Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Information and Services (2nd nomination)

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 keep per the most recently added sources which appear to establish notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Information and Services

Fails WP:CORP also potential WP:SPAM, note previous deletion discussion was hijacked by proven sockpuppetry not enabling a fair discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The organisation is verifiable and notable. It has been in existence for 13 years, has offices in several countries and 60+ employees. The article is abundantly referenced. Censure nominator for disruption to WP. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability aside, very few people have been "censured" for "disrupting Wikipedia" with their opinion on an article's notability. If Wikipedia did that, there'd be the risk that someone would not list something deletable because of this "censure". If you're going to make a claim about this calling for censure, at least point out this was only on AFD 3 days ago!. And with that, check out my vote. Chris Picone! 04:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst the article is abundantly referenced they are not third party references and do not provide verifiability. I appreciate that Gene Poole has an opinion about the return of this to AfD so soon after the first listing, however the nominator is correct that the initial AfD included strong discussion by the prominent author (who clearly indicated a COI issue) and two other editors - all of whom have been identified and blocked as socks of each other. Towards that fact this AfD should continue its full measure to determine an accurate consensus.--VS ^talk 03:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are at least 4 reliable third-party sources independent of FI&S already cited in the article, among them the US Library of Congress, an accredited institution of higher education and a peak national industry body. Please do not make deliberately misleading comments to the contrary. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out which ones you feel are those 4 here at this AfD and I will be happy to reconsider based on your evidence.--VS ^talk 03:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Perhaps you should actually read the article. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being in business for 13 years, having 13 offices in seven countries and 60+ employees doesn't make it automatically notable and also agree with VirtualSteve that the article doesn't have verifiable third party sources. Bidgee (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are at least 4 reliable third-party sources independent of FI&S already cited in the article, among them the US Library of Congress, an accredited institution of higher education and a peak national industry body. Please do not make deliberately misleading comments to the contrary. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith which the comment "Please do not make deliberately misleading comments to the contrary." is not in good faith. Bidgee (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to disrupt WP by making deliberately misleading comments in order to attempt to influence the outcome of an AfD. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In no way am I disrupting Wikipedia nor am I trying to mislead an AfD. Stop assuming bad faith. US Library of Congress doesn't even make it notable. Have you looked at the document? Bidgee (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the Library of Congress is an unreliable source, then the onus is on you to prove it. As it is, making such a ludicrous unfounded assertion seriously calls into question your ability to function successfully as an editor within the WP community. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're using this AfD to make some rather uncivil and bad faith remarks about editors, This AfD is for an article not editors and if you think that this is about being uncivil and assuming bad faith to editors who do not have the same view and use the AfD to be disruptive then you've picked the wrong forum to do so. Also I didn't say that Library of Congress isn't reliable! I said it fails to state the notability of the subject which is Fish Information and Services. Bidgee (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit your comments to the subject of this AfD nomination, and provide a justification for your assertion that the Library of Congress is not a reliable source. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making uncivil and bad faith comments in the AfD. Read what I said, I never said that "Library of Congress is not a reliable source" I said it fails to "fails to state the notability of the subject". Bidgee (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks against, and posting uncivil comments about other editors. Notability is established for the subject of this article by nature of the fact that multiple reliable independent third party sources - including government, academic and industry organisations - note its existence and support its first party assertions. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no personal attacks here nor have I posted uncivilly when trying to deal with a editor who is not assuming good faith and being uncivil. There is not "multiple reliable independent third party sources" within the article and the Government source fails to state notability of the subject (as what Matilda has said below) and any claims that I'm deliberately adding "misleading comments to the contrary" is a insult and is a unsubstantiated claim. Bidgee (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated personal attacks and incivility, and repeated false assertions that cited third party sources do not exist, when they do exist, is evidence of disingenuity, stupidity or malice. Personally, I don't care which it is - but if you do it again, I will report your behaviour. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Comment I have struck through this personal attack rant and I request Bidgee to ignore it as best he can. I note for the record that I have blocked Gene for 31 hours at this time - that will give him enough time to return to this debate in a different frame of mind and hopefully enough time to consider that calling another editor names in this way is inappropriate - something for which he was warned against by another editor during the course of the debate.--VS ^talk 05:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Comment Thank you for your input Gene. Please note the reference referred to above relating to the US Library of Congress only provides for existence of this entity, it does not provide any assistance in relation to notability. Can you tell me/us the other 3 references that you consider are helpful so that we can reconsider our views?--VS ^talk 03:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First you say that there are no independent sources to establish verifiability, and vote to delete. Then when I point out that there are such sources, you ask me to point them out to you. In other words, you voted to delete the article using a justification which you assumed to be correct, without bothering to actually check the cited sources. Such behaviour is irresponsible, blatantly disrespectful to other editors, disruptive to WP, and generally inappropriate at quite a number of levels. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this and the first AfD closely Gene - I have actually gone through every reference and I do not find any that meet the requirements of Wikipedia - and which you say exist. However I do not think that I am only voice at Wikipedia, nor do I believe that I have some emperor like status to decree with absolute infallibility, and so I invite you to indicate to me how you see (now 3 left) particular references as being suitable. If you could please do that instead of attacking everyone that disagrees with you here then we would all be most willing to consider the validity of your comments.--VS ^talk 04:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not your mother. I've already told you what to look for. Go find them for yourself. I did. It took me all of 15 seconds. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked closely at your photo Gene - you are quite correct you are not my mother, and indeed I am relatively confident you are no-one's mother by proof of that same photo. I think we can all take it that you are unwilling to give detail of your other three references - and at least two of us have now read through the first one you gave and we do not see the claim of notability that you aspire to for this reference. Cheers.