965:
exactly what this article is. If the article is full of poorly sourced information with links to that poorly sourced information, and the only "reliable" source provided is to a non-link source, then it smells fishy. Taking into account the previous intermingled SPAM from SgSmartCar and Asia Food Recipe, this smells even fishier. Unfortunately for you, both myself and
Stalwart (sorry for speaking for this editor) have by our comments above attempted to prove your case for your; however, we have been unable to do so. Logic tells me that if this company is truly notable, there would be more online than just press releases. Tons of press releases and no online reliable source? No one is asking you to provide a hand delivered copy of the source, but you need to look at this logically and stop repeating the same bad argument about a source that may or may not exist.
887:
marketing company isn't going to fly? These aren't press releases from the company, they are news articles. It is up to the papers how they display their news. They are a marketing company, would that news not be readable content for people who read newspapers? and should only be sent to internet users?? Of course not. As for proving existence of the newspaper articles, I believe this is a MASSIVE flaw in
Knowledge (XXG) by the look of things. How am I supposed to prove it to you? Hand deliver a copy of that newspaper to each and every editor that questions its existence?
765:- The newspaper articles do this, there are 3 individual articles all of which are independent and aren't trivial or incidental. Because the articles are from printed media, this seems to be a problem to some. However we shouldn't be deleting an article because editors can't easily view the references. It is not impossible to view these references, they are from large media outlets in Singapore. Just because some editors can't click a link to establish notability shouldn't be a reason to delete it.
488:- Conversion Hub are a marketing company, I think we can all agree on that. It is clear that they have carried work out for Asia Food Recipe from the article you have uploaded. However there is no link on wikipedia, from IP addresses or users that have worked on both articles. To say that Mr. Fu is responsible for the Asia Food Recipe articles, simply has no substance as an argument.
702:- While still assuming good faith, there are IP !votes being made in addition to the creator of the article. Not implying a sock puppet, but would request that the discussion closer please take into consideration the IP voter on this deletion discussion and the two similar IP !votes on the previous deletion discussion. --
846:
here. Everything is press releases and reprints of press releases. Oh yeah, let's thrown in the company website as well because that's independent? The articles that you cite more than likely do not exist or are just additional reprinted press releases which is what it sounds like from the title of
466:
of the Asia Food Recipe article or the fact that it appears that the article was also full of sourced press releases? Either Mr. Fu has a history of spamming information into
Knowledge (XXG) or Asia Food Recipe is a client of Conversion Hub who tried to spam the article on Knowledge (XXG) for them.
837:
issue. You quote, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." Great quote, but you need to interpret it for what that means, not what
795:
lies with you to demonstrate that the company is notable. You claim these sources exist; I, for one, don't believe you. The
Straits Times, for example, has a lovely search function. Despite your claim that one of their articles substantiates the subject's notability beyond doubt, a search of their
990:
and as such the article does not stand much chance of survival unless the "reliable" references that you put in the article are somehow verified. This has NOTHING to do with a flaw in
Knowledge (XXG), but the flaw in how you created the article full of junk and then expect everyone to believe the
964:
It is not a "massive flaw in
Knowledge (XXG)" as you state. The flaw is with individuals who need to use Knowledge (XXG) guidelines to contribute to this discussion so a consensus can be formed. Sorry, but there is a flaw with humans that we simply do not trust something that is "fishy," which is
368:
for this article, I just went through and tagged each one in the article. Each tag has an explanation of why it needs a more reliable 3rd party references (press release, reprint of press releases, press release from another company with minority stake in company, company's own website). The only
886:
Stalwart - You make some good points until the Haha at the end, which is incredibly childish. It surprises me that the articles aren't still online. Just to clarify, 2 of them were - the deadlink (not sure if it has been removed now), and the Zaobao article. The articles not being online for a
635:
works, especially given the article itself, in my view, fails points 1 and 5 of that guideline in that the sources in question are obviously self-serving press releases, created to promote the company, and the article itself is primarily based on those sources. How very convenient that the
390:- All three printed newspaper articles are credible references. They are three leading newspapers from Singapore. You seem to be merely repeating yourself for the past 4/5 weeks if you include the first AfD. I think other editors of the AfD need to take this into consideration.
594:. I don't fell that any of the points made in these references make the subject sound like something its not. The key points that are covered are about the size of the organisation and who they work with. Both these points are covered in the 3 printed media references.
586:- I believe the article is more than credible. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but three articles as mentioned above by the IP user are all credible PRINTED media articles. The fact one of them has a deadlink doesn't matter. This in my opinion meets
808:
to be online (for an online marketing company) isn't going to fly. Who the hell publishes a substantial article about an online company but then doesn't publish it online where the biggest market for such news would be? Ha ha. No.
528:- You could be correct about the same person not editing any of the three articles. Of course, you are referring to the usernames and IP addresses, not what a checkuser would find out. Regardless, I believe I will rely on
185:
992:
84:
763:
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.
873:
I wrote the article on
Conversion Hub, and want to discuss that. That is the reason I haven't joined in with your SPAM discussion. As for your other points I don't even think they are worthy of addressing.
455:- Article creator is correct with their comment above. My conduct of trying to keep spam out of Knowledge (XXG) should be taken into account. In fact, I found another reference for Conversion Hub
851:
is seriously flawed. Also, you have been rather quiet to comment on the SPAM that this company keeps putting up on
Knowledge (XXG) (including this article, Asia Food Recipe, and SgCartMart). --
838:
you "want" it to mean. I would agree that if you had "multiple independent sources" that they could be considered as a group to be a single reliable source and be counted towards
320:- after looking over the first nomination and the points here, nothing has changed. The article is still built around credible news sources from leading Singapore news outlets.
277:
360:- I'm sorry you feel that using these sources is an acceptable way to SPAM Knowledge (XXG) with this content. As opposed to continuously explaining why each reference fails
257:
297:
138:
179:
79:
145:
559:- most of the current sources are from the company - either from the company's site or press releases - and I'm not convinced what is left is enough to meet
678:
369:
references that should be kept are 12 and 13, although they are lists and would only go to support awards, not show notability of the company. --
463:
620:
514:
346:
111:
106:
928:
that they exist, they are reliable, they are significant coverage and thus the subject is notable. You gotta see the humour in that!
17:
115:
1004:
941:
896:
860:
822:
774:
747:
728:
711:
694:
665:
603:
576:
545:
497:
476:
443:
399:
378:
329:
309:
289:
269:
249:
63:
738:- Just an observation, but no one has mentioned the companies awards? Just think this should be pointed out for future visitors.
391:
342:
321:
236:. Company advertising and promotion does not belong on Knowledge (XXG). For an article to be created, the topic must first pass
98:
616:
510:
200:
804:
results. Like I said above - your claim that the only sources that confer notability are also the only sources that happen
167:
1027:
40:
1000:
856:
707:
541:
472:
437:
374:
245:
921:
save your advertisement aren't available to the rest of us mere mortals and we simply have to take the word of a
719:- At this time it does not seem to meet CORPDEPTH or have any hope of RSes existing to cover it in that detail.
677:- one of the company's main clients had an equally poorly sourced article that I've just nominated for deletion
161:
724:
459:
632:
591:
157:
456:
395:
338:
325:
848:
834:
758:
587:
560:
233:
102:
1023:
996:
934:
852:
815:
703:
687:
658:
569:
537:
468:
370:
241:
36:
983:
207:
334:
94:
69:
720:
193:
792:
413:
221:
991:
sources that can only be verified by you. I believe at this point that the article has a case of
892:
797:
770:
743:
612:
599:
506:
493:
458:. So how is Joel Fu and Conversion Hub related to Asia Food Recipe? Also, can you comment on the
925:
217:
224:. The remainder is press releases. Creator has contended that a few of the references are from
917:
Um no, your argument is a joke and I laughed; I have a sense of humour. The only sources that
305:
285:
265:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1022:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
987:
533:
529:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
929:
810:
682:
653:
564:
173:
922:
839:
365:
237:
361:
229:
225:
467:
Either way, this type of blatant promotion should not be allowed on
Knowledge (XXG). --
432:
888:
766:
739:
608:
595:
502:
489:
59:
995:
as there is really nothing that can be done to improve it or establish notability.--
301:
281:
261:
563:. Happy to consider potential sources but the deadlinks don't inspire confidence.
