Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Arctic Zero

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Arctic Zero


As one of the reviewers said: thinly disguised advertisement. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've never seen an ad with so much negative content about the product. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ah, they're clever with this disguises. But it is an advert, from a declared paid editor. KJP1 (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for demonstrating WP:GF and for giving this draft the chance to be reviewed at an un-biased discussion. I have created this draft as paid editor (with paid editing stated according to all the rules of Wikipedia). Following the comment from the first reviewer «thinly disguised advertisement» I started working on the article removing information that might look promotional. The draft was deleted exactly at the moment when I asked how can I improve the article further, making it more balanced and neutral.

My vote for the article is Keep and here is why. I know that WP:OSE is not an argument, but just take a look at Brand name frozen desserts. It has 39 articles. So let’s just assume that frozen desserts brands do have a place on Wikipedia and possibly provide some value to Wikipedia readers. The notability of the brand is established through in-depth coverage at national media (including Washington Post, The Times-Picayune, New York Post and such) news agencies (Reuters, Associated Press), business media as well as health and fitness magazines. It is also covered in health and nutrition books. My view is that the only issue with this article is an apparently promotional tone. I will work further on it to make it the tone more neutral and encyclopedic. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the current rage to remove promotion is so strong we can't get notable product and company articles through, especially when an editor properly declares their paid status. Yet we can't get rid of non-notable pageant winners and sportspeople where no significant coverage exists but some editors like trivia. I like to read about businesses and products because they employ people l, impact health and safety etc etc. In other words, these pages have real world relevency while an East German handball player who played one game professionally in 1956 has zero relevence to anyone else's life Legacypac (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - However hard the paid editor tries, I am quite certain they won't make the draft "encyclopedic". It's a draft about a, seemingly rather unpopular, ice-cream substitute dessert and that's never going to warrant an entry on here. KJP1 (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes you think it is "rather unpopular"? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some facts about Arctic Zero:

* Winner of Repsly’s 100 Buzziest Brands in social media rating (2017) * Second player at low-calorie, high-protein ice cream category in 2017, main competitor of Halo Top (according to Consumer Reach Index) * Among top-20 global and the US plant-based ice cream brands * Ranked 1549 at Inc. 5000 List of America's Fastest-Growing Private Companies (and rising at rating over time) * Revenue $26.2 M in 2016, according to Inc. (magazine) These facts are not in the article as promotional, but I think they show that Arctic Zero is not a fad or something of low importance. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. It's native advertising, so it is expected that they will likely include some negative information in order to make it look like it is an actual encyclopedia article when it isn't. There is no right to a Wikipedia page, and there is certainly not a right to have one to aid in SEO, which the layout here clearly shows was the intent. I agree with the reviewers and RHaworth. Delete this ad please, we don't need it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the "Controversy" part contains quite a lot of negative information (to balance positive statements). I would like to add more, but there isn't. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure: that's how modern advertising works, and it doesn't impact my view here on your spam. They clearly paid you because they thought having a page on Wikipedia would be beneficial for them (they wouldn't have done it otherwise), and I'm assuming that you told them you would have to include negative coverage, and they were fine with it because they knew that the benefits of controlling what is said about them and how it is presented on the 5th most visited website in the world far outweighed the negatives of a balanced presentation. The fact that you are good at creating modern marketing pieces that do not look like advertisements should not exempt your advertisements from our policy. As marketing and advertising evolves, our standards for what counts as marketing and advertising must evolve too. WP:NOTSPAM and WP:5P are principles that lay out what we are and are not. We are not a venue for promotion. Full stop. You are using us as such, and thus are in violations of our local policies and guidelines by creating this draft. As such, it must be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So, we are kind of in agreement that the article has both positive and negative info about the brand. I've stated my view above. There are more than 30 articles on frozen dessert brands on Wikipedia, I don't understand why this one is worse than them. If you have any specific suggestions on how to improve the article, please give me some guidance. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that has no impact on whether or not it is an advertisement. The only improvement here is deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Your endlessly repeated lines - "others exist" and "how can I improve it" - cut no ice at all. Your paymasters want a presence on Wikipedia, and you're happy to try to provide it in return for their cash. And, in doing so, you seek to leech off the efforts of the thousands and thousands of volunteers who have made this website what it is. It's a paid advert that is trying to derive a marketing benefit from a presence on this site, built by the efforts of all those unpaid volunteers. And it's not wanted. KJP1 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting a bit personal here and deviate from the article itself. I contribute to the project not just by paid articles. And I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a lot of time now, so I know what the project is about and have seen many examples of various articles. I think that brands can be on Wikipedia because the are part of our lives. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - We're not getting remotely personal, as I don't know you from Adam. My comments relate solely to your activities on here. I have a strong animus against paid contributors for very simple reasons. They mislead readers who expect to find Neutral articles. And they leech off the efforts of all unpaid editors, whose work has made this site the biggest online encylopedia in the world. You sum it up well in one of the boxes on your userpage: "This user is very lazy. Please feel free to do his work for him." KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your animus. The thing is that I am not using single-purpose account or trying to "smuggle" this article in any other way. I am following the official Wikipedia guideline. You are saying this article is an advertising, I think it is quite factual now after all the edits. Probably any other editor interested in the subject would create exactly the same copy. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - I await with anticipation the day when an unpaid editor seeks to recreate the, hopefully soon-deleted, article on Arctic Zero. KJP1 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as native advertising per . As I've recently said elsewhere, Wikimedia projects are governed by American law. We do not tolerate promotion of any kind, and we certainly cannot tolerate promotion that may be illegal. Apart from anything else, it undermines and compromises our reputation for neutrality, and weakens any credibility we have managed to acquire. Pages like this actively damage the project (and by extension, so do the editors who create them). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for stated reasons, above. scope_creep (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant paid spam by an 'editor' who has no other purpose on Wikipedia than to make a profit on the back of the work of the volunteers who build it and maintain it. The "Controversy" part that 'contains quite a lot of negative information (to balance positive statements)' is simply a ruse to disguise the fact that it is, after all, just an advert. In the business, all PR people are aware that bad pub is also pub, and they know how to exploit it - they are taught it for their MBA. Wikipedia is not the venue for artspam and advertorial. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As noted above by Kudpung, the negativity in the article seems to mask the fact that it is a mere advert and in some way actually have the inverse effect of being promotional -- the criticism bit is not written in an encyclopedic style (the term "native advertising" is a bit of an oxymoron on 'pedia). Also, a general comment: even one of the most 'good faith' paid editors now finds themselves at odds with our policies and guidelines. Our articles were never designed to be exchanged for cash -- look what happens when they are. talk to ! dave 09:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Question {, if this was not intended to be promotional, why would the company want to pay for it?  DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 12 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.