--VS ^talk 04:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This debate was closed 3 days ago!. Editor should have participated in that discussion, and as nothing at all has changed on the subject, this appears to be an attempt to get a different result. Though I should assume good faith, so it's perfectly reasonable that the nominator just did not know of the last debate. Chris Picone! 04:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of the previous recent discussion. However, it was hijacked and caused major distraction by proven sockpuppetry that attempted to influence any fair discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I quickly caught my mistake and was about to strike through it then bad things happened to my net. Fixed. Chris Picone! 04:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Chris - nice to have you back on Wiki (changed as you say) by the way. Welcome back.--VS ^talk 04:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the website does not meet the notability criteria at WP:CORP or WP:WEB. The external sites included in the references are only passing mentions and do not meet the criterion that The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself - for example the library of Congress citation http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/03Aug/RL30856.pdf Congressional Research Service - The Library of Congress states in realtion to this site
Fish Info Service [A, F]. A Japanese-based information resource reporting on fishery, processing, and aquaculture industries world-wide, Fish Info Service offers a broad range of international news that is frequently updated at [http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/]. Although news headlines and brief stories are available on this site, access to the full text of news items requires a paid subscription.
Fis.com is one of many sites they list and is given no more emphasis than many others. To my mind this reference falls within the exclusion of Trivial coverage, such as ... (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores. The other references are similar. I am very surprised that a business that has been around since 1995 could be so under-reported. If I look at the site, it would look to be important - fishing is a major industry and this may well be a major player in that industry. But if it were important then I would assume it would have references to support that notability - I have searched diligently and I can't find any.--Matilda ^talk 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sigh... such a tedious waste of time. I confess I really just don't understand the deletionist mindset. I argued the case just a few days ago. It is incumbent on the current swarm of deletionists to carefully read and consider what was said by myself and others in the previous AfD, and not just dismiss those positions because some else was muddying the water. There are good reasons why it is difficult with sites of this type to establish noteabilty. I am satisfied, nonetheless that the site is an important player in the fishing industry, and have informally confirmed that with fisheries professionals I am in touch with. After the previous kerfuffle I would have thought the article would have been allowed, at least, a decent period of grace to see if something more acceptable turns up. Ah well... deletionists must have their way. In the meantime we could all have jointly have produced at least a couple of decent new articles with all the energy that has gone into this. Go ahead, waste even more energy, and then delete it. Eventually it will be reinstated, and all this energy will have been a complete waste. Anyway, I'm out of here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (reinstated, since sockpuppet seems under control)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of non-trivial independent sources, WP:COI, spam, and sockpuppetry - a combination almost invariably absent where subjects are genuinely notable. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as disruptive. The previous AfD closed just three days ago. This is POINTy and out of process. A completely uncalled for AfD. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Close as disruptive per Jim Miller - I didn't have time to weigh-in on the 1st AFD but it would have been Keep as well. What concerns me as a WP editor is the precedent this AFD would set. An editor doesn't like the No Consensus or Keep decision on an AFD closed days before so they just re-nominate it hoping that the deletes will outnumber the keeps the next time. It's just as disrupting as blatant canvassing because it forces all those who weighed-in as keeps on the previous AFD to do so again--not a productive use of an editor's time. Per Geronimo20, we need to find ways to keep WP content, not ways to delete it.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this AfD disruptive? The last AfD was disrupted by a proven sock puppet which affected the out come of the last AfD. If there had been no sock puppet then I don't think there would have been another AfD as the out come would have been different (whether if it was keep or delete). Michellecrisp is a well respected editor in the Wikipedia community and I'm sure she would have thought hard about this before relisting on valid grounds. Bidgee (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bidgee, agreed. Renominating after a short period of time is of course not normal practice. However, my renomination was based on the fact that proven sockpuppetry did not enable fair discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could you please clarify on what grounds you would keep the article, AfD process is not grounds to keep usually, and the process has been disrupted by sockpuppetry and incivility. For clarity - I note that delete !votes were posted on the 1st AfD by myself, Euryalus, Stifle, Michelle Crisp and Virtual Steve. Keep !votes were posted by Geronimo 20, DGG, Jjamison, plus a weak keep by Fiddle Faddle, keep by author (*2 - who was later blocked for sockpuppetry), plus a keep by Gene Poole (who suggested that I was single purpose account and the 1st nomination was spurious and the 2nd nominator should be censured and who has since been blocked for one month for abusing other editors during this debate.) Few of the keep !voters have actually addressed the notability guidelines - Geronimo20 has: he is basing his opinion on it is difficult with sites of this type to establish noteabilty. I am satisfied, nonetheless that the site is an important player in the fishing industry, and have informally confirmed that with fisheries professionals I am in touch with. I personally remain unsatisfied and have posted my views above with reference to the guidelines.--Matilda ^talk 21:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you must have read what was actually said in the last AfD Matilda, particularly since you were the nominator. So I'm disappointed you choose to misrepresent my position like that. What I also said was: "This issue simply comes down to whether or not a suitable source, external to the company, can be found... The organisation is known as FIS, and FIS, unfortunately, is an acronym widely used for other purposes. Google shows over 20 million hits. This makes its very difficult to filter out references for the FIS we are after. Also, the site seems to get most of its traffic from non English speaking areas. The other difficulty is that this is a specialist site, aimed at managers in the seafood industry. It is a tool that insiders know about, rather than a site that is the subject of interest in the general media. What turned me round to thinking the site is notable was examining the link for "User comments" which can be found on the left sidebar of the main page of FIS, towards the bottom. If you actually check these organisations out, to see if they exist as notable companies, together with the names of their claimed managers, then for the most part they check out. Clearly FIS could not get away with these claims if they are false. It was this fact that decided me, some time ago, that the company was indeed notable. However, this somewhat indirect evidence is not in a form that can be cited in Wikipedia. So my position is that the company is notable, but there remains the task of finding an appropriate supporting citation." DGG added: "... even clearly notable information services are difficult to get information on. The supply information, but nobody thinks to write about them".

