- Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Concern, User talk:Orangemike did a speedy delete of Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership, yet the page I saw before it was deleted, and it might have changed, did not seem to be advertising or spam? The award is the equivalent to the Fulbright Program or MacArthur Award for government senior executives in the U.S., and you wouldn't delete that from Wikipedia would you? Do you want to reconsider your action? It might be the user was a newbie who was well-intentioned but needed refining the article, to including articles other than just American University itself but not a speedy deletion? Notable winners include Richard A. Clarke and Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.... perhaps further discussion is needed on this topic? WashD101 (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Jreferee, it might have been that the editor needed to make sure to source edits other than American University, however the content that I saw... and I caveat that it might have changed between when I saw it and when it was speedy deleted... was of the same type as Fulbright Program or MacArthur Award... OrangeMike cites G11 but I personally would have said the problems were single source materials and that additional sources were needed... perhaps giving it 30 days to be rectified before pulling the ban hammer? Have left a message with OrangeMike and hope to hear back. Can't contact the user who contributed to identify their thinking given the ban... I appreciate your help and thank you. WashD101 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) OrangeMike's prejudice against obviously-named role accounts. He's been counseled by multiple admins and ArbCom members for this in the past, but has continued to use the block button as his first communication with perceived violators. In this case, he speedied the article himself, without obvious consultation--he didn't tag it, her just deleted it, and no collaboration or consultation with other editors is captured in the logs that I saw.
- 2) There's something fishy with the requestor's response here. A CU examination between the requestor and the content creation account (now blocked) shows a
 Possible connection. Both appear to be SPAs, but it's hard to say that there's a definite behavioral overlap given the limited contribution history of each.
- In reading the deleted article, I am not convinced G11 was the best way to handle the deletion, but looking at Google news archive suggests that the person for whom the award is named (who appears redlinked in United States Civil Service Commission) is more worthy of an article than the award itself. There are definitely mentions of the award in recipients' bios, but I would be hard pressed to say my investigation to date suggests that the award it notable. Nevertheless, it is real, legitimate, and the article as drafted appears supported by the RS'es in my evaluation to date.
- TL;DR? Overturn and send to AfD as it might be something workable, despite the puffery and potentially problematic behavior involved. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- response - I blocked not because of the name, but because of the fulsome "His service was distinguished by his ability to lead change based on the belief that government can mobilize human talents to accomplish goals" and the reference to the winners as "distinguished". The sources are mostly press releases, what substantial coverage there is, is of Jones himself rather than the award. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Am hoping OrangeMike can respond as he's making other contributions? I found this sound clip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NTWW_34-1.ogg similar to the situation we have here, starting at the 2 minute 50 seconds mark in the audio clip... WashD101 (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks OrangeMike for the insight, couldn't that line have been struck instead? The MacArthur Fellowship opens with the phrase "Genius Grant" and "exceptional merit and promise for continued and enhanced creative work" as well? Awards are meant to have some element of fulsomeness. The second, the word distinguished does have meaning in the world of public service, namely the Distinguished Presidential Rank Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Rank_Awards#Distinguished_Executive in which even Wikipedia has a subsection on Distinguished Executives? Maybe a better part of valor would have been an AfB or PROD instead? I do agree that the user may have poorly chosen their username associated with the article, but at least they weren't being covert about their identity which they could have done instead? Assume good faith and not so savvy Wikipedia skills instead? WashD101 (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are to be consistent, Wikipedia has a page like this Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award with most of its links from Columbia University and the phrase Dedicated to upholding the highest journalism standards, the duPont awards inform the public about the contributions news organizations and journalists make to their communities, support journalism education and innovation, and cultivate a collective spirit for the profession which I hope OrangeMike doesn't immediately decide the block the user that wrote that? What happened to either deleting sentences or assuming good faith?... or this Edward R. Murrow Award (Washington State University) which also has most of its links from Washington State University and the phrase commitment to excellence that exemplifies the career of Edward R. Murrow which again hopefully doesn't immediately result in a ban because it is seen as potential puffery?... how then is this any different, and did OrangeMike ever unblock the original contributor to this article? Amusingly, even the Russians referenced an American winning a Roger W. Jones award, probably because he was with Ballistic Missle Defense?... http://lenta.ru/lib/14178004/full.htm (search for reference [6] in the English footnotes)...
- Comment - The above "Many thanks Jreferee" was in reply to a post I made at the Help Desk.[1] Here is a repost of some of what I posted at the Help Desk. The page, sourced to American University and named for Roger W. Jones, promoted the American University award by advertising the award and showcasing its winners. The Roger W. Jones Award page was written by the now blocked Rogerjonesaward user. The user name/account has multiple issues and it looks like Orangemike merely picked one issue to deal with. There is some source material on the award topic from the early 1980s and 1990s, and more in the 2000s and on. About half the sources are press releases. You can find much of the source material at Archives - Washington Post. Most of the source material on the award is the giving of the award to various people, but not about the award itself. The award topic needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to meet WP:GNG, and I don't think you can find two news articles whose main topic is the award itself or even two news article where the giving of the award is the main topic. I also don't see the topic meeting Wikipedia:Summary style for the American University article or a Roger W. Jones article (which meets WP:GNG and can be created). In short, redirect the article to American University and add information on the award there and, if Roger W. Jones is created, redirect to Roger W. Jones and add information on the award in the Roger W. Jones article. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- since when is meeting the GNG a requirement to pass speedy? DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BURO to take it through DRV and just because of process to just have it deleted in AfD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to AfD An article does not become G11 for one sentence of promotional content. The way to handle such sentences is to rewrite them--sometimes it is enough to just remove the adjectives (alternatively, since they are generally copied from the web site, they can be turned into sourced quotations.), . I do not think the award is notable, on the basis that most of the people to whom it is given do not appear to be notable However, they work in an area where we have difficulty in finding evidence of notability, so it might be the case that the award is considered in its field so very important that it serves to show notability--and that we should therefore make articles on them. If it's the highest national award in the field, and awarded to only a small number of people a year, this might be the case. It's hard to tell without a full discussion, and AfD is the place for it.
