Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4imprint plc

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. Could also have been "keep" as that side goes into more detail in the source analysis, but it's clearly not a consensus for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4imprint plc

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article was declined 7 times on AFC in various obviously Undisclosed Paid Editing attempts. This was also pointed out by another editor of this article [1]. The editor then "improved" and accepted this AFC. The editor has since been blocked (which I just noticed). Anyway, even if we do not disregard the judgement of a blocked editor, the problem is a bit bigger than that here.

The article is clearly about a company which has made various attempts to promote itself and wikipedia is not a tool for promotion of corporations. It not notable enough, does not pass WP:GNG and therefore should be deleted.

Companies are not listed on wikipedia simply because the have a millions in revenue or because of passing mentions and trivial coverage / annual awards given to companies every year... instead notability has to be established in depth - that has not been done here. Jesve Psernel (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the dodgy history of the article there are multiple independent sources. And its big enough that it would be surprising if there are not a lot more.Rathfelder (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While independent sources maybe present, they verify that it exists. Confirmation of existence does not establish notability. There are no in-depth sources. The article is also aimed at promotion of the subject. Wikipedia should never be used for such aims. --Jesve Psernel (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A shady article and the subject of a promotional merchandise. Article's history also suggests Wikipedia Terms of Service violations such as undisclosed paid editing which is yet another reason that this article itself is a violation. --103.255.6.95 (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not pass the Wikipedia WP:Notability criteria, on top of being UPE infested. --50.198.13.3 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC) — 50.198.13.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep.~~ weak keep The largest distributor in North America of those random widgets you get at conferences, job fairs, and whatever, but like many business to business suppliers, the name is not something that appears in public that often. Although it's only a few percent. So it looks like there are a whole bunch of these companies each having a market share of single digit percentage point. The article needs to be re-written, have the talk page tagged with known COIs, and sanitize all promotional contents, but inclusion seems warranted. See https://www.asicentral.com/news/newsletters/promogram/january-2019/4imprint-increases-annual-sales-18-in-2018/ Graywalls (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is an obvious attempt at advertising. Company size does not necessitate or excuse the violation of this Wikipedia policy. Current page references also include websites hosted by the company itself, run-of-the-mill best workplaces lists, unnotable websites, and broken news links. — 2600:1008:B126:8B8D:59AF:FBEB:2AE3:7AC8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:20, May 8, 2019 (UTC).
Delete. This article fails to meet relevant notability guidelines. Company sales volume alone doesn't warrant inclusion. This is an obvious attempt at using Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. Also, ASI (Advertising Specialty Institute) is an industry publication that 4imprint is a paid member of and is hardly an impartial or independent resource. If size is justification; why not give everyone on this list a Wikipedia article while we're at it then as well: https://www.asicentral.com/news/web-exclusive/july-2018/top-40-distributors-2018/? — 69.246.235.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and move to 4imprint (the common name). Meets WP:CORP. 4imprint is a publicly traded company with significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, which I've added to the article. These sources were found through EBSCO and Newspapers.com, both of which are available through The Wikipedia Library. — Newslinger talk 09:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Miller, Paul (February 2001). "4imprint Makes an Impression with Samples". Catalog Age. Vol. 18, no. 2. New York: Penton Media. p. 18. Retrieved 9 May 2019 – via EBSCO's Business Source Complete. 4imprint sends thousands of types of samples, Iott says, including pens, mouse pads, and travel cups - all imprinted or embossed with the 4imprint logo, phone number, and address.
2. Scott, Stefanie (7 July 2000). "Power of Promotion: 4imprint wants to place it in the palm of your hands". The Post-Crescent. Appleton, Wisconsin. p. I-1. Retrieved 9 May 2019 – via Newspapers.com.
  - Continued on page I-6
3. Draeger, Carol (19 March 2000). "Marketing magician: 4imprint plans to double its Oshkosh work force". Oshkosh Northwestern. Oshkosh, Wisconsin. p. D1. Retrieved 9 May 2019 – via Newspapers.com.
  - Continued on page D4
    — Newslinger talk 09:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the editor who accepted the draft, Legacypac, was highly active at Articles for Creation. They were not blocked for any reason related to draft reviewing, conflicts of interest, or paid editing. — Newslinger talk 09:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than two analyst companies providing research on this company (e.g. Edison Investment Research, Peel Hunt, Liberum, finnCap, Berenberg) and therefore meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic meets WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the history of the article is unreliable, but has enough reliable sources. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company evidently lacks an in-depth coverage in the news media. Having gone through a lot of them, they are generally either not trustworthy or talking about routine events like funding, opening new offices etc. I’m surprised by those who voted to a keep. I’d argue them to take a second look. In essence, an advertisement. Plus, the company clearly doesn't pass the notability guidelines given the available coverage. Only two analyst companies providing research on this company are not enough to qualify for a Wikipedia page, if this is a notability there will be millions of non-notable companies can exist on the Wiki to build a spam farm.157.47.252.208 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC) — 157.47.252.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Actually you're wrong. Two analyst companies providing research is, in fact, the minumum for establishing notability. Please read WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources I posted do not fit your description, as they are in-depth articles on the company. WP:GNG and WP:CORP require significant coverage from two independent reliable sources to establish notability, and the newly added citations exceed the requirement. — Newslinger talk 06:03, 10 May 2019 (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.