Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamar.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 - has been improved during AFD process. Yomangani talk 11:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tamar.com
A tad too notable to be speedily deleted, but it's still close to wikispam and non-notability per WP:CORP. A ecis  I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 12:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you let me know what I need to do with it to stop it being deleted? Lots of our competitors have pages, such as AKQA - I just want us to have one too...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henweb (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry I failed to notify you of this AfD. First of all, the question is if you should write an article about your own company in the first place. Articles on wikipedia should be neutral, and it's very hard to remain neutral when you are involved. The important this is whether the company is notable enough for wikipedia. The basic notability guidelines for companies can be found at WP:CORP. That is what articles about companies are judged on. We don't have articles because "competitors also have pages", or because the company would like to have an article. A  ecis  I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 12:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it's too notable to be speedily deleted and it could be a reasonable article if the author can change it to a neutral point of view. I'd say it's too heavily focused on promoting the company and listing acheivments instead of providing a user useful, impartial information on the company. AA Milne 12:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but I checked the guidelines and it looks fine to me. The guidelines state "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" - we are frequently mentioned in the press, we are mentioned in the current issue of Revolution for instance, and Marketing Week. Can you clarify why you think we don't qualify? I can give you some examples if you like? A quick look at our client list should show we are a pretty big player in the UK industry, though I appreciate what you mean about not writing our own entry.

If you could perhaps highlight a few examples of my sales talk, it might help - I thought I got rid of it all! :)
 * Comment I think this may be noteworthy enough to keep, based on the limited research I can do at the moment, but the article isn't yet at the point where I'm comfortable with registering a keep "vote." I'd like to see some citations, in particular for "one of the first digital agencies in the UK," "a leading agency," and "the sole proponent of 'search conversion'" -- if these can be verified through independent, reliable sources, I think they'd make a reasonably strong argument for keeping. Shimeru 21:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The company may be notable enough for an article, but the article itself needs to make a substantiated claim to notability, which is missing. Vectro 04:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: I'm working on all of this, trying to get some citations and also tone the article down a bit. Henweb 12:17 GMT, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: I have added some citations and references, and slightly changed the wording to be less contentious. Am I on the right lines? Henweb 09:32 GMT, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a very good improvement. Another issue is the pr language that sometimes shines through the article, in words like "conversion-focused design". But I suggest withdrawing/suspending this AfD to give Henweb the time and the opportunity to clean this up. Any thoughts on this? A  ecis  I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 08:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. Article is substantially improved.  Further work is needed per Aecis, but I don't see anything wrong with giving that some time to occur.  We can revisit in a month or two if necessary. Shimeru 19:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for acknowledging that I'm improving it! I'm a huge Wikipedia fan, and am keen to learn what I should and shouldn't be doing, and you guys are helping a lot. What do I need to do now? Will the notice stay up for the month? Henweb 12:21 GMT, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No. This discussion should be closed shortly, and will remain archived.  Assuming the page is kept -- and I believe it will be, at least for now -- the notice will be taken off the page, and you'll be able to expand and clean it up further.  It doesn't mean it won't be nominated again in a couple of months, but if it continues to improve, that shouldn't happen.  If you want to read up on the process, WP:AfD covers it, and the most relevant guidelines in this case are at WP:CORP, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Shimeru 18:54, 16 October 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.