Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidStart (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 May 26.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Although I am mindful of Athaenara's comment, I am inclined to agree with DustFormsWords' comments about these sounding like press-release wording rather than a journalist's independent writings about the subject. The 'delete's clearly form the consensus here, as there is insufficient coverage of a significant nature to justify the article's existence. Should significant coverage occur at a future date, the article can be recreated. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KidStart

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

Relisting per decision to overturn and relist at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. I am unable to find significant coverage for this organisation/website. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deletion was the right thing to do in the first place, there is zero notability here. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 14:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: mentions in The Times, The Guardian, The Observer, The Sun, and Daily Express (see article) do suggest notability. – Athaenara ✉ 23:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reading of those mentions suggests they're regurgitated from press releases (they're certainly not in the prose style you'd expect from a newspaper) and therefore don't count as independent sources. They're effectively advertisements, whether paid or unpaid. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have now amended the article quite considerably on notability and hope that it now fits in with Wikipedia guidelines. As a parent myself I use Kidstart regularly and I am often being asked about it by other parents both in person and in forums such as Babyworld, Emma's Diary, Babycentre, Mumsnet, Netmums and Bounty therefore I feel this entry should remain. I based my initial draft(s) on similar Wikipedia articles Quidco, Top CashBack, Internet Cashback. If as suggested that notability is questioned with the Kidstart article, surely the majority of the articles listed under Wikipedia category: Reward Websites, should be questioned too ? Regarding coverage, as explained previously, this seems to be a regional difference. Please try the search again, via google.co.uk. http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=kidstart.co.uk&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=uk&hl=en&scoring=a http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=kidstart&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= If you feel that this article needs further amending to stop a deletion please do advise specifically what needs to change. Im happy to work with you on this but need guidance not negative comments. Emmamme (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of these improvements (or the Google UK search) address my concerns above. The coverage cited in the article is in promotional language and appears to be in the nature of advertising, whether paid or unpaid. There's no analysis or discussion of the service, merely a regurgitation of its press releases. As such, the coverage is probably not independent, meaning the article fails WP:N, which calls for significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this is a matter of an opinion as i'm sure the journalists who wrote these cited articles would beg to differ or the reputable Newspapers for being called NON reliable independent sources. Anyone who reads The Express, The Times or Lovemoney.com articles can judge for themselves, also to use the term ‘probably not independent’ illustrates doubt in your argument. As discussed amongst editors already on this talk page, what one person sees as notable is different to another. The problem is, i have been getting mixed messages from you guys, as one minute i am told to place citations in the article and the next i'm not, and surely ANY citation from a reliable media source is a form of promotion, no matter what the subject is. I don't mind deleting them, but then i'll only get someone saying it needs citations and i'm back to square one. I also fail to see how this article is any different to similar Wikipedia articles: Quidco, Internet Cashback, Top CashBack (note: with similar citations), plus see other articles listed under Wikipedia category: Reward Websites. Amongst these cashback services KidStart is unique as it only benefits children and charities, so is it for this reason Kidstart should be penalised and deleted whilst these other articles have escaped this kind of scrutiny? Emmamme (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Carrying on with adding additional notability to this article I included a link of a BBC Breakfast News Youtube video commenting on KidStart. I would hope this was independent and significant enough to be included and establish even greater notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmamme (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 May 2010 (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.