Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capstone publishers

Nowadays, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capstone publishers has become a widely discussed topic of interest to both experts and the general public. From its origins to its impact on today's society, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capstone publishers has been the subject of numerous research and debates in different areas. In this article, we will thoroughly explore the importance of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capstone publishers, analyzing its different perspectives and providing a comprehensive view of its relevance in the contemporary world. From its influence on popular culture to its impact on the global economy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capstone publishers deserves detailed and critical attention to understand its true reach in our society.
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. While there is not a clear consensus that the subject of the article is non-notable, there is consensus that the current article is unacceptable and Wikipedia is improved by its removal. A neutral article based on reliable sources that neither quots nor paraphrases company marketing materials may be acceptable. But until one is written it is better to keep deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Capstone publishers

Capstone publishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedily deleted 4 times, once for copyright, three times for blatant advertising. Article is substantially the same, but last speedy deletion request was removed by an editor other than the author rather than using the hangon process. The company meets notability requirements. All references save one are to self-published company websites. No verifiable sources listed for facts stated in the article. Based upon the WP:ORG criteria, under the advertising section, it appears that the main reason is to direct the reader to the websites of the company (including its subsidiaries). GregJackP (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - notability is not the issue in the nom. The article is basically the same advert that was speedily deleted 4 times. (GregJackP (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC))
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no doubt that the company exists, but I couldn't find any reliable source which has commented upon the company in a significant manner. The main sources are press releases or the company's own websites. Does not meet the appropriate notability criteria - WP:ORG. SilkTork *YES! 18:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I went back and looked at four areas of the article. Individual sentences are either directly lifted from copyrighted sources (the reason for the first speedy delete) or extremely close paraphrasing of copyrighted material. See the article and its talk page for more information. (GregJackP (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC))
  • Delete - even I can't find a reason this article should be kept. I can't see any way this could be recrafted to meet WP standards. Even a complete rewrite would hit half the WP:NOT landmines. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are enough sources. The article as currently written does not comply with WP:NPOV. It should be stubbed so that we can start from scratch to remove the promotional tone.--PinkBull 14:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - After looking around, I can only find references on the company's own website or on a PR website. There's no establishment of notability by the article and the website of the company offers little more than whitewash. The only exception is this article which barely mentions the company. While the nom may take no issue with WP:N, I respectfully do. I do, however, agree with the nom's argument under WP:ORG, advertisement. Either way you spin it, or however you rework the content, the article fails to meed WP standards for inclusion. AP1787 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia