343:-- WP:CORP isn't the relevant standard. This is a web publisher so it may be something a little like WP:WEB or WP:AUTH. Publishers are known, and notable, for their reach, readership, the content they publish, etc., not for their internal corporate organization. It's sometimes hard to get sources because they tend not to attract a lot of commentary - the media writing articles about itself is a kind of navel gazing that doesn't get a lot of mainstream attention despite the notability of the publication. There are quite a few reliable sources that mention Dulcinea Media and its website, although I haven't yet found a significant mention in a major third party source. There are many passing mentions in major sources, of the sort that X was covered on DM, or the CEO of DM was interviewed to say X. If the figure of 40 employees is right it is a significant web publisher. Alexa ranking is in the 20,000 range, which is nothing to sneeze at. On the fundamentals, an encyclopedic knowledge of web publishing would be aided by our covering this company, and without it the encyclopedic treatment of the field would be incomplete.
360:- I don't understand why we use a soft touch with people who promote themselves or their companies on Knowledge (XXG). Their articles are never neutral, the information is rarely verifiable and the authors themselves frequently employ questionable methods (socks, etc) to try and help their case. This article was obviously written by people directly employed by the namesake of the article and so would have to be completely rewritten to come within NPOV. This essentially means the page can be deleted until the company becomes notable enough to warrant an article written by a third party.
148:
article about one of the company's websites - this one could be reliable...but keep in mind, it's not about the article subject, just something owned by the article subject, the fourth is a link to another of their sites, the fifth is a press release, the sixth is a picture and the seventh is a link to the ASJA cautioning people from doing business with the subject.
147:
Non-notable company article created by company employees. Most of those editing this article have also spammed other articles with links to their website. The only sources in the article are: the company website, another company's website that doesn't mention the company, the third is a MediaPost
326:-- As someone who probably spent hours removing some of the spam links added by this company, pretty much without exception it doesn't appear to have any more reliability, notability, etc. as any other random blog site, these people are just more coordinated in their spamming than most.
242:
by a professional librarian (it's self-pub/blog, but it's an expert speaking in her area in her official capacity, so I think it's RS). A site that claims to do something but for which there is a reliable cite stating it does not actually
198:. Makes claims of notability, but does not back them up. If the business's only claims to notability involves media coverage of a publicity stunt it launched by hiring a naked busker, I call
219:. By inspection, appears to be an encyclopedia of sorts, gathering and report news and related-to-news topics, including good citing to mainstream media. Thus it itself could qualify as
140:
167:
107:
102:
111:
94:
17:
309:
239:
247:
support notability of the site...frauds, hoaxes, and other crap that are important enough to be reported on as such pass
384:
36:
369:
352:
335:
318:
286:
260:
211:
185:
156:
76:
383:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
365:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
98:
361:
90:
82:
348:
180:
314:
154:
248:
344:
331:
282:
234:. For its own page to exist though, of course we need it to be notable, not just reliable. Their
72:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
299:
56:
49:
256:
207:
174:
273:
policy... The fact that it sometimes cites other reliable sources means those sources meet
64:
60:
304:
149:
274:
270:
227:
220:
231:
53:
327:
278:
235:
68:
128:
252:
238:
includes numerous links/reprints of substantial mention in media. Also, I found
203:
199:
377:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
135:
124:
120:
116:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
387:). No further edits should be made to this page.
168:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
166:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
298:. Doesn't come close to meeting the
24:
1:
65:conflict of interest concerns
269:I think you need to reread
404:
370:21:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
353:21:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
336:21:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
319:04:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
287:21:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
261:22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
212:15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
186:23:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
157:22:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
380:Please do not modify it.
77:00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
302:notability standard. --
63:. Article has serious
223:, or at least clearly
240:this recommendation
91:Dulcinea Media, Inc
83:Dulcinea Media, Inc
44:The result was
188:
171:
395:
382:
312:
307:
183:
177:
172:
162:
138:
132:
114:
34:
403:
402:
398:
397:
396:
394:
393:
392:
391:
385:deletion review
378:
310:
305:
277:, not this one.
204:Smerdis of Tlön
181:
175:
134:
105:
89:
86:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
401:
399:
390:
389:
373:
372:
362:Cumulus Clouds
355:
338:
321:
292:
291:
290:
289:
264:
263:
232:seems to think
214:
189:
145:
144:
85:
80:
48:as marginally
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
400:
388:
386:
381:
375:
374:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
337:
333:
329:
325:
322:
320:
317:
316:
313:
308:
301:
297:
294:
293:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
267:
266:
265:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
222:
218:
215:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
196:speedy delete
194:, borderline
193:
190:
187:
184:
178:
169:
165:
161:
160:
159:
158:
155:
153:
152:
142:
137:
130:
126:
122:
118:
113:
109:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
87:
84:
81:
79:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
379:
376:
357:
340:
323:
315:(yada, yada)
303:
295:
244:
224:
216:
195:
191:
163:
150:
146:
45:
43:
31:
28:
200:shenanigans
176:Fabrictramp
54:non-notable
249:WP:NOTABLE
236:media page
182:talk to me
151:Smashville
217:Weak keep
345:Wikidemo
328:DreamGuy
279:DreamGuy
228:linkspam
141:View log
61:web site
300:wp:corp
230:as nom
108:protect
103:history
69:Bearian
57:company
358:Delete
324:Delete
311:crewer
296:Delete
253:DMacks
192:Delete
136:delete
112:delete
46:delete
275:WP:RS
271:WP:RS
221:WP:RS
139:) – (
129:views
121:watch
117:links
16:<
366:talk
349:talk
341:Keep
332:talk
306:brew
283:talk
257:talk
245:does
208:talk
202:. -
164:Note
125:logs
99:talk
95:edit
73:talk
59:and
52:: a
50:spam
225:not
173:--
170:.
368:)
351:)
334:)
285:)
259:)
251:.
210:)
179:|
127:|
123:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
75:)
67:.
364:(
347:(
330:(
281:(
255:(
206:(
143:)
133:(
131:)
93:(
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.