- Fulsome sentences like the one quoted are very common in articles, even ones by neutral editors intending to be non-promotional. They certainly serve as an indication that the article needs to be checked carefully, but they are no more than a warning. I think a great many of our articles about institutional topics that do not received great general public attention are written with some degree of COI--in particular most pages relating to universities and things they engage in are written by PR staff, though some are written by enthusiastic students and alumni who may do even worse than the press agents. This is true in other fields also--almost all our articles on sports teams or popular culture are written by fans, for who else would bother. But usually the fans here show fairly good judgment, and the topics are conspicuous enough that the over-enthusiastic ones get get edited.
- I don't think in cases like this the user name is enough to condemn an article. In fact, I think we should change the rules here to match the German WP, and accept openly avowed & authenticated corporate user names -- rather than requiring the roundabout method of using a personal designator and giving the affiliation--an affiliation which our rules on OUTing make us unable to authenticate. If I know who writes an article that seems promotional, I know better what advice to give. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it helps as background, as a long-time D.C. resident I recall the Roger W. Jones Award is only given to 2 career Senior Executives in the U.S. government a year and per Presidential Rank Awards, which most folks haven't heard of either, "Of the U.S. Government's 1.8 million civilian employees, only 6,800 have risen to be career Senior Executives"... thus, this award is given to the top 2 Senior Executive Service (United States) members who themselves are the top of 1.8 million civilian employees... so the award goes to the < 0.0001% in U.S. career government service... you are also right most of these are 'behind the scenes' folks so you wouldn't know a lot of what they do for various reasons, such is public service... WashD101 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-delete for egregious violation of a core policy (to whit, WP:NPOV). This content was irretrievably promotional and our sysops need to be able to delete marketing material with a minimum of bureaucracy. I have no problem with the creation of an encyclopaedically-phrased version under the same title. I have nothing to say about role accounts or blocking; DRV isn't the place for that debate.—S Marshall T/C 20:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Does Hanlon's razor apply here? Could it have been the user didn't know they needed to use Reliable Sources beyond their own, and wouldn't it have been appropriate to at least message them first on this instead of speedy delete and silence of them? WashD101 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But there will be reliable sources for the individual awards, which they might reasonably think shows notability. The GNG tends to be worthless in discriminating this sort of article. Too much depends upon how it's interpreted--except for the most famous awards, all independent sources will normally be about the award being given in a particular year, or to particular individuals, This can be described as either the significant coverage an award is expected to have, or insignificant mere listing. Something which can equally well be argued either way isn't a good criterion. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We're reviewing the deletion; what I endorse is the decision to delete the article, i.e. to remove it from the mainspace. We're not reviewing the block. This isn't where we do that. I agree that it would have been preferable to communicate with the creator, explain the reason for deletion and have a conversation about what could be done to write an acceptable, encyclopaedic article in that space. If it had turned out that this was a user we could work with (as appears to be the case here), they could have been referred to one of Wikipedia's newbie-helping resources such as the Teahouse. I do not think it would have been acceptable to leave that content in the mainspace "until it was fixed", because if we acted like that then we'd be creating an incentive for marketers to write promotional material and then spin out the "improvement" process for as long as possible----that would be a truly foolish way of working. Wikipedia's attractive enough to marketers and spammers without giving them open goals to aim at.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and do not send to AfD. This needed/needs some tone editing, no more, and IMO was clearly not a G11 speedy. Better sourcing is also wanted but i gather will not be at all hard to achieve. DES (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot stop someone sending it to AfD, whatever we do here. And, after all, that's where this sort of dscussion belongs. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, bu we can refrain from relisting as part of the close to indicate a consensus that the deletion was thoroughly inappropriate. If someone wants to individually nominate it for AfD, any editor may of course do so, as with any article. DES (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn with prejudice There is no possible way this could ever meet any speedy deletion criteria. The spam criteria says: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" - Removing a single promotional line is not fundamentally rewriting an article. This kind of careless deleting is extremely harmful to the project, both in destroying good content and driving away new editors, and should never be tolerated. If the deleting admin has deleted like this before, I would recommend a ban against future A11 deletions. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn This was not a suitable candidate for speedy deletion. Also, it is not suitable for prod because there is controversy. If it is to be deleted or redirected, it should be via a full AfD discussion so that its notability and sourcing can be evaluated. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