132:
416:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
425:
54:
216:
Non-admin closure of debate as no consensus. Re-nominating pursuant to
993:
Knowledge (XXG):No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
1016:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
590:. Secondly, the additional references are in accordance with
532:
on this one and say based on how they are written with
128:
124:
120:
192:
85:
Articles for deletion/Conversion Hub (2nd nomination)
423:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
206:
982:The article actually falls into the definition of
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1030:). No further edits should be made to this page.
847:the articles. As such, your logic that it meets
278:list of Advertising-related deletion discussions
228:(which I have also debated). Even if these were
536:that they are all related. Just my opinion. --
258:list of Singapore-related deletion discussions
298:list of Business-related deletion discussions
232:, the coverage is little and therefore fails
8:
652:confer notability. Yeah, not going to work.
296:Note: This debate has been included in the
276:Note: This debate has been included in the
256:Note: This debate has been included in the
220:. Company has only passing mentions and no
295:
275:
255:
77:
52:. clear consensus after the relisting
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
80:Articles for deletion/Conversion Hub
364:and how none of them can add up to
76:
24:
644:available to other users are the
240:which this one falls short of.
1:
842:. Here in lies the problem -
844:THERE IS NOTHING INDEPENDENT
787:need to be online. But they
783:That's exactly right - they
1047:
1005:18:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
942:21:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
897:15:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
861:14:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
823:14:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
775:13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
748:13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
729:12:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
546:18:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
64:05:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
1019:Please do not modify it.
712:20:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
695:00:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
666:00:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
604:18:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
577:15:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
498:18:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
477:15:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
444:14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
400:09:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
379:20:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
330:08:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
310:16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
290:16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
270:16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
250:12:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
631:That's not really how
75:AfDs for this article:
621:few or no other edits
515:few or no other edits
347:few or no other edits
623:outside this topic.
517:outside this topic.
349:outside this topic.
791:need to exist. The
833:Let's address the
48:The result was
624:
518:
446:
350:
312:
292:
272:
1038:
1021:
997:FoolMeOnce2Times
938:
853:FoolMeOnce2Times
819:
757:- In regards to
704:FoolMeOnce2Times
691:
662:
606:
573:
538:FoolMeOnce2Times
500:
469:FoolMeOnce2Times
442:
440:
435:
430:
422:
418:
371:FoolMeOnce2Times
332:
242:FoolMeOnce2Times
211:
210:
196:
148:
136:
118:
34:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1028:deletion review
1017:
936:
817:
793:burden of proof
689:
660:
571:
438:
433:
426:
424:
411:
153:
144:
109:
93:
90:
73:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1044:
1042:
1033:
1032:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
923:single-purpose
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
866:
865:
864:
863:
828:
827:
826:
825:
778:
777:
751:
750:
732:
731:
