Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safetray (2nd nomination)

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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safetray

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

Article fails WP:CORP. Article was re-created by Carolinewhitham (talk · contribs) (Office Manager at Safetray Products Limited), after being speedily deleted a week ago at AFD. Notably, they even were Braging about it on their website. Seems they also "Spiked the football" on both Twitter and Facebook boasting that Safetray was "gettin' wiki with it". Has several links but they seem to be limited and trivial coverage or mentions. All fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" for Safetray Products Limited. Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You'll note that I was the one who deleted the article a week ago — but as spam, not for notability issues — and that I was the one who moved it into mainspace. Since Caroline wanted to recreate it, I told her to recreate in userspace, and at her request I reviewed it before moving it. I was slightly concerned by the sourcing, but there's enough present here for me to believe that it's independent and substantial. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still blatant promotion, its still COI spam and it is still not notable. The issues then and the issue now remains - it is sourced with press releases, buisness relationships, distributors and trivial coverage or mentions which all fail WP:CORPDEPTH. --Hu12 (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was the editor which passed it the first time from AfC to the mainspace, afterwhich it was speedily deleted. I think it has indenpendent, verifiable and reliable sources (Times and Metro) and is the main subject of the articles. That, I think, is sufficient to display notability. (Of topic comment: Safetray is not a company or corporation, it is a product.) Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article's subject doesn't pass notability muster. If we keep it, I want an article on my cat. And my Dad's book. Heck, I want an article about the ten-pound tomato featured in our large, metropolitan newspaper but, just because it was written up doesn't mean it merits a WP article. My question: Do the authors/proponents of this product's article have any connection at all with the product or its inventor? The answer to that question would be telling, methinks. A more global stewardship question we should all answer: Should we allow Wikipedia--and the hours we invest therein--to be hijacked for some peoples' personal monetary gain? Posting "We're in Wikipedia" on Twitter or Facebook is rarely, if ever, an indicator of good faith. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The creators of the article don't affect its notability. Only the sources and article content do that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said; please do not attempt to put words in my mouth. And, yes, if the creators/proponents of an article are WP:COI, it surely does make a difference; it casts a shadow of suspicion over the entire process. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:GNG, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources:

Morris, Adam (6 December 2011). "Alison's topple free server is a wow with the drinks industry". Edinburgh Evening News. Edinburgh.
Tweedie, Katrina (13 June 2011). "Mothers of invention". Daily Record. Glasgow. Archived from the original on 13 June 2011.
Askeland, Erikka (April 15, 2012). "Investment scheme passes £1m milestone". The Scotsman. Retrieved June 10, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Safetray Serving Tray Reduces Accidents". Restaurant Management. May 29, 2012. Retrieved June 10, 2012.

Also, per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary, and once a topic has received significant coverage, it does not require ongoing coverage to establish notability. —Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's creator, I've hesitated to comment because I've been worried that my input would not be considered relevant given my vested interest, but I feel I should try to put my point of view accross openly. I hope that I have now complied with all necessary steps to disclose my connection with the company - I deliberately chose my own name as my username right from the start in order to be transparent about my position, and have now added a disclaimer to my userpage so that anyone interested can see that I work for the company. It was never my intention to brag as though I had cheated the system or got one over on Wikipedia - I've been a long-term fan and anonymous editor of spelling and grammar for many years. I did get overexcited about writing the page and getting it approved, but have since removed all mention of the page on our website and social media platforms - I honestly did think I was doing a good thing, however miniscule in the grand scheme of things, by bigging up Wikipedia and driving traffic to our article. I hope that the notability questions over the page's sources have been answered above - the main difficulty as I see it being that our most notable article, the one in The Times, is hidden behind a paywall and the article can't be easily accessed to establish its length and scope. However, I do have the article archived [| here] if anyone would like to see it. I hope that the coverage we've had in The Scotsman will also be taken into account - although it is a regional newspaper, it is Scotland's second largest newspaper by circulation and is widely read across the whole of that country. Full disclosure - I hadn't personally included the Restaurant Management source given above, which has since been added into the article, as it was actually a reprint of a press release that I sent them, so I'm happy to see it removed if others feel it should be. All other sources mentioned have been written by third parties. If there is anything further I can do, I am very open to suggestions - as a newbie writer, I know there are no doubt many mistakes I've made and may make in future. Carolinewhitham (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Carolinewhitham[reply]
Delete per clear promotion, as already recognized by the closer in the first AfD (with whom I disagree in this process). Without putting words in anyone's mouth, I'd like to give my own take here. While I disagree with her actions, I commend the page creator for "playing it straight" in this discussion. I really appreciate the reliable User:Northamerica1000 for providing a sample of sources; this gives us information upon which to base such a discussion. IMHO, if somebody NOT connected with this product created this article, we could have a fair discussion on the merits of inclusion. Since an editor who had the most direct kind of COI created the page, we're unable to have the discussion we might be having: Safetray refers to at least three products: this serving tray, an Arizona-based sharps device, and a New Zealand-based dental tray. If promoters of those products had as much money to generate and elevate local press (plus the boldness to breach COI policy here), we'd be discussing them. User:Carolinewhitham has put Wikipedia in the position of choosing to pick winners here; this is exactly why we have a COI policy. Company representatives have used Wikipedia purely for first mover advantage/search engine optimization, then bragged about it on Twitter and Facebook. In this discussion, we're considering rewarding a company for bold misbehavior. Applying RS to this advertisement defends and justifies the misbehaviors, and because of the Twitter and Facebook exposure encourages COI page creations in the future. Allowing a keep outcome here is the worst kind of IAR and sends exactly the wrong signal to others intending the same self-serving ends. BusterD (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've taken the liberty of discussing this COI issue at WP:COIN, since to my surprise it hasn't been discussed there before. ~~I'd also like to request a second relist so more editors can weigh in on what I see as a major issue being discussed in a narrow forum.~~ BusterD (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On being asked to consider my statement above I re-read what I wrote, and see I have assigned a motive of my own imagining. This was entirely incorrect, and I have struck through this part of my assertion. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the sources cited by User:Northamerica1000 establish notability in complianece with WP:GNG. Potential WP:COI issues for the article have nothing to do with the whether an article passes WP:GNG. Article can be tagged for WP:NPOV if there is a problem. We do not delete articles as a form of punitive punishment. --LauraHale (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources shown above are more than enough to represent the notability of the product, per WP:CORP. It seems that a prior version of the article had an issue with a promotional tone, but that it has been rewritten and better now. What the company does elsewhere is of no concern to us, all we need to focus on is whether it is a notable subject and that it is written neutrally. Silver seren^C 21:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - but only because I believe the sources are sufficient and appear to be of rather high quality. -- WikHead (talk) 05:11, 19 June 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.