Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patchblocks


 * 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. L Faraone  15:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Patchblocks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This newly minted WP:PROMOTIONAL article consists of 8 largely non-RS references that include YouTube, Kickstarter, Facebook, the company's own website, etc., plus a handful (3) of drive-by product reviews of specific items manufactured by the company (not actual information on the company itself). LavaBaron (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I created this article and I am not sure why LavaBaron insists that it is promotional material. I have no relation to this company, and I do not own these products, nor am I interested in advancing their reputation. I will happily rewrite any material that seems too much like an ad. Primary sources (the YouTube interview, the Kickstarter, the Facebook page) are not unreliable sources by any means. Also, the company's website is not actually cited in the article, and the other 5 references are to secondary sources. Create Digital Music, AskAudio and Fact have regular staff subject to editorial oversight. I can't find as much detailed information about Earmilk, though it appears to have a managing staff. If the concern is that the page covers the product more than the company, couldn't a move/restructuring be more effective? I'd also like to say that I feel like this AfD may have been started hastily and in bad faith after I asked LavaBaron to explain their tags on the article on the talk page. Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 03:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're citing a source that you don't know much about but "appears to have an editorial staff" [sic] that's a good clue it's non-RS. As for not explaining my tags to you, it's not my responsibility to explain why Facebook and YouTube are non-RS to a seasoned editor such as yourself. It would be different if you were new here. But asking me to spend time typing out the patently obvious is a nuisance request. If you truly don't know at this point in your WP career, you may want to spend some time observing before continuing editing. LavaBaron (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources are not necessarily unreliable. The tags you left on the article were mainly related to lack of references, original research, and puffery; I was seeking examples of those things so that they could be corrected, because from my perspective they were not present in the article (which doesn't mean they're not present). Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 03:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They are in this case. LavaBaron (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, as they are not notable. I went through the article and chopped it down to size, and removed the Facebook and Youtube "refs". Setting aside who created the article or why, it seems it is now standard practice for any small Maker-type company that relies on the Internet for sales to have a Wikipedia page like this to promote their product and to tell the world that they are alive. In this case I would say it is WP:TOOSOON. Companies like littleBits or Adafruit are notable for having generated enormous independent third-party press about their products. Look at the refs in Ayah Bdeir's article: those are notable. The refs in this article are very weak mentions in industry publications and do not denote significant notability.New Media Theorist (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as more companies are learning about Google Knowledge Graph, there's been a race to claim real estate. We seem to be seeing a lot of small companies desperately lining up to push-through articles about themselves. I've been AfD'ing like a madman lately. LavaBaron (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, I'd like to clarify once again that I am not associated with Patchblocks, and even if I were that wouldn't be grounds to delete necessarily, just to rewrite. Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 01:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes Boomur, I understood that from when you said as much in your first comment. If you read my comment two up from this, and LavaBaron's directly above, we do not claim you are associated with the company. We were just talking generally about the appropriateness/notability factor of very small companies having Wikipedia pages. That's the crux of the notability issue here: very small company with minor industry press. Does it need a page, is it notable enough to warrant one? I say WP:TOOSOON. And yes, I know you disagree. Hoping to hear what others have to say. New Media Theorist (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment alright, I just don't see how LavaBaron's comment was really relevant to this situation. Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 02:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just calm down, no one is accusing you of anything. The article will be deleted fairly shortly and then we can all go back to routine. LavaBaron (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per nom and New Media Theorist, who's summary hits the nail on the head.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:44, 12 September 2015 (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.