KidStart (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing administrator PhantomSteve said the reason he deleted the article was due to a consensus to delete. I would like to appeal stating that the 2 nominations given for deletion where given on the day the article was re-listed (11th May) from the first deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidStart, even though it was suggested for re-listing the article that it should be edited, which i did (considerably) on the 13-14th May. Since then (13 days ago) no comment or nomination was made for the 2nd deletion. This was endorsed by Tim Song who re-listed the article to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached on 19th May. Since then only myself made any additional comments and no nominations where made.

So this system has a slight flaw, in that the article was deleted a 2nd time taking in the nominations of administrators who commented on the day the article was re-listed from the first deletion and as such the article hadn't been revised as suggested. In effect basing the consensus on nominations based on the FIRST Deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidStart NOT the amended article for the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidStart (2nd nomination). Therefore i would state the case, that these 2 nominations are outdated and as such bare little relevance. Meaning and i quote from Wikipedia "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed."

Additionally initial comments suggested the reason for deletion was insufficient coverage of a significant nature to justify the article's existence, even though the article had since been updated with various links to reputable printed press articles The Times, The Guardian and Daily Express including a Youtube clip from the BBC News, lovemoney.com, as well as illustrating to the administrators web coverage at Google.co.uk News Archives for kidstart and Google.co.uk General Search on Kidstart, as there was slight confusion with regional google variations.

An additional reason i feel strongly to reinstate this article is that I fail to see how this article is any different to similar Wikipedia articles: Quidco, Internet Cashback, Top CashBack (note: all with similar press citations) (plus see other articles listed under Wikipedia category: Reward Websites), except that KidStart is unique as it only benefits children and charities, so is it for this reason Kidstart should be penalised and deleted whilst these other articles have escaped this kind of scrutiny and remained on Wikipedia?

I would gladly appreciate any guidance and comments, also the chance to reinstate the article. Thank you Emmamme (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator has a real case here.

  I think what we have here is a defective debate rather than a defective close. I'm afraid that the remarks that informed the close were simply wrong. I like DustFormsWords and he usually has good judgment, but in this case he implied that this source (which was cited in the article) is a press release or based on a press release, and I don't think that's right; The Times is a very reputable source, it differentiates very clearly between advertisements and journalism, and the article's entry there constituted significant coverage. This source is also reliable and not a press release, though in this case the coverage wasn't significant. The youtube video is an interesting case. Wikipedia doesn't normally judge youtube as a reliable source, but in this case the "real" source is the BBC—which argues that it too is strong evidence of notability.

  It's highly unusual, on Wikipedia, to overturn three deletions that took place in quick succession, but I'm persuaded that there's a genuine argument in favour of doing so and I would encourage DRV contributors to examine the sources with close attention.—S Marshall T/C 12:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. You've had so many bites that there's no cherry left. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, refrain from insulting the author, and add inline citation format for those external links which were used as references. – Athaenara ✉ 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion. Should we start by userfying the article into Emmamme's userspace, then Emmamme can add the additional source(s) there and we can evaluate? The XFD closer did say there was no obstacle to recreating if new sources could be found, and this would be the standard process in that situation (even if generally it would not take place so soon after the AFD discussion). I have looked at the Googlecached version and at the BBC/Youtube video and remain personally unconvinced that the sources are independent enough (seem like marketingspeak to me...), but I am only one voice (a cynical one at that) and I'm not sure if the cached version is the most recent one anyway. Through no-one's fault, the endgame of the AFD debate was essentially only Dustformwords reacting to Emmamme, and not even to her latest version, which is not much of a consensus. Suggestion to Emmamme if this suggestion is followed - I would be clear that the video source you are adding is a BBC program (show, time, date), which happens to currently be available on Youtube, as opposed to saying the source is a Youtube video. For the obvious reasons, we generally do not use Youtube videos to establish notability. Martinp (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Martinp, an excellent suggestion - however, I have listed all the references and external links below (I got an edit conflict when I clicked on "save"!)

• Comment from closing admin I did spend about 10 minutes looking at the references, as this was the main issue in the arguments for deletion. Here are the references and links in the deleted article, and my comments on them:

  References:

  1. The Times, "Use a Child Trust Fund to give your kids a head start", retrieved 3 April 2009 Cash in with KidStart Fancy turning your weekly grocery shop into a way of making money for your child? Then make sure that you sign up to KidStart. Backed by the Financial Services Authority, KidStart is a savings club that boosts your child's savings every time you shop online. When you make a purchase from one of the 200 retailers in the scheme, up to 20 per cent of the value of your transaction will be deposited in your child's desiginated savings account or Child Trust Fund. For example, Marks & Spencer donates 4 per cent of the cost of your purchases, so £100 spent online will add £4 to your child's savings. John Lewis, meanwhile, donates 5 per cent each time you shop on its website. Other scheme members include Mothercare, Boots, Thomas Cook and Ocado. For more information and to register free, go to kidstart.co.uk.

