Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stippleit.com


 * 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   keep. Delete arguments fail to make a convincing case why WP:GNG should be disregarded. henrik • talk  20:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Stippleit.com

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability should be applied universally and if so, then there are several company pages on wikipedia which should also be deleted (udemy, thinglink). Quantcast lists Stipple at 208 on the list of US advertising networks which validates that the company is notable. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid AfD argument. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand but this implies a complete lack of impartiality and use of logic on the part of wikipedia editors such as yourself. Impartial editing on your part requires you to call out all other pages that fit the same criteria. If you can live with the other pages having a valid existence on Wikipedia, then your same logic should apply here as well. You can add Path_(social_network), Uber_(company) into the same mix of companies. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PLEASE ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Sorry about the shouting but I am on edge here! The fact that I was unaware of the two articles you mention mean that I logic and my impartiality are not in question. I am tempted to put them up for deletion but I cannot be bothered with fighting the inclusionists who want to turn WP into a business directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm repeating myself now cause you don't seem to get the point I was making. The fact that you won't go and call out the other articles for deletion even when they have been highlighted to you calls into question your motives as an editor. I'm just using logic here. If you are letting them go cause you can't be bothered to fight then you yourself, as a wikipedia curator, are setting yourself up for failure cause others like myself will keep putting up articles because there is precedence. As an editor/curator you should either be universal in your call outs or be quiet. Both ways does not work and renders your nomination as crude and ill conceived. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is all rubbish. Once again ASSUME GOOD FAITH and PLEASE discuss the matter at hand instead of attacking me. I am in the middle of the rather difficult task of splitting out sections of the mess that is Lake Victoria (WP-wise as well as ecologically. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you feel as if you're being personally attacked. That was not the intention. Since you've provided very little evidence as to why you feel this article is not worthy of addition, the follow up questions and comments were necessitated. I hope your other issues clear up and I do appreciate the work that you do. I've added non-blog sources to the article to help provide validity. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination statement exhibits a complete lack of research and probably not even a glance at the article's contents. Stipple clearly meets the GNG and WP:WEB—"Stipple Lets You Tag Friends In Photos, Even If You Post Them On Your Own Site" and "Stipple Opens The Kimono To Reveal A Product Tagging Platform With Massive Potential" from TechCrunch, "How Stipple wants to shake up stock photos" from GigaOM, and "Stipple Seeks to Tag the Web's Images" from The New York Times. Utterly ridiculous Goodvac (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And your decision exhibits a complete lack of concern for the quality of WP and absolutely no realisation about what can be achieved at AfDs to shape what should be an encyclopaedia. If you want a business directory go elsewhere. You also seem to not realise what constitutes reliable sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is unreliable about TechCrunch, GigaOM, and The New York Times? Goodvac (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The NYT blog. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And you have no problem with the other three sources? Those alone fulfill the GNG. Newsblogs are recognized as reliable sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. Goodvac (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Added more sources of third party information. Stipple snaps up $2M to easily tag the web's pictures, Stipple has the potential to completely disrupt image advertising. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work! Goodvac (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Two more unreliable sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I have a problem with them as well. they are hardly reliable sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then explain yourself. What led you to the conclusion that they are unreliable? Goodvac (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So to sum up this is an article that is of very little encyclopaedic value that editors want to keep because there are some opinions and references from blogs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Added non-blog references from Forbes (Stipple's Image Tagging Turns The Web Into A Shopping Mall) and All Things Digital (Get The Look–the Exact Look–With Stipple's In-Image Shopping Tools) to the article making it less "blog-driven" even though I completely disagree with your assessment that Techcrunch, Mashable, The Next Web, etc are not reliable sources. For the industry and segment (technology startups) that Stipple falls under, these publications are extremely well revered, read and dependent upon to help formulate public opinion. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stipple_(company)&diff=478000645 rewritten] the article and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stipple_(company)&diff=478001117 moved] it to Stipple (company) per WP:COMMONNAME. Goodvac (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Stipple (company). Per references in the article, the topic passes Wikipedia's primary notability guideline, the General notability guideline. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This 2010 startup business, as best as I can understand it, sells a way to attach advertisements to photos on the World Wide Web.  I hope there's a Firefox add on to deal with this.  It has a busy PR department, and has gotten noticed in Internet related business buzz sites, usual suspects like TechCrunch and Mashable, and some business page coverage announcing this revolting development.  At any rate, I don't see this as the sort of significant effect on history, technology, or culture needed to make any subject appropriate for an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) "[S]ignificant effect" is a subjective standard that does not trump the GNG. (2) WP:DONTLIKE (3) It is not your place to speculate on the activity of their PR department. (4) Discounting Mashable is a decision I agree with, but discounting Forbes, All Things Digital, The New York Times, and all the other sources necessitates an explanation. Goodvac (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Notability is not about counting coup; numbers of references do not turn businesses into encyclopedia subjects, it has to be something the references say about the business.  Busy public relations departments may succeed in getting newspaper stories written about their clients, but this does not turn them into encyclopedia subjects.  Only achievements of lasting significance can turn a business into an encyclopedia subject.  All of the stories in reliable, non-techbuzz sources essentially say the same thing: "Here's a new business, and here's its new gimmick."  At least for the moment, it's yet to be seen whether a new method of inserting more advertising into the Internet is an achievement of lasting significance.  No, I do not like spammers, and do not think that we should reward businesses for Excellence in Self-Promotion by turning them into encyclopedia subjects in the absence of real significance in the offline world. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * web images have essentially been static entities since the dawn of the web. Companies like this one are adding value to the web by extending a static content entity with interaction. What you have called a gimmick is essentially changing the way advertising is being delivered on web sites. I find it very disturbing that Wikipedia editors are being absolutely crass about the fact that existing articles follow exactly the same outline as the one adopted to publish the details about this one. Yes, I know that 'others exist' is not a valid argument here but it should be. Also, if Wikipedia editors want contributors to assume 'good faith' then they themselves should not be labeling contributors as 'spammers'. Since the community has obviously not done a good job to preserve the content addition guidelines in the past and several articles have made it through to be listed on Wikipedia, the problem remains systemic and new contributors such as myself have no choice but to move away from Wikipedia due to the uninvited and illogical hostility. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2012 (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.