Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TickPick

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. I'm discounting the "keep" opinion by Bgoldberg17 because of conflict of interest: They have not responded to the question of whether they are Brett Goldberg, one of the founders of the site at issue, and so I am proceeding under the assumption that they are. Notably, they uploaded File:Tickpick Logo.jpg with a CC-0 license. Sandstein 08:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TickPick

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

Created by WP:SPA - Who is refspamming(?) other articles with links to tickpick.com (not WP:RS)

Adding "guest commentary" from non WP:RS and assumed to be closely associated with the editor: here

Added link spam to blog.tickpick.com: here

WP:GNG - Fails
WP:PROMO

adding links to tickpick: here here

Possible WP:COI (note editor's username) PeterWesco (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. There is "Significant Coverage" from numerous and "reliable" "sources" all which are "independent of the subject".

~~*Keep~~ - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. This company / organization is notable due to the fact that it has been the subject of significant coverage by secondary sources. Coverage by numerous reliable sources has been of depth and importance providing attention to the company / organization that has far exceeded routine announcements. ~~*Keep~~ - WP:PROMO - Fails

This link added here was consistent with prior references in ticket resale, here. (Note if formatting was incorrect this can easily be fixed).

This link here was the deletion of a link not an addition and therefore cannot be considered a WP:PROMO.

Addressing the accusation of WP:SPA - After researching and learning what this means, I would consider myself as well-intentioned editor with a niche interest.

It did not occur to me that adding "guest commentary" from an online publication (TicketNews.com) dedicated to the ticket resale industry did not meet the requirements of being a reputable source, particularly when regarding topics such as the Criticism of Re-Selling [1]. In addition, the fact that there was a footnote asking for more references ("Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references."), I thought I was adding value. If this is thought to be spam or an act of a WP:SPA, I apologize and will work towards adding more value as an editor in the future.

Addressing the claims that links to blog.tickpick.com: here is spam

The added link titled "MSG Seating Chart" on the Madison Square Garden page is actually ranked #1 by google when you search MSG Seating Chart. The link that I added provides users with the only detailed seating chart of Madison Square Garden. This is searched for by thousands of people and once again, by providing this link I thought I was providing a reliable and more up to date "Seating Chart" than what was currently available Madison Square Garden.

Addressing WP:COI: In the USA alone there are 30,000 people with the surname Goldberg (one of the 1,100 most common surnames in the US): [2] Bgoldberg17 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just in the interests of openness could you just absolutely clarify what you are saying here - I'm not sure I follow your comment - are you saying that you have no WP:COI and are not the Brett Goldberg of the tickpick blog? ---- _nonsense ferret 20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant independent coverage found, so I cannot find that this meets WP:CORP ---- _nonsense ferret 20:07, 2 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.