Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 28 Deletion review archives: 2008 January January 30 >

29 January 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Barack Obama media controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted on highly dubious grounds. The principle reason for deletion was that it was a content fork or POV fork of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008; but neither claim was true, as it contained information which was not contained anywhere else (and is now no longer on Wikipedia). It was split off from the Obama presidential campaign article according to Summary Style, so to claim it was a fork of that article is unreasonable. The deleting admin also cited 'BLP issues'; but this article, at least as I last saw it, went to great lengths to explain that the rumours about Barack Obama were untrue, so I don't see what the issue was there.

This was a notable controversy about an extremely notable person, which received attention from the mainstream media as well as figures like John Stewart and John Kerry; it deserves more than a couple of paragraphs in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article, which is what it has been reduced to.

It is true that there were considerably more people calling for deletion than a keep on this article, but AfD is not a vote; admins are supposed to decide on the relative merits of the articles involved, and in this case I believe those calling for a Keep had the considerably stronger arguments. Terraxos (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sigrid Regina Trarbach-Nazario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I wrote this text to commemorate and memorialize my deceased wife of ten years and would like to have her accessable to present and future family members and friends this is significant to people on two continents who know and love her and it tells a story of love and devotion that I feel I should share with the world please allow this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billn4q2 (talk • contribs)

  • The user who tagged it uses NPWatcher, not Twinkle. Twinkle notifies the originator, I am not sure if NPWatcher does. If it does not, then a feature request should be submitted. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking now at the article, this was an article that called for a personal comment as well, and either the ed. placing the tag or the admin who deleted should really have done so. This is one of the problems going too fast, whether or not using helper programs. Apologies to Bill for our all-too-frequent lack of human feelings.DGG (talk)17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rhys Williams (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Player is notable; although he hasn't played for his club, he has played for his country's Under-21 side four times - [1] GiantSnowman (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Etoro_trading_platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Copyright is mine, I wrote the original text. as for spam - no links or screenshots were added and it contained only reliable sources Scott MacKenzee (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I wonder if Scott MacKenzee and eToro account manager Jeff MacKenzee are in any way related? andy (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote the original text, which was copied by someone to that site which I have never heard of. you can check on the article log that I have written it long before that other site posted my text, in addition - the idiot even copied to his "training" section the line I wrote about etoro. Nice work with the MacKenzee issue, that's actually how I first heard about etoro, I googled my name and "forex" ( I google myself once in a while, a little due diligance ) and the 1st listing I saw was eToro's.

Any more questions?

1) I search myself with a lot of possible searches, one of them is forex and that's because I trade forex, but with Oanda ( which have a huge wiki page, want to blame me for promoting them too? )
2) Jerome is an alias I use, instead of using nicks like "tikiwont" or "Hu12" like the people here above me, anything wrong with that? not only that - but now you can see according to the timestamp that I wrote that article way before it appeared in any other site you might think has the copyright for it instead of me.
3) There are several forex companies in wikipedia now, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FXCM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxo_bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFX_markets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FX_solutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refco
And last but not least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oanda
Wikipedia also has a category for retail forex, which etoro is a part of. I don't think this should be considered spam of any sort, expecially when I posted no links or screenshots. I tried to create that article as a wish to have an unbiased knowledge base on the forex industry, if you have any advice on how to improve it and make it fit any standarts better I'll gladly follow them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.10.98 (talk • contribs) 09:15, January 31, 2008

"the existence of an article about one company doesn't imply anything about an article about another company" I beg to differ, it implies which sources are regarded as reliable, which information is regarded as unbiased, and what are the guidelines someone should follow when writing a new article. As I said before, if you tell me what you want me to improve in order to make the article fit those elusive standards, I will gladly do so.