     This looked to me like it came from a press release or press pack, rather than the totally independent work of the Times journalist

  2. The Observer, "Shop and save with KidStart purchases", retrieved 3 May 2009 Shop and save with KidStart purchases: Two of the biggest Child Trust Fund providers lauched earn-as-you-shop savings schemes last week. Family Investments and F&C are offering parents the opportunity to sign up to the KidStart programme as a means of topping up their CTF accounts, so that each time they buy something online through one of 320 retailers, a percentage of the purchase value will be paid into the account. The scheme includes several big-brand family retailers such as Mothercare, Early Learning Centre, Boden, Tesco and Argos, offering an average of 5% cashback on purchases. "KidStart gives CTF owners an easy way to save - every time you shop you can be putting a bit aside for the future of your kids, at no extra cost to you," says Julian Robson of KidStart. The scheme is open to existing and new CTF customers. Visit kidstart.co.uk to register your details

     Again, this appeared to me to be a press release-based paragraph

  3. "KidStart Blog - LivingwithKids". http://www.kidstart.co.uk/livingwithkids/

     The website's own blog - used as a reference for the sentence KidStart launched a popular parenting blog LivingwithKids[3] in 2009

  4. The Sun, "Stop the lonely mummy trap", retrieved 23 Feb 2010

     Not about the site, used to confirm the sentence It is written and edited by family and lifestyle journalist Liz Jarvis

  External Links

  1. KidStart - Official Website

     The website itself

  2. Saving tips for your child future - BBC Breakfast News

     A 26-second item: This is one of the best sources, being on a national news station - but is a 26 second mention enough? My feeling at the end of looking at all of the references and external links was that it was not.

  3. Save for your Kids For Free - Lovemoney.com 05.12.08

     An article about the scheme, but is Lovemoney.com counted as a reliable source? I was unable to ascertain this, and the website does not have a Wikipedia article to help me ascertain it

  4. Use a Child Trust Fund to give your kids a headstart - The Times 03.04.09

     This is the same as reference 1

  5. Twenty Ways to Save Cash on the Internet - Daily Express 03.05.09 "Website Kidstart.co.uk allows you to direct your cashback savings into a child trust fund for your child or grandchild."

     This is not "significant coverage", as required by the notability guidelines

  6. The Good Web Guide - KidStart "KidStart www.kidstart.co.uk: KidStart is a free shopping club that allows its members to collect cash savings for their children, grandchildren, friend's children, school or children's charity when shopping at a wide range of retailers, service providers and other similar companies. EARN SAVINGS AS YOU SPEND The aim of KidStart is to help parents and grandparents do that little bit extra for their families in as easy a way as possible while maintaining the necessary standards of trust and security. With an ever expanding network of retailers and partners, members can continue to save more over time. HOW DOES IT WORK? Say you spend £100 at M&S. You earn £4 in KidStart Savings, which goes to your kids. KidStart is not your typical loyalty programme. There are no points, no membership cards, no hassle, no catches, no hidden charges. Just cash, for kids, for free - its simple. Joining is easy, it doesn't require a lot of information, and KidStart automatically take care of everything else: tracking your transactions, collecting savings and paying it into your child's nominated account. RETAILERS Shop at over 300 well known retailers, from Argos to Waitrose. With 91 fashion retailers, 70 home retailers and many more outlets, it's never been easier to do that little bit extra for your kids."

     I note that they have a subscription model: "From 1st September 2009, we have introduced a new subscription model, which is an annual fee of £150 exc VAT. This entitles a company to a full page on our site with editorial and a link through to the site concerned, as well as two images and two text links that deeplink into product pages. Images and text links can be changed up to four times a year." - does this make The Good Web Guide independent or reliable? As the Guide does not have an article on Wikipedia, I have no way of checking this.

