Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversion Hub

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (yak) @ 09:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion Hub

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company does not meet WP:GNG. There are a ton of sources which is why I went AfD instead of Speedy, but they are all press releases or from the company website. One is also a broken link. I cannot locate any WP:RS that would show the notability of the company. The Business Week article for Joel Fu is a self-published bio just like the majority of the other references. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While some if the references aren't brilliant, the company is discussed in detail in printed newspapers, which for me makes them notable 31.73.226.133 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for the information. Can you point out which printed newspapers they are "discussed in detail?" I do not see it in the current article. Also, which of these newspapers would be considered a WP:RS? Thank you. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A good nomination, however on further inspection I'd say keep. As discussed above, the company has appeared in The Straits Times, The Business Times and Lianhe Zaobao. All 3 papers would pass WP:RS 31.68.145.109 (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Really? Two !votes from similar IP addresses only here to vote keep with no other contributions? OK, I will assume good faith and not file a WP:SPI at the moment. Anyway, you state that all three references would pass WP:RS. Let's take a look...The Straits Times itself would be considered a reliable source, but not the reference used in the article [1]. It is simply a regurgitation of a press release. As such, it is self-published and not considered reliable. The Business Times Singapore reference is a dead link so I cannot really judge the content [2]. Also, just because Lianhe Zaobao has a Wikipedia article does not make it a reliable source. Upon looking at the title (as no link is present in the article), "SgCarMart and Singapore Press Holdings in 60m deal" looks like another press release reprinted and therefore would also not be reliable. Finally, comparing the guidelines for WP:RS, can tell me your opinion about the article references from all of the press releases, Conversion Hub's own website, and the website of SgCarMart? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - I apologise the top IP was me (I created the article), I must not have logged in. Firstly, all three newspaper references are correctly referenced in accordance with WP:CITEHOW, the dates are mentioned and where possible also the authors. The fact that I tried to link to a deadlink makes no difference if it should be accepted as a newspaper reference, as you can see on WP:CITEHOW. At no point do I, or the other keep argument mention the STCars.org article as a credible reference, it isn't a good reference as you point out. The Straits Times, The Business Times and Lianhe Zaobao are three of the leading newspapers in Singapore. For this reason they clearly pass WP:RS. The article couldn't be built on stronger grounds for a Singapore based company to be referenced in 3 of its leading newspapers. It'd be like a New York company being discussed in the NY Times for instance Adel4570 (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you for proving my point. If the articles "discussed" (your words, not mine) the topic, then it would be notable. However, the topic is only "referenced" (again, your words, not mine) in these publications. Being referenced is exactly what I am saying as they are passing mentions and passing mentions do not count. Just because a topic is mentioned does not make it notable. Please tell me how these mentions amount to WP:SIGCOV. Finally, if you knew it was a dead link when you put it in the article, why did you do it? I agree that links are not required to prove a source; however, they way you styled a few of these references (including citing the Business Times Singapore as simply the Business Times) shows notability masking. Your comemnts above demonstrate a strong understanding of WP:RS, yet you failed to put any in the article as it is full of press releases and passing mentions. It comes down to the quality of references, not quantity. At this point, I do not see your policy reasoning for keeping the article and unfortunately I will have to keep my delete !vote. Sorry. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that the company had only been mentioned/discussed in all three newspaper articles. All three articles in the The Straits Times, The Business Times and Lianhe Zaobao are about them, meaning they pass WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. This was the main reason I wrote the article on them. Also, using self published or questionable material isn't ideal, but can be used as a reference for lesser points (which is the way I have attempted to reference the article). This was carried out in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. In summary, the article in my opinion passes both WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV due to having lengthy articles published about it, in 3 leading Singaporean newspapers. Finally none of the questionable sources are "exceptional claims" (WP:ABOUTSELF) in my opinion, and are therefore fine to use to expand the article out. Adel4570 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Funny you bring up WP:ABOUTSELF. In fact, for only having a total of 3 edits you seem to be very knowledgeable on Wikipedia policy. Anyways...you seem to want to only read the section of WP:ABOUTSELF that you feel supports your contention and NOT read the entire guideline to apply it to the article. What you say is fine with the exception of the article cannot be based primarily on such sources (see item #5). This article is only held up by such sources so if you knew this policy it seems again as if you are just creating content that you want and grabbing at any policy you can as opposed to reading the policy before you implement the content. Now for the sources you say are reliable, please refer to my previous comments. One has no link so I cannot see it, the other is a regurgitation of a press release which puts it into the WP:ABOUTSELF category, and the final one doesn't have a link but the title puts in doubt that it is anything other than a press release. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article isn't based on primary sources? The main notable points are all taken from three newspaper articles and the awards are referenced directly from the awarding websites. These references are all reliable secondary sources, and they alone are more than capable of building a credible article from. The additional content (such as the companies history), is taken from primary sources, which as we've discussed is allowed in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. I ensured that the notable points were all well referenced, and I feel they are. If you think differently then lets agree to disagree. In terms of the newspaper articles, saying that two out of the three are poor sources without reading them is not really a valid argument. Adel4570 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 06:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete I think we usually want some third party sources about the work of the firm, not just the financial reorganizations. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.