As it's already been deleted five times by five different admins for a variety of reasons it's hard to see how it could be improved sufficiently. But if you look here you can see the details of why it was deleted. In most cases it's because the article is seen as promotional. If you can fix that, you'll still have to address the issues of notability and what appears to be a conflict of interest on your part. I wonder if it's worth the bother. andy (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ocimum Biosolutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Ocimum Biosolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe this company, which is a relatively new one operating in the Bioinformatics and Biomolecules area, passes the criteria for notability. It has been in news articles for aquiring other companies and businesses as shown here. Although it is not that important, but the key words - 'Ocimum Biosolutions' returns about 17000 hits.
Recently a colleague of mine tried recreating the page as Ocimum Biosolution. I'd like this version to be undeleted as I do not think the page he created can be labeled Blatant Advertisement as it has been (which depressed him no end) --hydkat 10:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The BioIT Division provides key, ready to use, reliable, cost-effective software solutions sure sounds advertorial to me. No opinion on the notability of the company, but collecting sources and compiling them into a neutrally worded article sounds like a better strategy to me (in short, endorse) ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is also a total copy & paste from this site and others like it. It's the company's press release. I'm the one who deleted the most recent attempt (the one at Ocimum Biosolution, without the "s") and I endorse DragonflySixtyseven's deletion of the original article. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Please restore my all pages and revisions. --Atsushi2 (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tracker (Business Software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

KarsKormak (talk · contribs) recently created the article Tracker (Business Software). I speedied the article because I felt that the article didn't assert the notability of the subject sufficiently for inclusion in Wikipedia: the references either contained passing mentions or were non-reliable. There was also a hint of WP:SPAM (WP:CSD#G11) to the side, as the author has a COI, being involved with the company. The author recently contacted me, and I acknowledge that he has made some valid points on my talk page (User talk:Aecis/Messages 421-432#Deletion of Tracker (Business Software)), so I request the input of uninvolved editors. AecisBrievenbus 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Looks kosher to me. I'm not sure if A7 applies, but it does look pretty well like advertising for that G11.
    As a note to the creator: speedy deletion does not prejudice against recreation, assuming you can create a version of the article that does not meet the speedy criteria. You'll have to bend over backwards to avoid WP:COI issues, but you can get help with that. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Certainly does not meet A7, which does not apply to computer programs or other products in the first place--precisely because of the difficulty in one or two guys deciding. The ed. who marked the article for deletion specified G11, & I can not figure out why it was changed by the admin. As for G11, the article contains a brief description, screenshots, a list of modules, and a good reference section of suitable RSs for notability, including at least 8 good reviews in 3rd party sources. I think that if the screen shots were cut down to just one for the most important product, it would not even be remotely spam. As is, its not spammy enough to be a speedy. It contains no puffery, no claims how great they are, no extravagant language about how revolutionary they are in the software industry--none of the things that characterise spam. A straightforward description of a product with sufficient claims to notability is an acceptable article. Can be improved, but not a speedy under any criterion. I commend the admin for bringing it here. DGG (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, article contains no assertion of notability and the long laundry list of "articles" all seem to be no more than passing mentions, namechecks or press releases. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with this assertation. I realize that some of these articles are only available on a pay-for-access basis, however, most of them do discuss the products or company as their primary subject, including an article from Investor's Business Daily. As I discussed with Aecis, I can provide PDF copies of the original articles for your personal review. I did not include these as links in our entry, as the PDFs are on one of our sites, as I believed this would constitute spam in the eyes of Wikipedia. However, several of the articles speak at length about our company and products, and they are available online: Bristol West Moves to PPM (Insurance & Technology), Drilling Down to the Heart of the Task (ITWorld Canada) and Dupont Plays the Match Game(InformationWeek). As for the others, while the articles may have touched on other products or companies as well as Tracker and Automation Centre (such as Tapping the Right Tools - ComputerWorld), the discussion of our products therein is not "passing".
As for the assertation of notability, I thought it would be drawing a fine line between making an assertation and what might constitute a promotional statement. As such, I thought our reference list and the companies mentioned therein (Sanyo, DuPont, Bristol West and others) would better stand in its stead.KarsKormak (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD at editor's discretion. Not deleting as blatant spam does seem to be correct, but apart from CSD#A7 indeed not applying to software, AfD, and not CSD, is the place to examine sources or notability in detail, if there is a plausible claim of importance, and we should discuss the references here also only in as far it helps to decide whether it should be sent directly from here to Articles for discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting admin: the above discussion shows that there is no consensus about this deletion either way and that there is reasonable doubt. Per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, "where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I suggest taking this discussion to AFD. AecisBrievenbus 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from author: I believe I kept the language of the original article non-promotional, but in reviewing the cache I can see how it may read more like a feature sheet than an encyclopedia entry. I have posted a stripped down version as a sub page at User:KarsKormak/Tracker, which may be more in line with Wikipedia's editorial policy.KarsKormak (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_29&oldid=1138432785"