  7. F&C Investments - Official Website - I found the relevant page (the link just went to F&C's homepage) at http://www.fandc.com//new/press/?id=81919&PageId=18533590&source=fnetsearch&locale=UK "02 Apr 2008 - 14:38 Pay into child trust funds while shopping: Parents will be able to save for their children's future as they shop, thanks to a new scheme. Free savings club, KidStart, will pay money into a child's trust fund or saving account whenever parents use certain online retailers, reports the Press Association. The scheme is not just limited to parents, with grandparents, family and friends able to register to add to a child's savings, while pregnant women can also save before the child is born. Chris Hodgson, co-founder of the savings club, told the agency: "KidStart is a simple option for parents and others who want to do a little bit extra for their child or a child they know." Over 200 online retailers are attached to KidStart, including Asda, Mothercare, Next and Toys R Us, with plans to expand the scheme onto the high street, and offer returns of between one per cent and 20 per cent of the amount spent, with some offering lump sum incentives. KidStart is free to us and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Details of how to register can be found online."

     This appears to be from a Press Release that F&C investments were quoting (note "...reports the Press Association"), and so not an independent source of information, as a press release would be issued by the company themselves.

  8. Liz Jarvis - Mad Awards "Liz Jarvis is one of the UK's most respected and prolific family and lifestyle journalists. She has worked for magazines and websites including Real, Shape, Closer, love it!, Top Santé, Practical Parenting and madeformums, as well as running her own highly successful Mummy blog, Living With Kids, on behalf of Kidstart."

     Not about the website or the company - it confirms who Liz Jarvis is

  After looking through these, my feeling was that the coverage was not significant, hence the conclusion I drew that the consensus was that the article should be deleted.

  Incidently, I would like to remind Emmamme what I said on my talk page: When I was closing the AfD , the existence or otherwise of other, similar articles is not relevant. Those articles may be well-sourced from reliable sources with significant coverage, or they may perhaps be worthy of discussing at AfD themselves - in either case, they have no bearing on the closure of this AfD. I would also like to point out that this is not a case of 'picking on' a charitable/noble cause - I would have closed the same way if the scheme existed purely to make someone richer in other ways! Personally, I feel that the website is a good idea (and may well look into it further for my kids!) - but that does not mean that it is suitable for an article.

  Finally, I would just like to agree with Athaenara: there is no need to insult the author (and the originator of this DRV) - I suggested that they come here if they feel that my closure was incorrect, and have no problem with them doing so. If I made a mistake, I am quite happy for it to be overturned (obviously, given my reasoning above, I do not think that I did make a mistake!) - I am not perfect, and will make mistakes from time to time (and if the conclusion is that this was one, I will happily restore the article myself!). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are three interesting questions here: the simplest one is whether the coverage on the trust in one paragraph of a long article in the Times as an illustration of one among many ways to save on behalf of one's children is substantial coverage. [1]. We have normally reconciled the WP:GNG with common-sense ideas of notability by making distinctions with this and some of the other parts of the wording. Within our usual range of interpretations , it would be possible to say either that this is or is not significant mention. The more complex one is whether this is truly third party, or whether it is based on a press release without editorial control. It seems obvious that this is based on a press release, for the exact same wording appears in a variety of sources. Is it editorially independent? That;s not so easy to answer. It looks like wanting an example, they chose this one and copied the text on hand. One might charitably say that deciding to choose this one was editorial independence, even if the writing was plagiarism, or less charitably that they chose whatever was handy. The difficult question is whether one can regard any UK newspaper, even the Times, as a truly reliable source for notability without considering the report in detail. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I would argue that we need to. The general notability guideline is very simplistic, and following it slavishly does sometimes lead to anomalies and peculiar decisions. But it also has the enormous benefit that the GNG is such a simple test that any editor can check for themselves whether it's met. The editor can then go ahead and write an article, safe in the knowledge that their work won't be deleted out of hand.

    If we start questioning whether even The Times is a reliable source, then we remove that element of editorial freedom. An editor who wants to write content that won't be deleted will need to go through a committee process before they can start writing. In short, I think Wikipedia works best when it's decentralised, the rules are clear and simple, and content is kept if it follows them.—S Marshall T/C 01:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry, S Marshall, I don't agree. First of all, I don't think the GNG is simplistic. In particular, it includes the key clauses of sigificant coverage, and presumption - not guarantee - of notability. These are clauses where reasonable editors can disagree. I think those are exactly the issues relevant in this instance. Second, Wikipedia has a philosophy of eventualism, in particular that we eventually converge to the right answer, but as a corollary unfortunately often end up with a lot of individual editor energy wasted. While I would agree with your point on "out of hand", I think no editor can - nor should - ever be sure that their contributions will not be deleted after thoughtful discussion any more than they can be sure their prose and article structuring will not be altered over time beyond recognition. Martinp (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the exact content of WP:N changes from time to time depending on whether a deletionist or an inclusionist last edited the page. And that's a self-selecting group; articles are written by those who want to write, and policies are written by those who want to control what other people are allowed to write. They're a group I find it's best to leave to their own wranglings. In practice at AfD, a user can prove something's notable by showing the reliable sources that have noted it, which has the benefit of being an objective test that can be proved or disproved rather than a matter of opinion.

