Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skiddle

Skiddle

Skiddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional article for relatively minor site. Beyond my abilities to clean. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia

Most of the material on the page is isolated mentions, or the company's own announcement of features, or readership rankings. The admitted coi editor who removed my prod has "asked our comms dept to bring this page up to date as there are a number of additional notable mentions..." DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as I endorse tagged this article with my searches finding nothing convincingly better and even the sources the company employees now added are simply still not enough. Draft and userfy if needed as I simply see nothing better yet, SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: Promotional tool. Edited by IP editor(s) who have openly admitted to being a director of the company (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&diff=prev&oldid=691828103 ). Disruptive editing by putting links in to other pages to sell their wares. Company not notable. Using this as a pseudo-independent proclamation of importance and relevance (also the tone is very far from an acceptable level of neutrality). There's very little independent and reliable material elsewhere on the internet, and whilst their Facebook page may give the illusion of importance with its near 100,000 likes, the level of engagement suggests its true fanbase/userbase and subsequently its relevant notability is not worth of an article. If it does pass any sort of notability test, the article will have to be stripped down so bare - from what I can see on the article, every point fails to be encyclopaedic, non-promotional, neutral in tone and referenced. Rayman60 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Struggling to find more than passing mentions in reliable sources. Even if the company could be deemed notable, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to put in the effort required to turn the current article into something acceptable. Edwardx (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: I created this page many years ago WP:COI, however I haven't edited the page for a number of years and it's been edited by a large number of people in the intervening period. Skiddle is one of the UK's main primary ticket outlets and I believe they are still regarded as the events website with the largest number of events listing, they provide a service for millions of visitors to their website each month. I think they can easily demonstrate notability. Cosmicsqueaker 20:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.101.20 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Take the above with a pinch of salt. Article has only been edited by a small number of SPA editors (mostly unregistered), transparently conflicted. Obviously it's not for the company to 'demonstrate notability' - we have guidelines against which to measure that and the ability to do so without interference from the biased subject. A bit more info following a more in-depth check of notability - they only joined their industry body STAR earlier this year. Going through about 6 pages of google results, all there was was a couple of articles in industry publications, some info on small scale niche blogs, standard stuff from a public facing company like their social media profiles and duedil.com etc and not much more. They are still very far from WP:GNG in my view despite how many people they provide a service for. Rayman60 (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: I have contributed to this page a while ago, as it is a large name in the music industry here in the UK. It's easy to say it's a 'relatively minor site' based upon google searches, but being based in the UK I can vouch that the company is of an equal standing to other entries currently listed without any issues. It's a sad day when entries are being judged upon how much PR they have generated. I completely agree we do not want entries from unknown or minor companies but this is not the case here. The entry does need editing to remove the promotional language, which is perhaps the underlying issue, rather than notability? A quick google would also confirm the turnover, alexa ranking, etc (currently 255th in UK). How does this compare with entries such as Resident Advisor who have less references, use promotional language and are of less notable standing in the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.3.71 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Response - In response to the above statement: This is your first contribution from this IP address so can you please clarify which edits you made? And do you have any connection with the site?

Promotional language isn't the issue here. That IS an issue, but a separate one. One that can be fixed. And once this debate is settled, if the result is keep, the article will have to be brought in line with standards. It's only survived in its current state for this long because it has flown under the radar, however from now on I'm sure a number of editors will be aware of it and tone it down considerably. The only issue being discussed here with regards to deletion is notability. Highlighting websites that appear less notable isn't a valid argument in support of your page. If you think they fail notability, you can nominate it whilst putting forward your case based on notability guidelines (although I wouldn't suggest doing it as a purely retaliatory move). Number of references again is not an appropriate manner in which to judge an article. Tyson Fury's page has half the number of references of Skiddle, but it's not going to be deleted because that's not part of the criteria eligibility and notability is measured on. Technically, if we're whipping out Alexa ranks, RA is a more global site and ranks higher than skiddle. It also has 4 times as many FB likes and genuine engagement. And a Webby Award. Issues such as you considering it being a sad day that PR generated drives wiki qualification is a personal view, as there are published guidelines against which these debates are considered. Similarly, vouching for a website on your first contribution does not sway the discussion because the ways these things are assessed is pre-agreed, not influenced by personal opinion, no matter how passionate they are. Rayman60 (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I know someone above said they didn't have time to attempt a clean up but I've spent a few hours having a pretty good go and hopefully without all the unverified statements, citations/references from their own site/blog, promotional language, etc - I know think it can stay. I've reduced the number of references by two thirds! It's clear from what I've seen that whilst it's no Ticketmaster, the site is serving a lot of people, is well known in the music industry and seems to be fairly involved in it. If kept it'd need a close eye keeping on it so it doesn't revert back to the promotional side, I've noted the above mention of a press office making edits which we clearly don't need or want. Lancshero (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)