Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:ESCapade/Zenfolio

Notability
The article notability was defined on www.shutterbug.com and Sydney Morning Herald as reliable sources. Just confirm these 2 companies are not qualified or are committing trivial cover over Zenfolio. It is that easy! What's stopping you, anyone?ESCapade (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Adverts
Nobody explained what substantive matter it was to this cute little pauper. I never doubt administrative jurisdiction, in fact, it was a beautiful show of force, and to who eats from higher table, i prefer to delicately ask for advertising definition according to eligible standard rather than tag that as blatant judgment. Hi Harej, welcome!ESCapade (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Miscellany

 * No serious attempts have been made to address those issues.
 * Please forgive me! I'll need to buy new glasses as until now, i'm seriously seeing my arguments as the only arguments that find bases on WP over basically saying - The history of the actual article shows that it has been deleted five times so far.. and an article previously deleted from the main space via AFD. This user is trying to recreate the article in basically the exact same version as before. - in a way this not an accusation successfully demonstrated at full speed, how useless numerology was and neither was AFD unless it was the same exact article. How many times do i have to remind that past decision is open to challenge and are not binding according to WP:CON. Harej, i'm even not an administrator to define who is playing by the rules and who is playing the rules.ESCapade (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

All of these questions have been asked and answered
You already have answers to each and every one of these question, you just don't seem to want to acknowledge those answers. I, for one, have answered them all on your talk page. As one example, the Shutterbug article that you mention as conferring notability is, as I said already, a Zenfolio press release. As I clearly said on your talk page:

"One final note. The Shutterbug reference (here) is actually a press release from Zenfolio (see here and here). So that is not a reliable source (as you know from the links I directed you to earlier)."

So, no, the Shutterbug reference does not help to confer notability, per the guidelines on notability. Those guidelines state that coverage must be independent of the subject, and defines that term as follows:

"'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc."


 * That's better! You win.. i step down. I have nothing to contest. ESCapade (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald article is fine (if local), but it was also present when the Zenfolio article was AFDed. It was mentioned in the AFD, and the consensus was that the article was not enough to confer notability. I have already told you that as well, per your talk page:

"One other thing: the SMH article was already out when the article was deleted at AfD. See Articles_for_deletion/Zenfolio. So the only new information is the Shutterbug source."

Just by looking at your talk page, it is clear that the issues around your two sources have been addressed. The SMH article was not deemed to be enough to confer notability when the article was AFDed, and the only new reference that you have is a press release from the company, which doesn't help to confer notability. Therefore, the article is still just as non-notable as it was when it was deleted at AFD.

So please don't pretend that your questions have gone unanswered as that is simply not true. --  Transity  ( talk &bull;  contribs ) 15:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)