Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Video

Network Video

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)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Well, I don't know if it's related to this company, but I know there are other Network Video stores in other places. I'm not sure what to do, but I can get plenty of results on [1] that indicate there's a fairly major chain using the name in the US. I'd suggest disambiguation. Mister.Manticore 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The US company is unrelated to this Australian company as far as I am aware, but if it was to survive AfD then a disambig would be appropriate. Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 400 stores throughout Australia seems to be notable enough provided independent reliable sources can be found. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That's the problem Mattinbgn, no WP:RS can be found on this company, who is essentially a national franchise operator. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Mister.Manticore 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP. A store with lots of outlets does not necessarily a *notable* store per Wikipedia policies make. Orderinchaos 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:CORP. Lacking references is not sufficient grounds for deletion - they are out there:
  • Australian Government Advert.
  • Newsbytes Totally violates External link guideline.
  • Info on founder Primary sourced.
  • Virgin Blue Primary sourced
  • My Business Primary sourced.
  • ABC Not actually about Network Video.
  • Dilanchian Not about Network Video.

However given the fact that the article mentions "Network Video" implies notability. Heliumballoon 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what WP:N says. Orderinchaos 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "no independant reliable sources can be found" is both lazy and wrong. Neil ╦ 09:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Keep, four hundred stores? Notable. Lankiveil 11:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
• 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)

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)

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)

I have reviewed the references above. Zivko85 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep With 400 stores it is clearly a keeper. [[User talk:Savin Me|Savin Me]] 05:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)