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. Mailer Diablo 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities Worldwide

[edit]

Delete as advertisement. Proposed deletion contested by IP user without comment. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 11:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is also an AfD for UPFRONT TV, their partner company. The creator also removed the prod on that article. Lurker ^{your words}/_{my deeds} 12:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comments from User:Sixorgansofadmittance below are carbon copies of the comments left on my user talk page after I had ((PROD))ed the article. Somehow my responses were omitted, so I've added them. (Probably no need to, but if we're going to copy, lets copy everything relevant). --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 14:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CELEBRITIES WORLDWIDE DELETION PROTEST
Dear Sir
Celebrities Worldwide is in fact an industry recognised standard, held in as much regard as a reference point as organisations such as the Press Association and the Internet Movie database. Their clients include major news organisations such as the BBC and ITN. Their website is www.celebritiesworldwide.com - I am talking from experience, as i once worked/am working in the entertainment industry. Please let me know if you still feel they are not genuine - I feel they are an invaluable source to professional industry people, not third rate hacks, who they most certainly wouldn't do business with
Thank you
SC (User:Sixorgansofadmittance)
- The article is written in such a way as to present itself as nothing more than an advertisement for the contact service. See WP:SPAM for more information. If you can rewrite the article so that it does not come across as a promotional piece, and provide some verifiable sources that establish notability and importance, I'll be happy to reconsider my position. You are also welcome to remove the ((PROD)) tag if you feel that I have acted hastily. However, if the tag is removed with the article in its current state, it will likely be brought to Articles for Deletion discussion, where other editors will likely hold the same position as I do. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETION PROTEST
Dear Sir
Thank you for your concise, swift reply – much appreciated. First of all, let me say I fully appreciate your concerns, however, I believe you have misunderstood what Celebrities Worldwide and its sister company UPFRONT TV actually does. I've just discovered how useful these services are and it would be a real shame to deny Wikipedia visitors the chance to hear about them.
Celebrities Worldwide offers official contact information for celebrities. It's an amazing resource for anyone in the media or entertainment industry to make contact within seconds with the most direct point of contact for over 20,000 celebrities worldwide.
It's sister company UPFRONT TV is the celebrity booking service and the vast range of celebrities booked by UPFRONT is, I notice, detailed on www.celebritiesworldwide.com.
Both companies have had a key role in creating some of the most high profile events which have been extensively covered by the media and consequently have had a significant impact on popular culture, trend and style over many years. This has been and continues to be a major source of entertainment and fascination to the general public as a whole.
Finally, I notice you have listings for “Nike”, “MacDonald’s” and “Wal-Mart” on Wikipedia whose content does not seem to differ greatly from the information I have provided on the above 2 services.
I trust you will reconsider.
Kind regards
SC (User:Sixorgansofadmittance)
- As I detailed in my previous response, the primary issue that I have with the article is its promotional tone. The point I was making regarding the use of the names of Tom Cruise and David Beckham is that I believe that the names were used in order to associate their names with the company, when in fact there is no evidence provided that either of them are actually associated with the company. The article should be written in with a neutral point of view in order to avoid sounding like an advertisement. The comparison of this article to articles about Nike, McDonald's, and Wal-Mart doesn't really help much. The articles are definitely not written in a promotional fashion. In fact, the Wal-Mart and Nike articles contain quite a bit of information which is negative. These are giant companies that are clearly notable. It would be very difficult to argue that the articles on these companies should be deleted due to the fact that articles such as Celebrities Worldwide have been proposed for deletion. Once again, you are perfectly welcome to remove the ((PROD)) tag if you feel that I am wrong on this issue (I am just another editor like yourself, not an admin), but I don't believe that the article would survive in its current state if it were to go to Articles for deletion. You might want to take a look at some of the guidelines and policies I have mentioned (highlighted) to get a better feel for what should be included compared to what should not be included. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 17:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Administrators are just editors, too. Uncle G 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Understood, but since Sixorgansofadmittance (talk · contribs) appears to be a newer user, I didn't want him/her to get the idea that I held any special power over the disposition of the article. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 15:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way to persuade editors is not to argue that Wikipedia visitors should not be denied the opportunity to read an advertisement, which will if anything make editors only more firmly convinced that this article should be deleted, but to demonstrate that this company satisfies the criteria laid out in WP:CORP. Uncle G 13:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per pleas of advertiser to let his ad stay on Wikipedia ;) Dark Shikari 13:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:SPAM WilyD 13:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. So, uh, what was that website URL again? Can you repeat it just one more time? wikipediatrix 13:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was www.celebritiesworldwide.com. Glad to be of help Lurker ^{your words}/_{my deeds} 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're not going to beat Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginsu. Uncle G 15:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam - Whpq 13:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SPAM. I'm always amused when a self-employed web developer claims that he should be listed because Microsoft is, or some marginal company claims to be equal to WalMart. We don't accept ads for them, either. We have articles, from a neutral point of view, if they're notable companies. Fan-1967 13:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough everyone - but what should i delete? I mean, over the years I've had excellent experiences with these guys, they're a very useful resource and they've been around for 60 years i beleive - information i beleive is int he poublic interest. Surely a brief synopsis of what the company is is ok? what about if i deleted those lists? Thanks for your help everyone!
And by the way, I'm not a "self employed web developer" - I work for a british TV company as a cameraman!I did business with these guys some years ago - apologies if it appears to be spam, there's no need to take it so personally!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixorgansofadmittance (talk • contribs) 2006-07-28 14:12:08
- Again: Please cite sources to demonstrate that this company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. Simply rewriting the article will get you nowhere. Please cite sources. Uncle G 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article slashed down to size - better? More "encyclopaedic"? All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.32.146 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-28 14:25:17
I'm currently trying to get hold of some sources - Googling to see where they've been referenced in big magazines/newspapers etc, which they have been - know this for a fact because I used their services after reading a review of them in a trade paper - Thanks Uncle G Sixorgansofadmittance 15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the article in the trade paper is a source, too. Please provide a full citation for it. Uncle G 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One reference from a very highly regarded newspaper is up - more to come soon I hope! Sixorgansofadmittance 15:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the guidelines at WP:CORP. "multiple non-trivial published works" does not mean an article where the company is mentioned once in paragraph ten. Fan-1967 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3 of 7 paragraphs are about Celebrities Worldwide, commending it as a credit to the industry - how does that not count? have read the WP:CORP and thought it copmplied with the rules... thanks Fan-1967 for your help! All the best Sixorgansofadmittance 16:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When the primary focus of the article is not the company at hand, editors employ their judgements, and this is what this AFD discussion will be more about, now that we have sources to take into account. Don't let this put you off looking for other, better, sources. Uncle G 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rklawton 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a spamvert for a non-notable company. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holy non-notable vanispamcruftisement, Batman! -- Kicking222 18:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, references are up, ladies and gents - most of the articles are regrettably not available online - can scan some copies of what articles I have (don't have copies of all of them - this is just clippings they sent me when i used them a couple of years back although the Media Week column is what originally drew me to them) Sixorgansofadmittance 11:58, 31 July 2006 (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.