Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QED International
- 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. W.marsh 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was speedied under WP:CSD#A7 (not notable biography) and WP:CSD#G12 WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising) on 16 November. The article was re-created on 27 November.
I know that according the rules, re-creations can be speedied immediately. However, it's not clear to me that it should have been speedied in the first place; looking at the remarks on Talk:QED International, it was mentioned in NY Times, for instance. So I decided to bring it here for wider discussion (perhaps I should have brought it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review instead?).
No vote from me, since I'm not familiar with the film industry. Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC), amended 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SPAM The evidence is here, The recreator of the article, besides promoting the company pretty blatantly on the talk page, openly admits that he represents the company. WP:COI. MartinDK 07:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as blatant spam. It's not every day that you get a self-admitted corporate spa. So tagged. MER-C 09:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the CSD tag. It does not matter that it's written by somebody from the company; that is not a reason for deletion. What matters is whether it is an advertisement. In my opinion, it doesn't read as one. It may be that the company is not notable, and I'm fine if the article is deleted for that reason or for any other reason. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar You may want to read G4, G11 and WP:COI again. MartinDK 09:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I read G4 and mentioned it in the nomination statement. G11 says "simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." I'm not sure which part of WP:COI you want to refer to, but I note that it states "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies [WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:C] are closely adhered to." Please be more specific. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being written by someone from the company makes it obvious corporate vanity, see WP:SPAM. We are being urged to take a zero tolerance approach to this stuff, see here. MER-C 10:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, it appears I didn't read G4 that carefully: in fact, it doesn't apply to speedies ("This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions …"). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar First of all you should be aware that Wikipedia policies are not laws. It is not the exact wording of the policy that counts but the overall meaning of what is written. As mentioned above we are being asked to take a tough stand against any kind of WP:SPAM. What that means in Wiki language is that we should interpret the policy in such a way that any content potentially representing WP:COI should be deleted. The fact that this has been speedied once before means that an admin has already determined that this to be considered spam. If you believe there were any errors in how the article was being treated you should take the matter to deletion review. We only determine if the article fulfills our policies, deletion review determines if there were errors in the procedure. MartinDK 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware that it is about the overall meaning, but we seem to disagree what the overall meaning is. You're right that Brad Patrick said that we should take a tough stand. His opinion is worth taking into account as he works full time on Wikipedia, but in the end it's just his opinion. Except for legal matters, he does not decide our policies, nor how they are interpreted; that's up to the wider community. I think that "any content potentially representing WP:COI should be deleted" is not currently supported by our policies, neither in letter nor in spirit.
I came across the article yesterday. What was I to do? I couldn't delete it because I think it does not satisfy WP:CSD. I concede I could have taken it to WP:DRV, but I chose to bring it here, mainly because AfD is a more light-weight process. If it is decided here that the article should be deleted (as seems very likely) then that's it. But I'll take it to DRV next time, especially since I'm getting curious how wide G11 is currently interpreted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware that it is about the overall meaning, but we seem to disagree what the overall meaning is. You're right that Brad Patrick said that we should take a tough stand. His opinion is worth taking into account as he works full time on Wikipedia, but in the end it's just his opinion. Except for legal matters, he does not decide our policies, nor how they are interpreted; that's up to the wider community. I think that "any content potentially representing WP:COI should be deleted" is not currently supported by our policies, neither in letter nor in spirit.
- Kommentar First of all you should be aware that Wikipedia policies are not laws. It is not the exact wording of the policy that counts but the overall meaning of what is written. As mentioned above we are being asked to take a tough stand against any kind of WP:SPAM. What that means in Wiki language is that we should interpret the policy in such a way that any content potentially representing WP:COI should be deleted. The fact that this has been speedied once before means that an admin has already determined that this to be considered spam. If you believe there were any errors in how the article was being treated you should take the matter to deletion review. We only determine if the article fulfills our policies, deletion review determines if there were errors in the procedure. MartinDK 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I read G4 and mentioned it in the nomination statement. G11 says "simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." I'm not sure which part of WP:COI you want to refer to, but I note that it states "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies [WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:C] are closely adhered to." Please be more specific. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar You may want to read G4, G11 and WP:COI again. MartinDK 09:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the CSD tag. It does not matter that it's written by somebody from the company; that is not a reason for deletion. What matters is whether it is an advertisement. In my opinion, it doesn't read as one. It may be that the company is not notable, and I'm fine if the article is deleted for that reason or for any other reason. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete and protect if necessary until notability satisfied -- we all hate spam. /Blaxthos 15:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Alkibeachkid Do you all watch movies? Obviously not, otherwise you would want to read about movies in production which is what this page does. I'm a huge fan of Richard Gere and Terrance Howard and if you all want to hold back popular information from Wikipedia, you're only limiting information.
- This is the first edit by this user. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:SPAM for a company that does not meet WP:CORP Chondrite 20:55, 7 December 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.