Discounting Spindoctor and his sockpuppets, there were three keeps and a weak keep, against four deletes (Euryalus, Stifle, Michellecrisp and VS). Anyway, more time down the drain. Like you Matilda, I'm thoroughly jaded with this (particularly after trying to jolly Spindoctor along!)--Geronimo20 (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed read what you said in the last AfD - my point was not to requote all your comments. I apologise if you think I have misrepresented you position - I quoted what I saw as the essence of your comments this time around. I am delighted that you have chosen to repost your comments from the last debate but ... While I respect that you have more of a sense of what might or might not be important to the fishing industry, there are no reliable sources to support your view. I have not merely googled fis.com, but googled and other searches within sites such as the New York Times (hence my one find from that journal last time) and also in other permutations including the CEO's name to try and bring things up. Not the easiest search target for sure, but one of the reasons is I believe there isn't anything there. If there had been I think Spindoctor69 would have provided it. --Matilda ^talk 02:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One source I found a review of fishing trade publications in the Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) which, on the second page, devotes 3 or 4 paras to the subject of this article. I think that's one WP:RS MadScot (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that is a useful reliable source with content that could be usefully added to the article. I appreciate I am now a little bit jaded with the whole debate but ... I am not sure actually if the reliable source confirms notability to either WP:WEB or WP:CORP standards - it is not significant coverage in more than one source - we need a couple of sources. I note that the source provided states FIS so far has had only a few profitable months, but added that his company is "very close to achieving profitability." To me lack of profitability is kind of an indicator of lack of notability - not entirely fair and outside the guideline but ... --Matilda ^talk 01:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Profitability But if that were a criteria then half the British motor industry entries could be got rid of, and I don't think the BBC has ever made money either ;-) MadScot (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) (somewhat tongue in cheek)[reply]

