Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queens of Hearts Couture Cakes


 * 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. Clear consensus to delete as spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Queens of Hearts Couture Cakes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Complete advert. A variant Draft:Queens of Hearts Colture Cakes currently sits in draft space, where it is being discussed. This was created by User:Ivarhcp4ever to bypass that discussion. I would also suggest the accounts of User:Katm23 and User:AlexisClarke33 be examined as I suspect they are connected to User:Ivarhcp4ever. KJP1 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I see what you are saying in the nomination, but the proper place to accuse editors of sockpuppetry is at sockpuppetry investigations, not above in the nom or below in the discussion.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They were reported in the correct manner and all the users have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Theroadislong (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes they were reported elsewhere in the correct manner, but not above. My point is that SP claims do not belong in an AfD nomination.104.163.147.121 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted and thanks. - My error, reporting for sock puppetry is not something I've done before. KJP1 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Complete company brochure. scope_creep (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I would point out that the editor who authored this article has now been banned for operating no fewer than three socks in support of retaining the article. Such serial abuse surely removes the general requirement to Assume good faith? KJP1 (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It was overly promotional, but it was easy enough to tone back. It seems to have sufficient non-trivial coverage in multiple venues to get past the notability requirements. - Bilby (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I’d disagree. Toning back overly promotional wording doesn’t make an article any less of an advert. What the authors want is presence. And in this instance, they were prepared to sock puppet to get it.  KJP1 (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, removing promotional material does make it less of an advert. While I agree that they want a presence, the issue for us is whether or not the topic meets the notability requirements. - Bilby (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it makes it remotely less of a product-placing advert. I also note you don't comment on the author's sockpupperty, which makes their motivation very clear. But let's see what others think. KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just on the sockpuppetry issue - yes, it is frustrating. But AfD isn't punishment for bad behaviour, however frustrating that behaviour may have been. - Bilby (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The article violate WP:NOTADVOCATE The consistent view on Wikipedia is always to delete in these instances, as the tone of the article is so extensively promotional that the promotionalism cannot be removed without extensive rewriting, when the work needing to be rewritten goes beyond the normal editing, compared with the usual practice of removing a sentence here or there. The tone of the article is clearly promotional, and a complete rewrite would be needed. scope_creep (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The original article at the time of being nominated for AfD was 275 words, which seemed within the realm of a viable extensive rewrite. I've since rewritten the article to remove any promotional text, and reduced it by about a third. If you feel that anything overtly promotional remains, I'll be very happy to look at addressing any concerns that you may have. - Bilby (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely puzzled. You are working hard to save a wholly-promotional draft, created by an editor who came here with the sole intention of placing an advert, who openly lied when challenged about their connection to the subject, who sought to circumvent Afc, and who then manufactured no less than three socks to support retention. Your efforts would see their behaviour rewarded by giving them the very thing that they behaved so poorly to achieve, namely presence on this site. Can I ask, why? KJP1 (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because my primary concern is improving Wikipedia. The article had sufficient coverage to meet the notability requirements, and fixing it was relatively easy due to the short length, so it seems to make sense to see if there is something worth saving rather than deleting it. - Bilby (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And you think you're improving Wikipedia by overlooking blatant advertising, lying, process evasion and sock-puppetry to have a promotional article about a non-notable cake-decorating business. Ok, we aren't going to agree. KJP1 (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * When I delete copyright violations from articles, people accuse me of removing content rather than fixing Wikipedia. When I nominate articles I can't fix to AfD, I'm accusing of deleting articles rather than improving Wikipedia. It seems now if I fix articles, I can be accused of supporting bad editors rather than improving Wikipedia. I'm not sure that there is a win state in this. However, to address your concern, I'm not overlooking blatant advertising, lying, process evasion or sock-puppetry. The socks and master have been blocked, the advertising removed, and the lying called out. But in regard to AfD, the community has always said that we should evaluate content, not contributors, so that's the path I have to take. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course who the creator is matters. We ignore that part of the essay too many times a day for me to count. If someone is a notorious copyright violator, policy allows for us to delete their content without checking if it is too hard. If someone is a vandal who has created vandal pages, we can use Special:Nuke, if someone is a mass link spammer, we use the mass rollback script. If someone has published an article in violation of our terms of use, we don't care what it is, we delete it, as it has no right to be here. Full stop. Not doing so is the most harmful thing we can do to the encyclopedia, as it lowers the credibility that we have worked years to finally establish, and in turn lowers the value of ever single article here. That's not fair to the featured articles out there, and it's even less fair to the good articles on corporations out there. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is true that there are exceptions, but this isn't a notorious copyright violator, vandal or spammer, nor was it created against the Terms of Use. Those exceptions don't apply to this article. - Bilby (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete why are these so many sources in the Phillipine press for a UK bakery? I am very dubious of the inquirer.net sources. The notability here is not established by quality sources with significant coverage. The bakery itself is a bakery, whoop-de-doo. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a run-of-the-mill business establishment. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to badger opposes, so I won't push this, but I'm curious. I thought it met CORPDEPTH because we have eight sources which go into detail about the company's history and impact, including an eight minute video. So I'm not sure what I'm missing - what sort of depth are we looking for? - Bilby (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per bilby. Mahveotm (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as native advertising excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. Nothing else matters. The G11 should have gone through, and as this was created by a paid sock farm in violation of the terms of use, it does not even have the right to an assessment for inclusion under local policies. This has no more business being on Wikipedia than a copyright violation or other TOU violation. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tony. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * delete business with only local press coverage. Would clearly fail the new NCORP guideline if we can ever get that done. yes, obvious PROMO that is being pushed for hard.  We are not a vehicle for promotion, although far too many view WP that way. Even the supporters of this article have left blatant garbage in the article even now, like "Valeri and Christina have published four books.".  No we are not here to be a refrigerator for Valeri and Christina to post their gold stars, nor are we a chatty homepage for this company. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2018 (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.