        If we, at DRV, decide that a user can't prove something's notable by linking to the reliable sources that have noted it, then we remove the objective test and replace it with a subjective one, with the result that the AfD process becomes a lottery that depends on whether more deletionists or inclusionists show up. I would see that as a retrograde step into the dark days of 2006-7.—S Marshall T/C 09:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC I think the closer tried their best here given the difficulties of the discussion, and I applaud the care given to the close and the discussion above. But I must say that having an article on the Times (even if largely a reprint) and coverage on the BBC (even if only for 26 seconds) shows that people have "taken note" of this topic. But, even then, the close to delete would perhaps be within discretion given the nature of the debate. But to close as delete because there were sources that the closer couldn't figure out if they were reliable or not isn't acceptable. If they were clearly not RSes, that would be one thing. If there were only one of them, maybe. But with two solid sources from very significant outlets plus a handful of others of unclear reliability, I'd say you'd need a much more lopsided debate to get the result in question. There were basically 2 arguing for deletion (fairly well actually) and 2 for keeping (also fairly well). I don't see how anything other than NC can be the outcome. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked more carefully at the sources. I think that anyone who claims that they are regurgitated press releases really needs to either provide evidence of that or strike those claims. It's darn insulting to the authors of those articles and in any case it's irrelevant to the discussion unless those folks were paid to provide such coverage: they found it notable enough to report on. Honestly this is as clear a keep as you could ask for. Still a NC outcome in my mind due to the discussion, but I'd be temped to call this an IAR overturn to keep... Hobit (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. I agree with the closer's analysis of the sources. I agree that the article doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines and should be deleted. But I do not agree that there was a consensus to delete. There were only two people arguing for deletion. Both arguments were superseded to a large extent by developments to the article and further information coming to light about the sources. A relist is the best outcome so that we can have the kind of detailed discussion of sources above in an AfD rather than here. Send it back for another round. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what happens then? We've already had a speedy, two AFDs, and this second DRV. Wikipedia is not the 28th amendment; we don't generally go asking people to vote and vote again until they give the right answer. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor do we uphold problematic deletions merely for the sake of finality. This doesn't exactly happen often. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment from closing admin When I looked for the consensus, I noted the following:
  • DustFormsWords: Clear 'delete'
  • JBsupreme: Clear 'delete'
  • Athaenara: Although shown as a 'comment', I interpreted this as 'Weak Keep', due to the phrase "mentions in... do suggest notability" (emphasis mine)
  • Emmamme: Although shown as a comment, I interpret this as a strong 'keep'

  It has been mentioned that no comments were made from DustFormsWords or JBsupreme since the article had had further references added - I should note that Athaenara made no comment following DustFormsWords' analysis of the sources provided.

  Should the decision be made that this should be re-listed, I will add my analysis of the sources (as above) as a comment, but will not take any further part in the discussion. I also feel that I have now fully explained the logic behind my closure, and so although I will follow this discussion, I have nothing further to contribute. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment whether or not The Times proves notability, we are likely to have less of a problem with it in the future, as it will no longer be visible on Google. [2]. This will at least prevent people citing it without going to the trouble to examine the article--not that this is the case here, but it does happen. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse deletion, after further consideration (note I commented above). This is assuming that the list of sources provided by the closer above, plus the BBC video, are indeed the complete list. I do think the AFD debate was sparse and suboptimal (this is not a criticism of the closer or the debaters). While DRV is not AFD round 2 (or 3+), the solid discussion here now has provided the eyeballs that the AFD did not. In particular, discussion has established the mentions of KidStart in reliable sources appear to be mentions in passing, and with limited editorial independence. Ergo, at least by my interpretation of the spirit behind our notability guideline, this does not pass the bar. Now, we could pedantically argue that DRV is not the right venue for the discussion. But the discussion has happened at DRV, it has been a good discussion, and it seems unlikely new points of view would be brought to the table by relisting again at AFD. The closer's close was policy based and within discretion. Martinp (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree that the independent sources given appear to be mentions in passing and with limited editorial independence. Editorial independence is to publish or to not, and in the words of the WP:ORG are published non-trivial works that focus upon the organisation, as per the sources given. It seems to me that some are suggesting that WP:ORG stands for the subject having a TV documentary on it, a whole book published about it, or a whole page in newspaper dedicated to it. Which isn't what i understand when i read WP:ORG.

