Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Video

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 wasDelete suprisingly while the source didnt provide enough to address the issue with this subject, they do however provide notability for an article on Keran Wicks Gnangarra 11:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Network Video

[edit]

Procedural nomination after removal of CSD tags. Another example of Australian corpcruft that does not meet WP:CORP. A non-notable privately held company that is a master franchiser of video rental stores. No WP:RS within the article, and what information included is a copyright violation having been lifted straight from the Australian Film Commission website. The only item yielded from a google search this morning not from the company was a Business Case Study from the The Age which had heavy participation from the chain's owner so does not make the grade as a reliable secondary source. Thewinchester (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While sources have not been found, it doesn't mean they can't be found, and if it takes a little work, well, Wikipedia is work in progress. However, if the company itself is reasonably capable of meeting the notability thresholds, sometimes it's best to give it time to develop. FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However given the fact that the article mentions "Network Video" implies notability. Heliumballoon 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:N says. Orderinchaos 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assume we have a hypothetical company "X". We find only 2 articles then discuss "X" directly and talk about its opperations. But we do find company "X" being quoted tangentially in many articles, for instance company "X" is sought for advice on topic "y". Each reference by itself is very little. Many small references together imply notability. Same thing here. Additionally in this ones considers that the company has 400 stores. The conglomeration of these facts implies notability. Heliumballoon 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a situation which WP:N accommodates - we don't "assume" notability by some faulty process of deduction, we work on facts based on what is actually in front of us. In fact, normally, a book or peer reviewed journal article written about it would be required to meet the standard, and many companies do in fact have one. Also 400 stores is questionable, and if it did confer notability, what is the bar? 200? 129? Who decides? This is why we have policies. Orderinchaos 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that "no independant reliable sources can be found" is both lazy and wrong. Neil ╦ 09:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's on the findarticles one? I get some dodgy looking box warning me about adult files on my computer then my firewall knocks the thing out. As for the others, Network Video from what I can tell is not the subject of any of them except the mybusiness.com.au article, which looks awfully primary sourced. Orderinchaos 11:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Come on Neil, half of those links are from places which don't meet WP:RS (Like MyBusiness, which is just an advertorial). The existing article is a copyvio of the Australian Film Commission (last time I checked), and is only a list of potential companies who may be interested in film investment. Findarticles makes no reference to the business, so try again. ICMI is a speaker management bureau, so does not meet WP:RS, the ABC is an interview regarding scratched DVD's and does not confer notability by association just because the ABC interviewed the women, plus doesn't even make reference to the company or talk about them. You can sit here going round and round in circles here, but the subject of the article does not meet WP:CORP specially when throwing in the above links which you're trying to pass off as both reliable and independent of the subject. It's a franchise operation which owns no stores itself, so that rules out the size of the company as a claim to notability. Seriously, i've been dealing with corpcruft for ages now, and if this comes out as a keep or no consensus then it'll be flicked straight up to a DRV where they'll have no problems culling it. Thewinchester (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah, no it won't. DRV is not AFD II. If you "flick" a discussion up to DRV just because you don't like the consensus, it will - rightly - be laughed out. DRV is for determining whether process was correctly applied, it's not the Supreme Court. Neil ╦ 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, four hundred stores? Notable. Lankiveil 11:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, Firstly if it has 400 stores then its notable Wikipedia:Use common sense. So often people get so caught up in technicalities they forget common sense. Secondly I have found some articles that reference the store.
  • 1 There's no rest for the Wicks, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia), June 22, 2004 Tuesday, BUSINESS; Pg. 27, Olga Galacho
  • 2. No charge for the Truth, Caulfield Glen Eira Leader (Australia), March 19, 2007 Monday, CKV Edition, NEWS; Pg. 19, local Melbourne publication
  • 3. Success for this chain is in the returns, The Age, Friday, 24 June 2005
  • 4. All eyes on the movie battle, Courier Mail (Queensland, Australia), April 22, 2004 Thursday, THE GUIDE; Pg. 6, Jason Davis
  • 5. Video rental firms plan expansion in Thailand, 1998 THE NATION (BANGKOK), November 19, 1998, News. Not about Network Video.
