Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedBubble

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RedBubble

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

Delete. It is a non-notable company. It is a recently formed (2006) company with a only 20 employees and a turnover of a paltry $2.5 million. It is essentially a run of the mill company. Current notability guidelines will allow this article to exist but the guidelines are in dire need of updating. I say this for a number of reasons:

Popularity of WP has increased making it a magnet for advertising commercial organisation
Decisions in AfDs are commonly made by reference to guidelines rather than making a judgement on a case by case basis. I don't think this was always the case
Paid editing appears to be on the increase so articles about commercial organisations will increase. My perception is that this is the case but data would have to be generated to see if this is true
WP:OTHERSTUFF means that we can allow an article for a company even though their competitors do not have one. This creates an unfair advantage. It is not an issue for the likes of say Microsoft or BP since they are so well known an article on WP has no effect on their exposure, but for a small company as the one discussed here they may well get benefit from having a WP article.

I think I made an attempt to tighten up the guideline at WP:COMPANY in the past but it went nowhere. And this highlights another problem. The bureaucratic behemoth of the Wikipedia project and the conservativeness of active editors stifles any necessary change.

Sorry about the essay. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The great thing about an online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is that it is not contained by publishing costs to only cover the most important topics. There still must be some limit, so that companies no one has ever heard of, that have no reliably sourced information available about them cannot turn Wikipedia into an advertising agency. The community has drawn the line by deferring to the judgement of reliable sources about what they will bother to cover. Here, there are multiple, unambiguously reliable sources that have provided substantive coverage of the subject, the information in the article is verifiable and the article clearly meets the WP:GNG. I disagree with the notion that we need to move the line on companies to be less inclusive, but if we are to do so, it should be done at well announced RFC to change policy, not by deleting articles that currently pass the requirements set out in policy. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An AfD discussion is not a proper place to change guidelines. SL93 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs have been used as "case law" and as a means of developing or honing policy in the past. And note that I have actually put forward an argument for deletion in this specific case. To turn the tables, you now have to give a rational for your keep !vote. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Per WP:CORP. I have never said delete when an article obviously meets the notability guidelines. It is not my obligation to try to refute you in an AfD when you are proposing guidelines changes because of this type of articles. SL93 (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think perhaps the nominator has the wrong end of the stick. We have an article because enough reliable sources care to write enough about the subject for a reliably sourced and verifiable article to be written - WP:Whatever guidelines are simply descriptive of common outcomes and rewriting them does not change the fundamentals. Though Redbubble has probably made efforts for things to be written about them the fact remains that the writing has happened. Size or importance is largely irrelevant. There are large publicly listed companies that have no articles, and may not get them, as no-one writes about them. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the topic passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Discussion about changing the notability guidelines for organizations and companies should occur at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies), rather than in individual AfD discussions for articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd argue against the nominator's "run-of-the-mill" argument, this is quite a unique venture; it combines the online community thing with merchandising, and seems to be quite successful at it. The article as it stands is a bit of a smear piece, gives a lot of weight to controversy without really describing the site very well. The Interior (Talk) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disclaimer: I am the creator of the article so I have waited to comment. Firstly the article was created due to the debates that took place at BLPN, and at the Martin Hosking talk pages, over negative press about the company (Red Bubble), of which Hoskings is CEO. It was suggested by some editors that a Red Bubble article be created to resolve the situation. I felt there were sufficient sources and so I undertook the task. I vote 'keep' because I don't feel it is our policy to delete articles based on the number of employees or sales. Notability and reliable sources are the criteria. I also echo the above sentiment that negative content is being given undue weight (by other editors) in this article and would invite editors here to participate in editing it to insure neutrality. Lastly, I would say that I have great respect for the nominators massive edit history and good faith efforts to improve WP. However, nominating the RedBubble article for Speedy Deletion shows some significant misjudgment IMO as the comments here are all strong "keeps". This is probably due to fatigue and maybe spending some time on other types of WP activities for awhile would be helpful. Cheers. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't read my essay? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no need to. SL93 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the nomination for discussion but your nomination for speedy delete without discussion, in this instance, was an overzealous action in my opinion. I say that with the greatest respect for your good faith dedication and achievements on WP. Further, it was/is not my attention to offend you in any way and if I have, I apologize. Peace -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do love WP now I am getting to know it. Have kept out of discussion due to a WP:COI. I will say I am not aware of anyone connected to the entry in question who has had any role in editing it. I have kept an eye on it but I can assure you would be a very different piece if I had done any editing. Will leave it with neutral editors to evolve the article in due course. And I agree it should be kept because in and of itself it is a company which is interesting and generates interest reflected in third party verifiable sources. XcommR (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2012 (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.