Hmmm - I realise that is not part of the guideline, but unlike the BBC this is a for-profit company and unlike the British motor industry which was profitable once, this is yet to be profitable. It isn't a defining criterion but it makes it a little less interesting - any suburban garage might do better. --Matilda ^talk 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about an article which is 6 years old! Some of this information shows notability, but the part about profits was written in the post-dot-com bubble era. Of course it wasn´t making profits then, not many people were. But if it has survived for 6 years then surely it must have made profts since! I vote to keep this article, it´s a useful resource within the market and is interesting reading. There is no real reason to delete it, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and somthing this big within a market is worthy of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.82.69 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC) — 190.246.82.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 190.246.82.69 has been identified (and now blocked) as a sock of User:Spindoctor69, the creator of the article. That the creator used sock puppets in a misguided attempt to support it should be irrelevant here, but !votes, if any, by this editor should be disregarded as probable COI. --Abd (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references supports notability:
alexa.com. Directory entry only.

ZoomInfo. Contact information only.

LinkedIn. LinkedIn entry.

About Us. Self-provided directory entry.

Puget Sound Business Journal. Subject mentioned on second page in passing, more a comment on its new owner's business plan.

CIFT. Mentioned in a directory of web resources.

alexa.com. Traffic graph, indicating not in top 100,000 sites measured.

ffa.int. What appears to be a self-provided description in a directory.

BC Sardines. An "other links" reference without comment from an industry association.

Congressional Research Service - The Library of Congress. A single paragraph blurb in a 21-page summary of online information sources relating to fisheries, aquaculture, and marine mammals.

[1]. Describes as a "useful website" with a one-paragraph blurb, in a list of 40 or so blurbs on various industry topics (from 2004).

spc.int mitc.com. A short paragraph captioned "New website" in a newsletter comprised primarily of substantive articles.

Projections of Future Bristol Bay Salmon Prices. Mentioned once as a source of wholesale prices in a 170-page article.

fis.com. Own website.

fis.com. Own website.

