Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraftwurx

Kraftwurx

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

Article is in my view promotional only, and does not assert notability. And was deleted as such trough CSD. A user has expressed concern however that my judgement is biased because I live in the same country as one of the offices of one of the companies competitors, and may therefor not be neutral on the matter. Community discussion can't do any harm. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete the current article is clearly promotional - the only link provided is to the company's "sell" page. How much more blatantly promotional can you get? Leaving that aside, the lack of independent, published sources means there is no way for readers to verify the article and it clearly does not meet either of the applicable criteria for notability: WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Indeed, the article does not even assert notability. I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion under CSD:A7 and G11. Both of these still apply. Full disclosure: like the nominator, I too live in a country. Sparthorse (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy allows for several "layers" notability tests including the addition of the hangon tag to ask or request additional credible references. This was not allowed.

Additionally: According to Wikipedi's own terms in A7 & G11 is as follows:

A7 States - The A7 "criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

If at least 5 unbiased referenced can be provided is that sufficient to satisfy this requirement? How many must be provided? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5??? What exact (non arbitrary) "credibility factor" is being used? Something concrete, quantifiable perhaps?

G11 states that "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

Under the argument of A7 for deletion justificsation: Compare the content of Kraftwurx against say... shapeways and then explain the argument that the content on shapeways is not advertising while the content on kraftwurx is advertising?

If the argument under A7 holds true then the argument for G11 also holds true. Under the argument that G11 was grounds for speedy deletion, Kraftwurx holds as little content as Shapeways and are fundamentally indifferent. if so, what argument are you actually using to qualify the deletion?

Additionally: A request was made to add the "Hangon" tag to give time to add references to the article. This was denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcn0209 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability standards are clearly laid out in WP:N. That guideline says "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". These are the non-arbitrary standards you are looking for. Has Kraftwerk been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent, published sources? Multiple means at least two, preferably more.If you can provide these, the subject will likely be deemed notable. For further details see both WP:GNG and WP:CORP which deal, respectively, with how to show notability in general and for companies specifically. As for the promotional aspects, as Martijn Hoekstra already clearly explained to you, just because another article does not meet Wikipedia's standards, does not mean this article does not have to meet the standards. The only question that bears on whether this article should be deleted is if this article is promotional or not. In its current state, it clearly is promotional, in my opinion. But, even if it was rewritten to be neutrally worded it would still not be notable. Sparthorse (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a pretty thorough search and couldn't really find anything that would count as a reliable source. What I did find would be considered promotional pieces put out by the company. There's only one sole article that might be considered reliable [1], but as Sparthorse said, we need more than just one source. It doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP at this time, although I think that Bcn0209 should look into whether or not he could potentially userfy the article until the time comes if/when the company has enough reliable sources to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep I expect to see this deleted, and perhaps rightly so, for lack of 3rd party coverage. However this business sector, outsourced 3D print, is a growing and important one. I expect to see Kraftwurx as a very obviously notable player in this field before long, even if article is currently premature. Once again Wikipedia seems to be making itself ridiculous with repeated calls to delete Makerbot, Thingiverse, Shapeways et al and it would be a shame to act over-hastily on Kraftwurx too, just to satisfy WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you yourself note, the deletion proposal is based on lack of 3rd. party coverage, so where do you get the impression its being deleted to "satisfy WP:IDONTLIKEIT"? Sparthorse (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily this article, but recent comments on anything related to 3d printing (mostly favouring rolling a whole bunch of unrelated topics up into one mish-mash article) have been based on equal parts ignorance and bias. We should be careful not to jump on another article for the same reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and thanks for the explanation. That context is very helpful. I'm a big fan a 3D printing and want to see it covered properly on Wikipedia. I just don't think this article fits with our standards. If that's not the case (i.e. if there are indeed good reliable sources about Kraftwurx) I'd be delighted for it to stay and will change my !vote. I don't think anyone here is saying that the article should be deleted on anything except clear policy grounds. Sparthorse (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plain advertisement. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think the page should be deleted. A7 does not apply to this article: "criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Regardless, I still believe this article is noteworthy, as the expansion of the 3D printing market is intriguing to me. Although the Kraftwurx website is new, there is still evidence of publications and press releases months and even years ago. I may just be wrong, but I believe there is a following of Kraftwurx and there are definitely publications of Kraftwurx from outside sources.

In addition, I don't view this page as a promotional article. The Kraftwurx page simply states that it is a 3D printing company, elaborates on what it does more specifically, then follows up on the system it is ran on. I may not be right, but I believe that this page isn't promotional, and I don't think A7 has effect on this page. In my opinion, I think this page shouldn’t be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.44.234 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this deletion discussion is not based on CSD:A7 (even though I believe this applies). CSD:A7 is only for obvious cases of deletion. Since this article's previous speedy deletion was challenged, we are here to discuss whether Kraftwurx meets Wikipedia's standards for notability of companies, which is WP:CORP. I am glad, however, that there "are definitely publications of Kraftwurx from outside sources." Could you give us linkes/references to those publications? That is exactly the evidence we need to demonstrate that Kraftwurx meet's WP:CORP and therefore the aricle should not be deleted. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POLICY VIOLATION Wikipedia policy is very clear. Internet privacy law violations are a serious matter. When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Comment removed. User reported.