch this movie: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xC-aC8BrQ7s


 * OK, may I say, it looks amazing, and i wish that it was notable enough to write about on wikipedia, but we need more than just a youtube video to satisfy Wikipedia verifiability. I could easily make a video about a made-up invention and put it on youtube (I am not saying the octomover is made-up). Wikipedia is not for adverts. Jdcooper 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JD cooper! Hey, what do you mean by "made-up invention" ? I mean, if you make it up then it is an invention !!!!!! My goodness! Nowadays we talk so rapidly that we do not even realize that we would be uttering complicated simplicities, i mean, if you can set up something, then it is what it is - simple !!! The science-fiction in Hollywood Films is actually "real" in the sense that if you see a gargantuan monster, the monster as a living creature would be obviously ficticious but its model would be REAL !


 * Hm, i see what you mean, but my point stands, a youtube video is not verifying evidence either of existence or notability. Jdcooper 17:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - recent inventions (which is, I think, what Jd meant) are not notable on Wikipedia becaue they may disappear and never be used again within a week or month. Generally, encyclopedic topics must remain important for at least 50-100 years.  Srose   (talk)  17:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Let's keep Wikipedia free from spam, specially the one which is generated by annoying spammers. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, SRose, i will be re-writing my page in the year 2056 when i'll be 80 years old ! I will be saying: "Hey, my invention is now fifty years old. Can i write something about it on Wiki please?"
 * The general guideline is that when you or your company is appropriate for an article, someone else will write it. A couple of my coworkers have articles, none of them started them, for example. WilyD 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A product doesn't necessarily have to be 50 years old to be notable - it only has to have an impact that has a good chance of lasting such a period of time. For example, Neopets probably won't last another 50 years, but it's notable because of its huge base of "fans" and all its references in pop culture.  Srose   (talk)  19:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Not like I have a say here, but that's my 10 cents. --Zabadab 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Of course you have a say here, Zabadab! Every Wikipedian does.  Srose   (talk)  19:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been a long day!! Please .... let's have a break.
 * Delete for now, unless references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 18:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, Delete and end this ridiculous discussion. Danny Lilithborne 19:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did you crop up from, Danny? Get lost!
 * Haha, what? Is there some kind of overview about the fundemental nature of wikipedia that someone can link for poor Jean-Pierre? And Danny, Zabadab, others thank you for your valuable contributions, everyone is equal here. Jdcooper 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should stop looking like a History Book and ought to start to give opportunities to young thinkers to make themselves known to others.
 * Hmm, seems like you've come to the wrong place - this isn't what Wikipedia is at all. Perhaps you're looking for Geocities? WilyD 20:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll move over to Geocities. Cheers!

Wait, hold on .... in Geocities i have to pay ..... no no no ! I'll continue my work over here!
 * Okay, maybe I was too specific - how about this? WilyD 20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that. Yet i still fail to understand why Wikipedia does not appreciate pages like mine.
 * Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a phonebook, nor a free webhosting service, nor a pile of unrelated ads, nor a grilled cheese sandwich. Just an encyclopaedia. WilyD 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Finally i understood. Well, ok, sorry for hustle and bustle. I'm off.
 * Comment. This is the weirdest AfD ever. Jdcooper 23:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dollis Hill Uncle G 00:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all of this silliness --Xrblsnggt 02:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all as failing WP:V and as blatant WP:SPAM. -- Kinu t /c  04:41, 25 August 2006 (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.