  • 6. Supermarket shapes up, Stonnington Leader (Australia), January 31, 2007 Wednesday, NEWS; Pg. 24, local Melbourne publication, also not about NV It does mention network video - the same Network Video chain we are talking about. See here for another article explaining how a couple "have a loyal customer base, having successfully operated the site as a Network Video for the past four years. "With no other grocery or liquor retail outlets in the near vicinity, the couple began selling a range of milk products as well as introducing a designated café area in their Network Video shop." [2] This is from independent retailer magazine and Peter and Anna Panagiotou are the same people mentioned in article 6.
I found more. The sheer audacity of editors in assuming that articles could not be found is astounding. Heliumballoon 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that only one of these (the Bangkok Post) have the entity as the *subject* of the article, and that one is an advertorial - I've looked at each of the articles. This is Wikipedia, not a business directory. Orderinchaos 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that a newspaper decides to do a whole article on a particular corporation - even if it is advertorial - implies that is is notable. Otherwise they would not have done it to begin with. Heliumballoon 10:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the references above. Zivko85 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Utterly fails WP:N, although I must admit the founder is an incredibly good marketer! I am particularly concerned about the voting on this AfD - the above 12 references are a smokescreen. On a quick read of them (I have access through my university to a news service which allowed me to do such), most if not all were interviews with the founder Keran Wicks, articles in local rags, blatant adverts or press releases, and even one dangerous spam link which tries to load software onto one's computer and should *never* have been linked from a Wikipedia article. The "Australian Government" link is actually the Australian Film Commission's list of providers which are written by the companies themselves. The Bangkok Post ref was completely misleading as it did not even reference Network Video (it was entirely about a competing chain, Video Ezy). I would not stoop to call those above "lazy and wrong", but there is certainly some question about pots, kettles and the colour black. Wikipedia MUST in order to maintain public confidence deal with self-promotion efforts by businesses as a key priority - it would not be allowed within the Britannica, and for good reason.Zivko85 23:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google News Archives gives some sources for this amongst a sea of false positives. [3]. There is a Herald Sun article confirming the 400 stores claim so that makes it notable enough for mine. KeepCapitalistroadster 03:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, others on this Afd have been able to find RS. 400 stores and a bit of common sense says this is notable. John Vandenberg 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 400 stores it is clearly a keeper. [[User talk:Savin Me|Savin Me]] 05:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Struck as vote placed by blocked user while under block. 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The size of the chain should be a reasonable determinant notwithstanding the video industry in Australia is somewhat volatile. That Network video is just a master franchisor is not relevant - so is McDonalds! I note that a more durable (but fading) chain Civic Video has no article, yet a small, defunct Queensland based chain Video Flicks does. Video Ezy has been around for much longer, although on size basis Network Video is comparable. On balance, what counts against this article is probably the johnny-come-lately nature of the subject, but maybe err on side of retaining. Murtoa 12:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about alleged 400 stores - Can anyone find a non-self-sourced ref which says the unusually rounded 400 number? whitepages turns up barely over 100, most of which are in suburban Melbourne and Brisbane (which would explain the community newspaper refs in Melbourne), and only 16 in WA and 14 in SA. Video Ezy, Blockbuster and even Civic Video chuck up *far* more in each state. I could almost visualise Monica Attard right now commenting sardonically on her voiceover man saying "400" in about 5 different voices from the above sources. (Note my 100+ is OR, but simply strongly suggests the 400 is way out per common sense. As an unlisted company with therefore probably no prospectus, it's sounding as much marketing fluff as the claimed customer bases of some ISPs which I've been acquainted with.) Orderinchaos 12:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is some solid evidence Firstly the age article asserts this here. [4]. Secondly you can go to their store locater page and check each of their locations yourself. I did if for WA and came up with 34 stores. See here [5]. And if you are still not convinced you can look each up in the white pages. Or you could even call each store to verify that they do exist. Heliumballoon 13:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "solid evidence" is a republished press release and a primary source. I am totally not convinced. Sorry, I've worked in too many fluffy environments and got too many of my own words in print in major publications to see this for anything other than what it clearly is - a company which is excellent at getting its press releases and standardised "interviews" published on a hard-luck-battler-founder-gone-big story which newspapers when short of a story love, and is basically a local video chain with no place on an encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 13:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: not all franchises are called Network Video. eg LEDA VIDEO SHOP 6-7 FIELMAN DRIVE W.A., 6167 (08) 9419-2434
