Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciplex

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 delete.

It seems this article was subject to puffery orchestrated by its PR department and repeated here on wiki, whether intentional or not. After weighing the strength of the various positions it seems fairly clear that consensus is to delete the article at this time. Before I go, here's a little something for User:AkankshaG for adding a massive wall of text which I just had to read in order to close this, only to find that it was largely unrelated to the discussion of the notability of this company and the suitability of this article on Wikipedia:

Plip!

Beeblebrox (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ciplex

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

Article was created by Ciplex executive for promotional purposes. Recommended deletion per wp:coi wp:npov wp:soapbox Phearson (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following was refactored into a collapsible by Tedder, who has voted, and is therefore not a disinterested party. Furthermore, the edit that did so was accompanied by a warning of false choices "Don't uncollapse or reply; either remove it or leave it be". Anarchangel (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, but note it's an unrelated soapbox/pasted wall of text that has been posted on several other forums: COIN, ANI, SPI, and again on ANI. But hey, good times. tedder (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another attempt to intimidate me because of an editing dispute with User:Cutno/User:Phearson at Vector Marketing and attempted WP:OUTING

I have been editing here since 2006, and have edited over 1,000 articles. I have no history of blocks or bans.

What User:Phearson has failed to disclose here is that he and I are in an editing dispute over at Vector Marketing, which is owned by Cutco Cutlery. If you click on User:Cutno, it resolves to User:Phearson. See this diff where he states: “Hello, I'm Phearson, I originally came to Wikipedia to patrol a very disputed article relating to the Cutco Corporation (formally Alcas) and its Marketing arm "Vector Marketing". Needless to say, if you understand what Multi-level marketing is, and what Scientology is. You probably will know what I'm talking about.” Phearson/Cutno provides in this diff: “I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." User:Cutno|Cutno (User talk:Cutno|talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)”

Phearson/Cutno has apparently been locked in a fierce and protracted battle with the forces of evil over the Vector article, where one side wants a decidedly positive piece, and the other side apparently wants a decidedly negative piece. The primary contention seems to be the characterization of the company as a direct sales company vs. a characterization of them as a multi-level marketing company, and questions about whether the representatives are employees or contractors.

I’ve been watching the article for awhile, and left a message on the talk page Dec 11th indicating that I thought the article was unbalanced, and needed to look more like a regular company article does on Wikipedia, citing the Apple, Inc. article as one that contains historical, organizational, marketing, outside activities and critical information about the company. I didn’t get any response from Phearson/Cutno, so on December 27th I uploaded a new version of the article, which included a controversy and criticism section. I didn’t include the materials from the SAVE site or the Consumeraffairs sites, as that material is from the Anti-Cutco SAVE organization, which isn’t WP:RS. Rather than any discussion at all, Phearson/Cutno immediately reverted back to his version. On Dec 27th I asked Phearson/Cutno to revert to the draft plus add back the entire controversy and criticism section that he authored, which I again asked him to add back his version of the controversy & criticism section, and again. Rather than respond to these requests and include his version of the controversy and criticism section, he reverted everything back to his previous negative version of the article. As I said in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vector_Marketing&diff=next&oldid=404417728 this comment, I think a complete article needs to have a controversy and criticism section, it just shouldn’t be the whole article. My last correspondence on the talk page was a request to Phearson to wait until the New Year’s weekend to allow me to address his issues, as I needed to do actual work work during the week and nut be futzing around with Wikipedia. Rather than trying to work through the editing issues with me and waiting for the weekend as I requested, Phearson/Cutno launched a series of attacks on me and articles I’ve edited, apparently believing that the best way to maintain his version of the article is to crush any editor who challenges it. And now we’re here.

User:Phearson/User:Cutno didn't get the result he wanted in one ANI, then another ANI, and a sockpuppet investigation, and now he's WP:Forum shopping and trying to get a different result here. He's also tried to OUT me, which he was cautioned against by an WP:OVERSIGHT administrator. Not satisfied with that, User:Phearson/User:Cutno has tried to intimidate me from editing the Vector article by going around and nominating my work for deletion.

I don’t work for mywikibiz, viziworks, ciplex, scientology, vector, or cutco (all theories offered by Phearson/Cutno at one time or another). I do work in the video game industry, beyond that, I’m not willing to say more, as I’m greatly concerned that there are some editors in our community who have lots of time on their hands and would take that information and track me down in RL. Our WP:OUTING policies are here for a reason, and that is to discourage intimidation tactics, and I hope you all will respect that and remove any theorized ruminations about my RL identity.

