Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HipGuide

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. Ignoring several WP:SPAs, strong consensus that this is WP:PROMOTION and fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HipGuide

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

Advertising; apparently part of a promotional campaign, and,astoundingly, here from 2007--a great deal of copyediting has been done without dealing with the fundamental problems. The founder of the firm is a professional press agent, and has taken care that there is a good deal of press. I doubts any of it is truly independent, so it also does not meet the notability standard. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no references, just many external links, some of them inline. Most are about Tang and not HipGuide also most are not RS or are not independent. The JCK article is due to a not notable award related to jewelry. It fails WP:CORP. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been a previous editor on this page. Hipguide is a Delaware corporation which seems to have been in operations since 1999. It does not appear to be a promotional campaign. There is a working website and I was able to find a listing in Cision and other media databases. Some of the links should be edited to be proper RS but that does not merit deletion. The award is a media award from an industry organization that has a registration since 1984 - not notable is debatable. It does not fail WP:CORP - the owner is Reed Infomedia India. Arabbitortwo (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeepClicking the Find Sources Highbeam yields additional RS not cited here, from Entrepreneur Magazine, Knight Ridder Tribune, Footwear News which is part of Women's Wear Daily. These could be added as RS. Kerrypack1 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an advertorially toned page on an unremarkable media company. Sources are typical WP:SPIP, interviews and launch publicity. The above keep votes are by SPAs also present at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Syl Tang (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specific coverage from NBC, Newsweek, CNN, Forbes and New York Magazine over what appears to be a 13 year period feels sufficiently notable. They are not WP:SPIP. All are standard RS on chief executives. Tone is not compelling reason to delete a ten year old entry which has had a variety of editors contrib and which can be addressed through improvements to the article. Other complaints - reason for the keep vote also present at the other Talk is because one is about the company, the other about the current chief executive, who is a Financial Times journalist. A search at [1] yields authored articles dating back to 2005 which include this company's name and its association with the FT. The inclusion itself should be sufficient to keep the article.Arabbitortwo (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article is not particularly well-written, it appears to pass a reasonable standard for notability (a number of major media mentions, has existed for a long time, article has been up since 2007). Recommend re-writing to clean up poor grammar, irrelevant references, and to add additional more recent references if available. 157.191.26.94 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
why should having been here a long time be a reason not to delete? The longer spam says, the worse it is. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because a large number of contributors have added to it and find it valuable. They are not a press firm, it is the other side of the aisle, media/journalism -- there's a link in the references called "Articles for Financial Times" that rather downplays a 12-year relationship between this firm and the FT. I doubt the Financial Times considers their articles spam. They appear to be a decade+ content partner. Arabbitortwo (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be promotional and possible paid editing here as well. Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is frustrating. I am not a paid editor or a sockpuppet. I had to look up what that is. I was an editor on this page in 2011 and simply haven't been active since but the subject has a book coming out which was when I saw this. Not every infrequent editor is fake because they don't live on Wiki. Please take care when making accusations. I do not happen to believe this meets WP:BEFORE, not even close. I would suggest that we all need to re-read the AfD guidelines. There is so much RS that could be added, it doesn't appear that a basic Google search was done. I would have just added a cleanup tag before AfD. Per WP:BEFORE, "basic due diligence before nominating." Arabbitortwo (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I rechecked, and I could not find any. Almost everything is a mere mention. The only extensive article I could find was in Sportwear International, and its a classic PR interview,where the subject says at length whatever she wants to--such "interviews" are not independent sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly don't agree. As I mentioned before, I haven't edited a lot on Wiki but since I hadn't in years, in the last day or so I read a bunch of the AfD and there were ones that were kept for having literally just one article. One person was even dead! I looked through the pieces on Ft.com, there's 80 of them! And the book's website - as I said, that is how I thought to come back and look up this page - has reviews from people from McKinsey and George Washington, that's notable to me. I just looked at SI - they appear to be the Women's Wear Daily of Germany. The German Audit Bureau of Circulation (IVW) is pretty serious business and I can't imagine they do fluff anything. Anyway, you seem intent on deleting this entry. Myself I'd have tagged it for improvement having just read the WP:BEFORE. But this is exhausting, I have never written an article on here but can tell you, it doesn't make me want to contribute more when it will just get arbitrarily deleted. I've said all I have to say. I think it has more than reasonable notability. Arabbitortwo (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Bluebonnet07 (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite this nomination being attacked by SPAs, HipGuide is fundamentally not notable per WP:CORPDEPTH. There is almost definitely paid editing here, and we have to also enforce our terms of use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:PROMOTION.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2017 (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.