I have never heard yet of a company listing store location on its website that do not exist. If you think its wrong, why not call a few and find out? How about we take a randomized sample? Lets say 5 from each state. Why not call them and see if they really exist?Heliumballoon 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A general guide - the shopping centre the above is in wouldn't be notable for an article (bigger ones have been deleted before on here), so why should the store? This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel IMO. Your suggestion would involve significant original research. Wikipedia works on verifiable information (i.e. can be verified) about notable subjects from reliable sources independent of the subject (i.e. excludes reprinted press release stuff) where the company, in this case, is the subject of the article. This is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory or White Pages. This place doesn't have a book written about it, and probably never will, so many of the claims can never be tested through a publishing process. It's not listed on the stock exchange. All anyone can find is republished press releases. Orderinchaos 13:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clear up a few issues. All I was trying to do was to show that it has a significant number of stores. You seem to not believe that they exist. I was just trying to show you some evidence that they do exist. Once one has a directory of stores the onus is on the disbeliever to show that they do not exist. No original research is required. If a company has 400 stores and is quoted in the media then its notable in my book. Why? It goes to the heart of what notable means. If there are 400 stores in a business and its mentioned in the media that means that a lot of people know about. A lot of people shop there. It becomes part of human knowledge and it is no longer trivial. Heliumballoon 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say I do not agree with the above. Notable has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and original research would be required to phone a string of stores and ask them "Are you a Network Video franchise?" The onus is on the article's defenders to prove that it meets criteria, for one. Secondly, the media's uncritical repetition of wild corporate claims does not make them true, or non-trivial. Orderinchaos 14:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, I think we need to put some perspective in here. Heliumballoon is a user with a grand total of 22 days of registered contributions. I can't speak on if the user may have contributed under an Anon IP. Since registration, his only major contribution to WP is to the article Unsolved problems in chemistry, which is the subject of a current AfD due to significant POV issues. Looking further through his contributions history, his AfD contributions seem to demonstrate to the casual observer an inherent misunderstanding of numerous WP policies including WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V. He also seems not to assume good faith and accuses people with a deletionist pre-disposition as trolling AfD. I have to be honest here and with due respect to the user, but I don't think that they are either qualified and experienced enough in the ways of the Wiki to participate in the AfD process, particularly when there seems to be some level of conflict of interest shown with their contributions. I don't mind participation in AfD's, I think it should be encouraged. What I do mind is users who've not taken the time to understand both the policies and process making unhelpful contributions here. I've already mentioned this, but i've dealt with people like this many times before (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out Now Consulting (2nd Nomination) for an example) and they all use the same arguments over and over again. When its all said and done, their good intentioned arguments never hold weight despite the number of WP:CB styled links they use to try and assert WP:N. Thewinchester (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your Ad hominem argument is really not the point. If someone makes a logical argument - either accept it or rebut it. I think this article should be kept for the reasons I have stated above. If you disagree then make a counter argument. I have tried to constructively show that this subject is notable by providing various sources that I have shown. I have not assumed bad faith here and I have not launched any personal attacks. I would appreciate it if you would do the same. Heliumballoon 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only comment I'll make re the above is the "deletionist" business - speaking only for myself of course, but I vote keep as many times as I do delete, and have rescued a few articles from certain elimination by appropriate (non-original) research (and even unspeedied the odd article and massively upgraded them per sources). However, there is a distinction to be made between article quality and article non-notability. My strongest suggestion to any editor is to work with Wikiprojects, watch others and see how they work, and then try and get a few duddish/tagged/substub articles on notable subjects which desperately need coverage to B-class or GA. The experience gained in doing so is invaluable. Orderinchaos 14:41, 5 June 2007 (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.