721:ChrisGualtieri
714:
697:
671:
670:
669:
668:
626:
625:
580:
579:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
520:
519:
480:
479:
449:
448:
447:
420:
419:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
382:
381:
352:
351:
314:
313:
293:
273:
214:
213:
150:
95:Conversion Hub
89:
88:
87:
82:
74:
72:
70:Conversion Hub
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1043:
1031:
1029:
1025:
1020:
1014:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
985:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
943:
940:
939:
933:
932:
927:
926:promo-spammer
924:
920:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
898:
894:
890:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
862:
858:
854:
850:
845:
841:
836:
832:
831:
830:
829:
824:
821:
820:
814:
813:
807:
803:
799:
794:
790:
786:
782:
781:
780:
779:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
753:
752:
749:
745:
741:
737:
734:
733:
730:
726:
722:
718:
715:
713:
709:
705:
701:
698:
696:
693:
692:
686:
685:
680:
676:
673:
672:
667:
664:
663:
657:
656:
651:
648:sources that
647:
643:
639:
634:
633:WP:SELFSOURCE
630:
629:
628:
627:
622:
618:
614:
610:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:WP:SELFSOURCE
589:
585:
582:
581:
578:
575:
574:
568:
567:
562:
558:
555:
554:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
524:
523:
522:
521:
516:
512:
508:
504:
499:
495:
491:
487:
484:
483:
482:
481:
478:
474:
470:
465:
461:
457:
454:
451:
450:
445:
441:
436:
431:
429:
421:
417:
415:
410:
409:
401:
397:
393:
389:
386:
385:
384:
383:
380:
376:
372:
367:
363:
359:
356:
355:
354:
353:
348:
344:
340:
336:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
254:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
209:
205:
202:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
159:
156:
155:Find sources:
151:
147:
143:
140:
134:
130:
126:
122:
117:
113:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
86:
83:
81:
78:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1018:
1015:
935:
930:
918:
849:WP:CORPDEPTH
843:
835:WP:CORPDEPTH
816:
811:
805:
801:
788:
784:
762:
759:WP:CORPDEPTH
754:
735:
716:
699:
688:
683:
674:
659:
654:
649:
645:
641:
637:
588:WP:CORPDEPTH
583:
570:
565:
561:WP:CORPDEPTH
556:
525:
485:
464:2nd deletion
460:1st deletion
452:
427:
412:
387:
357:
317:
234:WP:CORPDEPTH
215:
203:
197:
189:
182:
176:
170:
164:
154:
141:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
984:WP:LIPSTICK
800:- produces
619:) has made
513:) has made
345:) has made
180:free images
798:right here
761:- I quote
392:94.56.9.68
335:94.56.9.68
322:94.56.9.68
1024:talk page
302:• Gene93k
282:• Gene93k
262:• Gene93k
222:WP:SIGCOV
37:talk page
1026:or in a
931:Stalwart
889:Adel4570
812:Stalwart
767:Adel4570
755:Comments
740:Adel4570
684:Stalwart
655:Stalwart
640:sources
617:contribs
609:Adel4570
596:Adel4570
566:Stalwart
511:contribs
503:Adel4570
490:Adel4570
414:Relisted
343:contribs
218:WP:NPASR
139:View log
39:or in a
988:WP:PUFF
796:site -
534:WP:PUFF
530:WP:DUCK
526:Comment
486:Comment
388:Comment
358:Comment
186:WP refs
174:scholar
112:protect
107:history
840:WP:GNG
717:Delete
557:Delete
366:WP:GNG
238:WP:GNG
158:Google
116:delete
50:delete
919:might
785:don't
650:might
462:and
362:WP:RS
230:WP:RS
226:WP:RS
201:JSTOR
162:books
146:Stats
133:views
125:watch
121:links
60:talk
16:<
1001:talk
986:and
893:talk
857:talk
802:zero
771:talk
744:talk
736:Note
725:talk
708:talk
700:Note
679:here
675:Note
646:only
638:only
613:talk
600:talk
584:Keep
542:talk
507:talk
494:talk
473:talk
453:SPAM
428:czar
396:talk
375:talk
339:talk
326:talk
318:Keep
306:talk
286:talk
266:talk
246:talk
194:FENS
168:news
129:logs
103:talk
99:edit
937:111
818:111
806:not
690:111
661:111
642:not
572:111
208:TWL
137:– (
55:DGG
1003:)
895:)
859:)
789:do
773:)
746:)
727:)
710:)
681:.
615:•
607:—
602:)
544:)
509:•
501:—
496:)
475:)
398:)
377:)
341:•
333:—
328:)
308:)
300:.
288:)
280:.
268:)
260:.
248:)
188:)
131:|
127:|
123:|
119:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
62:)
999:(
891:(
855:(
769:(
742:(
723:(
706:(
611:(
598:(
540:(
505:(
492:(
471:(
439:·
434:·
394:(
373:(
337:(
324:(
304:(
284:(
264:(
244:(
212:)
204:·
198:·
190:·
183:·
177:·
171:·
165:·
160:(
152:(
149:)
142:·
135:)
97:(
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.