Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signazon.com

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 without prejudice toward recreation or undeletion should reliable sources be found. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signazon.com

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

Contested prod. The whole thing reads like a press release, so I assume this was written by someone from Signazon's PR department (who might want to declare her conflict of interest as a gesture of good faith). As expected, the majority of the sources don't pan out. Those that do, don't cover Signazon in any way that would show notability, nor were my searches able to find any significant independent coverage. Since I do not believe Signazon is an evil company, I recommend deleting this as non-notable before their insistence on using Wikipedia as a press release service causes them further public embarrassment. Kilopi (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom reasons. The sources given are trivial at best and a search didn't bring up anything that would be considered a reliable source (WP:RS). Most of what was found were business listings and a few press releases. Doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP). Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete, and I'd say speedy delete as unambiguous advertising: a company that specializes in the rapidly growing field of online ordering and production of custom business signs, establishing technological and service advantages when compared with conventional sign companies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTADVERTISING pure promtion Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have updated the article to provide more reliable sources and anything that might read as advertising. Thank you for pointing that out. Content is similar to that of Vistaprint. The company is new but on this rise as sources would indicate. Cwinslet - 18:53, 01 December 2011 (UTC)— Cwinslet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: Relisted because User:Cwinslet has addressed some of the issues argued in this AFD.--v/r - T P 01:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only problem is that most of the sources provided by User:Cwinslet are press releases, business listings, routine notices of openings and closings, and other things that don't show notability and aren't considered reliable sources. They merely prove that the business exists. I also want to note that one of the "sources" show that Cwinslet has a clear conflict of interest, being the public relations for Signazon. [1] In other words, her entire job is to get publicity for the company. While this doesn't necessarily mean she can't contribute, it does mean that everyone should take a closer look at her edits, just as I have.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I've looked at all of the links in the article. Two of them do not mention the company at all. Three of them fall into the "business listing/business exists" category. One of them is the company's website. One is a contest notice that only briefly mentions the company as a contributor. One of them is an article about the Conan rally and again, only mentions the company briefly. Four are clearly press releases. There's only one article that I think might not be a press release [2] and it's from a non-notable and semi-dubious source so I'm not sure if it's a press release or not. This is just a clear case of a non-notable company sending their public relations manager to add a page about them and is using non-reliable sources to back up claims of notability. In all fairness, I don't think that she's familiar with Wikipedia and as such, isn't aware of that this is a huge conflict of interest and could be seen as sheer advertising, especially since her only edits have been to the Signazon page. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl79 (and thanks for trawling through that). --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Soupy sautoy (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources given don't meet reliability criteria, and I couldn't find others. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no doubt about the Advertising and such. Can we find a way not to Bite the Newbie, she did give the page a good structure and list of inline citations, I wish her well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a shame Wikipedia doesn't have a 'like' or 'recommend' button, as I'd like to say I completely agree. Soupy sautoy (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional; references mostly unreliable. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:14, 15 December 2011 (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.