Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copify

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 Speedy delete as G11 : Unambiguous advertising by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copify

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

This article is nothing but a commercial for the site. Examples:

"Orders are made available to the site's network of freelancers on a first come, first-served basis" is not informative, but a sales pitch. Nor is "Clients also have the option to order copy directly from a writer of their choice." That too, is a sales pitch.

The site is not unique as well. It does not stand out from the hundreds or thousands that operate the way and offer the same product/service. Example:

"Copify charges for content by the word, with a payment being issued by the customer before each order is placed" is not a unique service and is duplicated at all available writing services.

In addition, it's criticism is not unique to the service, and is a broad criticism across all online writing services. Example:

"Copify has been wide criticized by copywriters who have questioned the relatively low rates of pay that are offered. Many also dislike the controversial 'pay per word' model, arguing that it restricts creativity and encourages writers to create substandard copy. Concern has also been raised that those using Copify will not necessarily get the ability and experience they intended, and of a conflict of interest with Nublue, another copywriting firm."

These criticisms can be said about any online writing service (and they are). First, offering low pay rates are what these types of services are known for (and sought for). Second, there is nothing controversial about its pay per word model especially since writers have charged for per-word services before the typewriter was even invented! Third, as stated here: http://www.abccopywriting.com/blog/2010/10/28/copify-nublue-quality-copywriting Copify was co-founded by a former Nublue employee. Copify operates from the same building as Nublue, and staff from the two firms know each other personally (confirmed in comments on the post). Copify is a supplier to Nublue. Copify was nominated by Nublue for a Mashable award.

The author is probably trying to promote both Copify and Nublue.

Lastly, 4 of the 5 references points to a blog post - not a news article even though the link makes it look like a news reference. Another reference points to a listing in an online directory.

This article probably should have been marked for immediate deleteion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDR2013 (talk • contribs) — RDR2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment The article was proposed for A7 speedy deletion and I declined it because there was significant coverage in The Guardian, which is enough to mandate a discussion here. Blogs are not always unreliable sources, while they may be opinion pieces, they can be used if the writer has a proven track record of expertise in the subject or is widely believed to have a good editorial control. I won't be !voting yet as I'm not sure the article has enough reliable sources to sustain notability at present - there are a lot of sources out there, but most aren't reliable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for responding, and my apologies for the poor grammar above. Nevertheless, I disagree with your assertion of 'significant coverage in The Guardian'. I searched the site and only found 2 blog posts -- both of which were written by a Alexander Velky. Alexander Velky worked through Copify, and is not a journalist. I would assume that an objective article about such a service would come from someone who does not have a history with the service. I also must apologize for not knowing how to reply to your comment. Wikipedia is rather confusing. I simply copied and modified your comment to make mine. If that is not proper, please assist.RDR2013 ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reference in question, and I can see eight paragraphs that are directly about Copify, which makes it qualify for the "at least one length paragraph, preferably more" clause as found in WP:VRS. That, in my opinion, is enough to halt a CSD - which should be reserved for articles with no sources at all and no claim whatsoever that any might be found. I appreciate you're new, but for what it's worth, AfD is not a good place to begin a wiki career, as you'll be debating head to head with experienced wikipedians who have a thorough grounding in policy, particularly if the Article Rescue Squadron turn up. By the way, to sign posts here, type four tilda (~) characters. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Props to Ritchie333 for trying to salvage the article, but it has very few available sources, and none that establish notability for inclusion according to WP:ORGDEPTH. The Guardian blog post was written by someone with a close connection to the company. I believe the article qualifies for A7 CSD, as there is no credible indication of significance. - Mr X 20:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I buy that. The Guardian has a strict editorial control, which means that anything that its writers post will have to go through its filter, so we ought to generally trust that, while an opinion piece, it is a strong enough one to receive notice to the world at large. I'm not going trying and puff notability out of this, but I reckon this is a borderline case that could go either way. I think we need the full discussion here at AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sources; promotional; unreferenced content. If sources can be found and the article improved, I may change my vote but for now it is delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete it is an advertisement. MarioNovi (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi all, I respect and admire the editorial process here, but when things are being written that are factually incorrect, it kind of calls into question the integrity of the whole thing. There are a few examples of this, but probably the most worrying is the fact that the article has been edited to now include "…and of a conflict of interest with Nublue, another copywriting firm." If you take a look at Nublue's website: http://www.nublue.co.uk/ you will see that they don't offer copywriting as a service, they are a web development company so this is simply not correct. "The Guardian blog post was written by someone with a close connection to the company." - His connection was that he signed up, took a dislike to the site and wrote a blog post condemning Copify, followed by this piece on the Guardian. He's not connected to Copify in any other way. If a bit of common sense is applied here, you should note that it is a talked about company, discussed by the Guardian. The article is more negative than it is positive and I have tried to be honest about the offering and not promotional. MartinCopify ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ducking out of this now, but can we please stop calling this an advert? I've tried to neutralise the article and put solid criticism in, so just saying it's an advert without citing any examples implies my edits have been a waste of time. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 28 February 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.