Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Journal, Inc


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The International Journal, Inc

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Relatively new magazine/journal. I can't find any evidence of it satisfying WP:ORG. I'd have let it go, but the only substantive contributors are a role account, and the magazine's CEO,. The resultant COI is simply too high for this article to stay on Wikipedia in its current form. Blueboy96 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We are a new company. Yes, one of our employees created the page, and I made some edits. That does not mean that the page should be deleted; if you think it must be edited in order to be more neutral, then I invite you to do so. Should the pages of all new companies be deleted? This does not make sense. I would also like to point out that we are relatively new to Wikipedia, and rather than confronting us this way, I thought that the community would be collaborative. If it is, then maybe you could help us to have a neutral presence on Wikipedia. That's all we are asking for. Alexandre.labrie (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG as written, serious concerns about WP:SPAM as well . Search for sources made extremely difficult by the use of very common terms in the name. Ray  Talk 21:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment it was not an advertisement as such, not written in a promotional way. There may be aa COI, but that in itself is not a reason to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. The spammy issues are of concern for editing the article, but it was sloppy of me to mention them in a deletion discussion, as they are not so over the top as to call for G11. I've struck my mention above. Best, Ray  Talk 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The comments given about conflict of interest in the nomination are of little relevance, since the amount of promotion is very small and could easily be edited out. However, more important is the fact that no independent sources are given at all, and there is no evidence of notability anywhere else, as far as I can see. In answer to "Should the pages of all new companies be deleted?" the answer is no, but articles about almost all new companies should be deleted, as very few companies make a mark so quickly that they satisfy the notability criteria while they are still so new. There is no evidence that this one is in any way an exception. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Thanks for the comments everyone. We have not had press coverage in the mainstream media yet, which is why we do not have sources to link to. In fact, since we started a new publication, it might take even longer for us to have press coverage in the mainstream media, as covering competitors is not something that newspapers or TV stations do too often. This is why we only covered the very basic facts (history and mandate). Please advise if any changes are required. Alexandre.labrie (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the comments of Alexandre.labrie, the company fails notability standards. A new company, without reliable sources, cannot be included in Wikipedia. (GregJackP (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC))
 * comment Okay, so what you are saying is that basically, Wikipedia favors huge corporations that can push through articles in the mainstream media with their well-funded PR departments, is that correct? I knew that Wikipedia's standards were poor, but I didn't know they were ludicrous. As someone else pointed out, the article was not worded at all like advertising or promotion. I thought that Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia that attempted to document everything that exists. Well, while we have not been interviewed by the New York Times, we are a company and we have been running for almost 2 years. Take a look at our article again. We have a 100-word history and a 100-word mandate. How hard is it to document these very few facts about an existing and functioning company? Alexandre.labrie (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, we are saying that a company has to be notable. There are plenty of examples of small or start-up companies that are in Wikipedia, but it is not based merely on existing. It is based on notability. Period. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not a list of everything that is in existence. (GregJackP (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC))


 * comment The goal of an encyclopedia, especially a free one, should be to present "the sum of all human knowledge," and this comes from your guru: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales. Having worked with editors that had at least 20 years of experience, the idea you advance is not only the most ridiculous one I have read in my entire existence, it is also the most ignorant one. Please go ahead and delete the 200 non-promotional words we wrote about our company. Doing so will undoubtedly rest my case and I will make sure to get our journalists on putting up a report about the dangers of participatory encyclopedias, where people who do not know about anything can control the information that others are trying to access. And of course, we will interview actual experts, not people who sit behind their computers all day and think that they are anywhere close to an editor. Alexandre.labrie (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The quote from Jimbo Wales about "the sum of all human knowledge" cannot reasonably be taken completely literally, or we would have such information as the time that I tied my shoelaces this morning. We aim to record as much as we can of information which is notable enough to have received significant attention in reliable published sources. Certainly there are many people who think we should be more inclusive, but calling an opinion you disagree with "ridiculous" is not constructive, and "ignorant" simply prompts me to think "ignorant of what?" If you think we are ignorant of some relevant facts then the helpful thing to do is to inform us of those facts. Finally, "If you don't promote my company then I will get at you by ridiculing you and threatening to give you bad publicity in my publications" is certainly unlikely to encourage anyone to be more sympathetic to your view. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I could not care less if people are sympathetic to my views or not. This is not about personal sentiments or who can convince the most people. Do you think that this is an argument or a game? What are you, 13? This is not about promotion either, and so you are also wrong about that. This is about allowing people access to basic information about a company that has been operating for two years. An extremely dangerous lack of judgement is required to put this on the same level as "I tied my shoelaces this morning." So you argue that companies that have not had coverage in the mainstream media should not be included in Wikipedia. What would you say if the New York Times decided not to publish a story because no other publication has published it before them? This would be the apogee of ridicule. Yet, this is essentially what you advocate for your so-called free encyclopedia. In addition, you have misinterpreted and/or manipulated information by quoting things I have not said or thought. This is a severe misconduct which could result in very high legal consequences. The more this community misinterprets, manipulates, or attempts to control information, the more credibility it loses.  You are about to restrict access to basic information about a legal entity in the United States, and I were you I would be extremely, extremely careful before doing that. Alexandre.labrie (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. You are the one who needs to be "extremely, extremely careful", and to worry about losing credibility. This is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet or a web-hosting service, and as such we cover the sum of human knowledge in the sense of the sum of what has been published by reliable sources. This discussion will be found by web searches long after a decision is made about whether to delete the article in question, and will show anyone looking for information on the journal that you are more interested in spamming your way into an encyclopedia than in building a reputation based on the quality of the journal. I must say that your implication of immaturity ("What are you, 13?") rebounds on you - who but a 13-year old or under would imagine that there could be "very high legal consequences" at stake here? Grow up. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your comment about restricting access has no bearing on this discussion. Wikipedia is not obligated to publish anything about any entity (see WP:NOT) and you do not have any rights to have an article published here. If it is notable, according to our standards, it will be published.  If not, then it won't. (GregJackP (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment. Suggest that some of the parties here might want to look at the legal threats policy. It's one of the fastest ways to get an account blocked that I know of. Studerby (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I will not spend time trying to answer all the points made in the last post by Alexandre.labrie, most of which miss the point and are clearly not based on an understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. However, I thought I would just make a response to two points. (1) An extremely dangerous lack of judgement is required to put this on the same level as "I tied my shoelaces this morning." If Alexandre.labrie would like to reread my comment above more carefully then he/she will see that that is not what I said. I mentioned the time at which I tied my shoelaces only to illustrate the point that including literally all human knowledge is not a realistic possibility. Once that point is accepted then one can go on to decide exactly what criteria one uses to include/exclude material: clearly Alexandre.labrie does not like the criteria specified in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but my point was that there must be some criteria: "include everything" is not viable. (2) This is not about personal sentiments or who can convince the most people. What is the point of taking part in a deletion discussion if not to argue ones own view in the hope of being persuasive? If it is just to express one's indignation that the people who have developed Wikipedia have a different opinion than oneself then it is probably a waste of time. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete -Not yet. Fails WP:ORG.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2010 (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.