  While i do appreciate the efforts of contributors to the debate contesting suitable notability, I do feel a point which i raised earlier has been forgotten about and seems to be blindly rejected by all the nominators who endorse deletion on the grounds of notability. If the Kidstart article was at fault for suitable coverage, why is it any different to similar Wikipedia articles: Quidco, Internet Cashback, Top CashBack (note: all with similar (suggested passing) press citations) (plus see other articles listed under Wikipedia category: Reward Websites), except that KidStart is unique as it only benefits children and charities, so is it for this reason Kidstart should be penalised and deleted whilst these other articles have escaped this kind of scrutiny and remain on Wikipedia? It does seem awfully unfair and illustrates double standards.

  With this in mind, i would appeal that as this is not a clear cut case (as shown in this lengthy debate so far, with 2 sets of camps interpreting suitable coverage in various degrees), surely in such cases and in the spirit of Wikipedia, it would make sense to re-list the article. Without a CLEAR consensus and with similar articles already existing on Wikipedia within the same category, it would seem fair and correct for the existence of the Kidstart article. Emmamme (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  With regard to "why do other articles exist", as a rule this is not counted as relevant either at AfD or review. Without looking at any of those articles, I can say that they either meet the "significant coverage at reliable, independent sources" criteria - or they would merit consideration for deletion themselves. However, either way, those articles existing (or not) have no influence over whether this article should exist. I meant to say this earlier, but I must have forgotten to do so, sorry! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further, in response to your repeated claim that "so is it for this reason [that it only benefits children and charities] Kidstart should be penalised and deleted whilst these other articles have escaped this kind of scrutiny and remain on Wikipedia? It does seem awfully unfair and illustrates double standards.": In none of the discussions (either at the AfDs or the DRVs) is there any mention that KidStart is being penalised. As I said earlier, no one is "picking on" KidStart - and although you are obviously closely connected to them, this is not a personal thing. There are no double standards here - if people feel that the other articles in that category are similarly lacking in suitable sources and/or coverage, they can be proposed for deletion in the same way that this article was. Again, let me emphasise that Kidstart is not being penalised and deleted for being a noble, worthy and charitable cause - it was being considered for deletion for not meeting the criteria for inclusion. And let me also reiterate that other articles existing (or not) has no bearing on this discussion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Incidently, the other articles appear to be inadequately referenced - I have proposed some for deletion, and taken some to AfD - I will check the others when I get a chance. Thank you for drawing my attention to them! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, i didn't mean it to seem i was getting personal as i do appreciate this discussion and opportunity to draw a consensus, and I don't want it to seem that i'm sitting here pointing fingers, but i was illustrating my frustration as i'm a new contributor, and when i researched into writing this article, i used the benchmark set by existing articles on similar subjects to assist me. Although it should be noted that since the first AfD, the Kidstart article had progressed considerably especially with the inclusion of suitable coverage and their sources.Emmamme (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - The Times and the BBC took note of this organization and chose to publish about it, meeting the WP:GNG twice over. That the coverage was very favorable should be held in the organization's favor, rather than being held against it.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - noting that I'm one of the two delete votes in the most recent AfD. Only arguments for deletion are the article creator and Athanaera; I rebutted them both. 13 days of silence between my rebuttal of Athaeneara and the deletion can be taken as acceptance of my rebuttal. Emmamme goes on adding sources but does nothing to add sources which meet the relevant Wikipedia polices on reliability and independence. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding my arguments that the sources were regurgitated press releases (which none of the above commentors took objection to during the two weeks that the AfD was running, which would have been a more helpful time to discuss it) - the articles are published in columns and newspaper sections that are not reliable measures of interest. Space in those sections can be bought, and charitable enterprises are often given the space for free as a kind of community-service-free-advertising. The fact that there's no analysis of KidStart is how we can tell they're not suitable as reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Erb? You're claiming a journalist at the Times regurgitated a press release and put their byline on it? Just because the coverage was highly positive isn't great evidence of what is effectively an accusation of plagiarism. Hobit (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as I said above, what they did looks very much like exactly that. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't know you could pay someone on the BBC News to include them in a national broadcast for you? Emmamme (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]