Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DesignContest

DesignContest

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB and any number of guidelines.
The article certainly seems impressive. But lets look at the references:

^[1] http://www.designcontest.com/designers-join-us// :primary source - useful for giving information about the subject, but not to establish the notability of the subject of the article.

^[2] http://www.designcontest.com/blog/why-crowdsourcing/ :primary source again.

^[3] http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2011/04/06/improving-our-capacity-to-manage/ : WSJ blog, but with no mention of the subject of the article.
^[4]The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki: is there a mention of the subject of the article in this book? I doubt it.
^[5] http://www.crowdsource.com/blog/2013/08/the-long-history-of-crowdsourcing-and-why-youre-just-now-hearing-about-it/: certainly about crowd-sourcing, but with no mention of the subject of the article

^[6] http://www.designcontest.com/testimonials////: primary source. The purported testimonials include those from:
- ~~there appears to be no business of or near the name "Lightning Rods C.C." in Houston TX, nor in the rest of the world~~
^[7] https://www.designcontest.ru/////: the website in Russian. While this may serve as evidence that the business has a website in Russian, this does not assist the claim of notability.
^[8] http://www.designcontest.com/forum/forum.php///: A primary source again.

^[9] http://www.designcontest.com/blog/: A primary source again.

^[10] https://www.designcontest.com/help/index.php?/Knowledgebase/List///: A primary source again.

^[11] http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/2098861/digital-efforts-draw-crowd: No mention of the subject of the article.

^[12] http://images.businessweek.com/slideshows/20110128/twelve-sites-that-will-put-you-to-work-now: Bloomberg Businessweek is without doubt a reliable source for business news. There is no mention of the subject of the article there, or anywhere on the BusinessWeek website.
^[13] http://www.lookatme.ru/mag/industry/industry-interview/197309-designcontest: ru:Look At Me indicates that it contains mostly user-generated content. A reliable source? It would appear not to be so.
^[14] http://www.the-village.ru/village/city/transport/133351-logotip-metro: Again, appears to be mostly user-generated content. Shirt58 (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

I removed all unuseles primary source and added sources confirming the popularity, as well as examples of cooperation with well known companies. I hope this time will be no claim. :) --SlavaBest (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Add more independent reliable sources. Now it must have significant coverage.SlavaBest (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need the logos inside of the encyclopedic article, it's not a resume (and they're copyright, see the files' pages on Commons). Significant coverage is sort-of ok but you may want to focus more on the relationship of the subject with outside world which the outside world itself initiated — such as interest of press in its work, or user reception. (Eg. like this or that). Gryllida (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed logos examples. And soon will try add topics like you propouse. SlavaBest (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Hopefully whoever handles this request doesn't close it too soon; I'm not familiar with the timeline (it could be anything from one week, which ends on the 20th). Gryllida (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Sources:

The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki - this book describes the basic principles and laws of any crowdsourcing business, and this company as well. So I left.
Website in Russian. While this may serve as evidence that the business has a website in Russian - so I lest it.
http://www.lookatme.ru/mag/industry/industry-interview/197309-designcontest and http://www.the-village.ru/village/city/transport/133351-logotip-metro are not user-generated content, so I left it too.

All other - are new and not primary sourse or user-generated content.SlavaBest (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 21. Mkdw ^talk 04:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Regards, Mkdw ^talk 04:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Appreciate the review of sources by Shirt58. Page appears to be advertising - WP:NOTADVERTISING and fails notability requirements per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. To me, the number of non-independent sources suggests that the editor is trying to WP:MASK the lack of notability. mikeman67 (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of sources by Shirt58 means absolutely nothing, because all sources have been redone, and what you say - it means that you did not even check anything. You don`t gives reasons for point of view - it means that your opinion is not objectively.SlavaBest (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox it into a draft somewhere not indexed by search engines for a few weeks. I really appreciate the author being responsive. Gryllida (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]