Nothing in the article text leads me to an inference of notability. The fact that despite obvious attempts, these were the best references available leads me to believe that no claim of notability is likely to be supportable. Bongomatic (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insignificant, per Bongomatic's research above. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentRegardless of the notability of the subject, this discussion is really about whether or not the first AfD was closed properly - that is discounting the susupected sockpuppet votes. That discussion (regarding the propriety of the original close) belongs at DRV, not back here at AfD. If the original closing admin has already discounted the socks when determining that there was no consesnsus, then the default action is to keep and we should not be having this discussion. If the socks were not taken into account when reaching that determination, then this is a debate about the closing and is properly handled at DRV. Either way, without some kind of intervening act, a second AfD after three days is inappropriate. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No - this is not a debate about the closing, this is a debate about Fails WP:CORP also potential WP:SPAM and it has been relisted--Matilda ^talk 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article which has a lot of info on the company. By the looks of things here, most of you will find a reason to shun this but i´ll add it anyway. - [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.82.69 (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source establishes notability! That´s what this discussion is about! don´t delete my contributions please. This comment was added by 190.246.82.69, identified (and now blocked) as a sock of User:Spindoctor69, the creator of the article. That the creator used sock puppets in a misguided attempt to support it should be irrelevant here. --Abd (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said last time, importance in the industry is demonstrated, though the sources could be better. However, even clearly notable information services are difficult to get information on. The supply information, but nobody thinks to write about them--this problem appears with a great many organisations, services, and businesses in the information sector, and surfaces with many computer industry and publishing industry related articles. Those of us involved professionally with providing or organizing information, tend to do so for others, and don't write much about ourselves. The article seems descriptive to me, not like an advertisement, and the sources show the importance. Whether they meet formal guidelines is secondary--the guidelines are guidelines intended to be flexible with exceptions, there';s no serious question that the actual key policy can be met, that the information can be verified. If something is clearly the major player in an important human activity, and we can get information, that's good reason enough for an article DGG (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, there is plenty of room for disagreement as to the technical notability of this site (i.e., the sourcing for notability is marginal if we simply read WP:NOTE literally). Further, the article may have been created by an editor with a COI, motivated to publicize it. But that is irrelevant to its notability, and it doesn't make the article, itself, into spam, and the article has been massively edited to remove promotional text from it. Calling the article "spam" says nothing about the article itself, or the notability of the topic, and massively disregards the opinions of other established editors that have been expressed here. I'd urge the closer to disregard a !vote based on "spam," it's a spurious argument, possibly based on bias from the previous AfD, where COI issues were prominent. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DGG and others; DGG is, in particular, a librarian, and should be considered an expert on matters like this. FIS itself should be considered a reliable source in its field. Obviously, with regard to information about FIS itself, we should find independent sources, but it appears that sufficient independent sources have been found to establish notability. --Abd (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous citations in Google Scholar. This seems to be a case of trout rather than spam. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That the web site is cited does not seem to be a criterion in WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Google scholar search moreover comes up with only 20 hits at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=%22Fish+Information+and+Services%22 - I can't see that this is numerous in the scheme of things. I did not see that any of these articles were asserting the importance of the site - just they had referenced it. --Matilda ^talk 22:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of Google Scholar is that scholars are using FIS as a source they consider sufficiently reliable to reference in papers or other publications. Given that I've attempted to defend articles on topics with *no* Google Scholar citations, and those articles were marginal (i.e., AfD could have gone either way), 20 hits is significant. It's useless to debate if that is "many." It's correct that this doesn't in itself establish notability, it's simply another weight to put on the scale. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, notability is not a matter of importance but I have added a citation supporting the position of the site as the world's largest online provider of fishery information. Your contention that the topic is not notable is clearly mistaken. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, CW added a reference to an article in the English on-line service of People's Daily, specifically about FIS, and calling it the "World largest fish-related information center."[3] --Abd (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not establish notability; I may have nominated for speedy delete as spam.--otherlleft (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2008 (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.