- Andrew Storms (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- Tim D. Keanini (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- TK Keanini (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
These two pages were deleted last Thursday night in a speedy deletion. I am asking for deletion review for multiple reasons.
First, the reason the admin chose to delete it was because of unambiguous advertising. I'd argue as both these pages were bios that that was definitely not the case. "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." These didn't even have a company or product as the subject but a PERSON. Because both people had worked for the same companies at one point or another does not mean that the pages were in any way promoting any of those companies. They were well written and objective articles which I worked with administrators on to be sure the content was appropriate and did not violate any terms and lived up to notability standards.
Secondly, all this happened after another user attempted to out my username with information that would make it seem as if I have a COI problem in writing these pages. I did what wikipedia said to do and neither confirmed nor denied the information and asked for help. The admin that was supposedly coming to help me in this case decided both pages should merely be deleted. They were deleted in succession so quickly I would argue that with the extent of the information posted on them the admin probably did not have much time to read either and, as further discussion on said admin's talk page shows they did very much believe the information the other user posted.
so, my argument, besides the fact that both pages are well written, informative, improve wikipedia and add useful content is that the admin merely chose a random reason to delete the pages because he believed information that was put up by another user who harassed me and for some reason felt that the pages were then advertising.
I appreciate your time in looking at this. All relevant discussion can be found on my talk page and the talk page for User: Toddst1 and the talk pages of the two deleted articles.
Thanks for your time. Rpelton (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: malformed DRV fixed. Tim Song (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not at all sure I'd agree with the characterisation of those as "objective articles"; they look fairly promotional to me.
I don't think the deleting admin was wrong, but I do think FairProcess is good practice in a collaborative project that depends on good faith editors, so if Rpelton insists I'd be prepared to run with "overturn and list at AfD" so he gets a chance to present his arguments to a jury of his peers—if it weren't for the fact that I think he'd get slaughtered because the writing's so promotional. The tragedy of this is that there really are reliable sources and I think it would be possible to write an encyclopaedic stub about those two people. How about you withdraw this, Rpelton, and I'll personally help you rewrite them in a more neutral way before coming back?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and either work on or send to AfD--and I see no reason they would be a snow if sent to AfD, because someone would probably quickly fix them. The only check on admins doing bad deletions and declined to fix them by themselves is to revert them here. Letting them go by here without some indication that they were wrong because the article has other problems is essentially saying: Just speedy regardless of the rules, if you think the article is not adequate at the moment. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore as per DGG. The applicable provisions of the speedy policy require that articles be unsalvageable, and the problems with these appear to be solvable, or at least addressable, within the standard editing process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
help!
Hey everyone, thanks for the comments on the deletion review. S Marshall I'm all up for your help editing these articles and trying to make them the best they can be. That was what I was trying to do all along.
However, the user that speedy deleted my pages-- despite my only starting a deletion review-- has decided to block my username from editing anything which means I had to go through a few hoops to even get this message on here. I'd really appreciate it if someone could lift the block so that I can edit these pages so I can do exactly what I'm here trying to do-- make a good article.
I'm uncertain what this admin has against me or what I have done that would require a block. If I have done something I would really like to understand as I was not trying to promote anything or offend anyone.
I really appreciate your help on this. If only to be able to participate openly in my own deletion review discussion it would be nice to understand what is going on.
(I'd have emailed one of you, but couldn't actually figure out how to do that since I'm still new to all this.)
Thanks rpelton via a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.138.49 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Overturn and AfD at editorial discretion. The articles are not so blatantly promotional as to fall under G11. Tim Song (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion User does nothing on WP except promote Ncircle and its employees, and has been properly identified as an Ncircle shill account and blocked from Wikipedia. His/her assertion that she is "not trying to promote anything" is a bald-faced lie. Even if it wasn't obvious who "LPelton" is just from the username (I can't post any more due to "outing" policy), the edit history shows that this user does nothing except promote Ncircle. Every page created by this user has been deleted either by AfD or speedy delete. Sfba (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as I don't see how notability of these individuals has been established in either case. All of these articles are stitched together from various sources which mention them in passing, none of which provide significant coverage by themselves because none of the sources address the subject of the article specifically. As a result, the articles don't contain any commentary, criticism or context about their subject matter that are the badges of notability. Rather, these articles are purely PR pieces, whose intent is to promote the products and services of NCircle. I concur with the rationale for speedy deletion: these are blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore Storms. Didn't check the others. Not a lot of biographical information on Storms, but well cited in the news. Certainly not a speedy... Hobit (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On further consideration, restore all per Tim Song. I think Storms has a good chance at making it through AfD and I don't see these as being promotional enough to be speedable. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Dont see the point of restoring for restorings sake, not seeing any real evidence of notability. Spartaz Humbug! 02:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- since suitability is questionable. let's have an AfD and decide properly. It's not G11, and there is some assertion of notability. It is totally wrong to take the approach, if it might fail AfD, let's not restore it. Speedy only works if people follow the guidelines , or there will be no confidence in us admins. the only way to bring that about is for all speedys on inadequate grounds to be reversed here and, if deleteable, get deleted properly. If nothing else, if makes it easy to get rid of reincarnations via G4. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