Lastly, I’ll say this. Wikipedia has been mostly a happy and safe place for me over the years, someplace I can relax to and have fun with. Bizarre as it may seem to an outsider, I enjoy taking a craptastic article like Vector and completely redrafting it, tracking down every last little bit of information I can find and turning it into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Disagree with my approach to drafting or my edits, fine, let’s work it out on the talk page, but going after me personally both on Wikipedia and off-Wikipedia: That’s just not cool. AkankshaG (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the subject notable? If so, it might be better to look the article over very carefully and rewrite/remove any material that is disingenuous then delete it outright. Although I oftentimes advocate deletion in cases where promotional editing is obvious, the company would have to be at least borderline notable if not nonnotable for me to do so. I'll look over the references and do other research on the subject to see how notable this agency appears to be. Them From Space 02:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure any of those is "disingenuous", and it clearly meets V. What is obvious, however, is the references padding, which I guess is a way to drive up the google rank. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wouldn't surprise me, given that Ciplex does marketing for their clientèle. Phearson (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Article appears to be well references, but when looking at those references I have doubts that they meet WP:RS. Needs improvement to survive this AfD. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references aren't very thorough. Things like press releases and linkedin profiles are not reliable sources. Other than that, let me break down the more reliable sources used:

"h monthly" - who or what is this? A style magazine? It's hard to judge reliability of something that doesn't have an "about us" page and/or wikipedia article.
Various "Inc. 5000" spotlights and listings. Does not establish notability, though helpful for filling in an article.
Articles talking about "first multi-touch website using Silverlight". Many, many articles linked. These are all syndicated copies of a TechCruch article or reblogs about the article. This is the what comes closest to satisfying WP:ORG and WP:GNG in my mind since the Washington Post syndicated the TechCrunch article. But it's hardly sufficient, and "first X of Y in Z" is pretty threadbare- by way of analogy, I could have been the fastest 3rd grade runner under 65 pounds at my school, but that's hardly showing a depth of continued coverage.
Likewise, winning many various small awards doesn't hold any weight. Might be worth mentioning.
Finally, running Von Dutch's website might hold merit, though nobody (in journalistic circles) is talking about that being a big deal.

tedder (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ciplex is described substantively in The Washington Post, H-Monthly, in Inc. Magazine as a Top 500 Company, Business Week, Engadget, and has received International Academy of Visual Arts recognition, and several Communicator Awards, all of which are reputable sources under WP:RS describing Ciplex. That's more than enough to get by the general notability requirements cited in WP:GNG. AkankshaG (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This subject is covered in major publications such as The Washington Post and Tech Crunch. Subject is also covered in the Inc. Magazine and is recognized across multiple reputable award sites. This meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:Notability, as all of these sources are credible sources WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woody5683 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Woody5683 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - found enough coverage in Businessweek Magazine, Techcrunch, Washington Post, Inc. Magazine, Designflavr and multiple industry award websites for WP:NOTE. KVIKountry (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per tedder. Them From Space 05:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the subject has been covered extensively by well respected journalistic resources and authorities, thus meeting the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:Notability, as all of these sources are reliable sources WP:RS under our rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msginsberg (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the decent sourcing mentioned here is referenced in the article so the sourcing is by assertion and therefore a weak argument. Please can someone voting keep list the sources they are referring to so they can be evaluated? Thanks. (This is an alternative to it being deleted for unverified sourcing and then undeleted and relisted once someone dumps them on my talk page :-) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete. This is an interactive agency that provides creative, technology, and marketing services. Ciplex specializes in web design, web development, branding, search engine optimization, social media and custom marketing campaigns for businesses. Inclusion in "top 500" lists and the like obviously does not confer notability on a business; nor do trade awards, given their proliferation. A large number of the "separate" references in "multiple" sources appear to be the same story. The rest of the sources would appear to be trade blogs, online profiles, and other self-published or low circulation sources. The bottom line is that there's no showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance; building the "World's First Multi-Touch Website Using Silverlight" does not cut the mustard, no matter how mightily Microsoft's publicity department has labored to promote Silverlight, and that appears to be what we're looking at in that coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how this meets WP:CORP at the moment, because the only significant reliable coverage are about the first multi-touch website (whatever that is) but I can't find anything actually about the company. People are correct to say it has been mentioned in multiple RSs but, they don't directly discuss the company and therefore we should not have an article on the company at present. SmartSE (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any RSs discussing this company. most of the sources used to reference this article are actually just one piece that was written in the tech section of the washington post and subsequently linked or copied around to various sites. and the washington post article gives nothing but a passing mention about the company, rather focussing more on the "multi-touch" technology. don't see any other RSs justifying this articles existence presently, most other references given are user generated websites. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2011 (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.