- Beautiful Store (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) speedy deleted the article Beautiful Store (see original version in sandbox at User:GaHee Park/sandbox, disregard some junk at the top) under "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". G11 states: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". I think it is clear it does not fall under G11 (it is not "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", but at best, a poor grammar article about a notable organization with promotional tone). While quite possibly the article in question is a valid target for being tagged with {{Advert}} (and {{Cleanup-english}} or {{Grammar}}), neither of those make it a valid target for speedy deletion. Let's also take a look at {{Template:Db-g11}}. It states that the target article in its "current form serves only to promote an entity, person or product". Well, this article was doing more then just promoting it, it was informing about it (for example the first lead sentence is quite clear and non-promotional "Beautiful Store(아름다운 가게) was launched in 2002 as an example to the Oxfam shop, is a not-for-profit organizations and social enterprises."). Ev To quote further from G11 template: "Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{advert}} tag to alert others to do so.". And again, this article has many parts that are clearly non-promotional, and would remain a valid stub/start class article even after removing problematic sentences. (Even if only the quoted sentence was all that remained, it would be a valid stub, but I think that most if not all of the article is valid, as well - again, suffering primarily from poor grammar, not promotional tone). I ask that this article is restored, with no prejudice to being tagged with the templates mentioned above (I will likely do so myself when it is restored and they are not there the next time I review it). PS. Disclaimer: the user who created the article is a student in a course I am an instructor/ambassador for. {{Advert}} and Category:Articles with a promotional tone are not candidates for speedy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to say that my comments on my own talk page adequately represented my point of view on this, but, reading what Piotrus has written here, I see a more fundamental issue. For Piotrus to say that "the first lead sentence is quite clear and non-promotional" about a sentence that reads almost as nonsense suggests that his threshold for identifying "poor English" is well below my own. As I said in my discussion with him, it is hardly surprising that we disagree about whether the content is promotional if the meaning is not clear - but apparently Piotrus understands what that first sentence means. As it stands, I freely admit that I don't.Deb (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this AN thread for background.
- Endorse deletion. Article is written in a fundamentally promotional tone and would have to be completely re-written to comply with guidelines, which puts it squarely in the remit of CSD G11. Articles which talk about the subject's "mission" in the first paragraph are rarely worth keeping. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We clearly disagree about the fundamentalism of the tone :) Where to you see the promotional tone in the first line of the lead: "Beautiful Store(아름다운 가게) launched in 2002 as an example to the Oxfam shop, is a not-for-profit organizations and social enterprises."? What is promotional about the description of operations in the second paragraph of the lead (granted, the last sentence or two descend into broken English gibberish)? I'll buy you a case of beer if you explain to us what is promotional in the sentence "The head office is at Anguk-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul.". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can the article be temporarily undeleted so that non-administrators may view and judge it for themselves? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already here in a sandbox (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse As I said at ANI a moment ago: that should never have been in articlespace. That should have remained a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT until it was ready-to-go, which will take a lot of work. Bad judgement and horrible expectation-setting by anyone who encouraged (now discouraged) this new editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not ready for articlespace. There's likely a reasonable (small) article in there but the writing is so subpar its difficult to follow. NE Ent 12:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that poor grammar is not a reason for deletion. The article has poor grammar, but more than half is understandable. While it would be ok to delete sentences that are so mangled they are gibberish, there is enough of the content that is possible to understand for the article to be (IMHO) useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, and trout Piotrus for wasting everybody's time. If he had expended only half the time and energy he spent wiki-lawyering about this deletion process to instead simply do the obvious thing and rewrite the article, it could by now be safely back in mainspace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, you can't expect a teacher to do students homework for them, so take that trout and smack yourself with it. I stand by my assertion that this was deleted in violation of G11. Poor grammar, for the n-th time, is not a speedy criteria; this article is not gibberish. Case in point, even if we just trimmed the article and kept just two sentences (first one from the lead and the headquarters location), you still get a workable stub that would be useful for readers right away. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He's a student of yours and you gave him that as an assignment? With that level of English skills, you should never have let them anywhere near such a task. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is, unfortunately, a student problem. I am teaching a freshman level course in English. The students should have passable English communication skills. Sadly, some don't. At the same time in the years past this assignment had about a 50% success rate of creating Good Articles. That said, for the next edition with a similar ESL class I will most likely stick to the sandbox for a while longer; what I am seeing this time is... painful to read, indeed. Which doesn't change the fact that poor grammar is not a speedy criteria... but I guess the admins don't have to care that much about such rules these days, apparently. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Uh, you can't expect a teacher to do students homework for them"! So, you expect other Wikipedians to do your students homework for them instead of you? Mainspace isn't a language lab for first-year EFL students. Articles like this clutter up the cleanup backlogs and waste hours of time for editors who might otherwise be working on genuinely encyclopedic content. Please, bear the effect on other editors in mind before letting students with insufficient English language skills loose in mainspace. Thank you. --Stfg (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A speedy G11 wasn't the least bite-y way of dealing with this material. I'm pleased to see that Deb has had the good taste to put a personal note on the user's talk page about it, but I would have preferred more encouraging wording for that note.
I think we've dealt with this effectively but high-handedly. Editors from South Korea are to be supported because we don't have very many of them and they can read sources most of us cannot. They can cover topic areas that are currently missing from our encyclopaedia. Editor retention is an issue and our approach to new editors is an important part of the reason why. I wouldn't want to overturn the deletion, but in future I would like to see more thought and care going into the messages we send to new editors from foreign countries. This is a collaborative encyclopaedia. Content is paramount but the contributors are also important.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't expect much editor retention when newbies are dealt with like that. The ideal solution would be to move parts of the article suffering from promotional tone and/or poor grammar to the talk of the article, and explain the situation there; leaving the other parts in the article (as I noted above, there is enough non-problematic content to create an average stub).Alas, this would require much more effort than a speedy. I know every active admin is overworked, but in the end, this is yet another good example of how to scare a newbie away. Another acceptable solution, hardly more time consuming than speedy, would be to contact me (the instructor for the course) with a note that if issues are not addressed quickly, this would be deleted. Heck, we even have a pretty good procedure for that (proposed deletion, allowing for a few days of reaction on the part of involved parties, whereas a speedy deletion was not appropriate). Either of those is more friendly then a speedy, which causes a distressed student to wonder "what happened". Well, what happened is that Wikipedia is not a friendly place to be a new editor, and doubly so if one's command of English is only intermediate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, deletion was sound, the content is clearly promotional. And Piotrus, yes you can't expect a teacher to do students homework for them, but you would expect a teacher to show said student how to do it in the first place--Jac16888 Talk 13:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been asked to comment here. While this article shouldn't be in article space, it definitely shouldn't be deleted because a glance at it shows me that its only fault is piss-poor grammar. If it was up to me, I'd put the article back in mainspace, bung a {{grammar}} template across it and place it on my to do list.--Launchballer 13:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't disagree with some of your comments. However, "to-do" lists have a habit of getting longer rather than shorter, and we have a massive problem at the moment in trying to sort the wheat from the chaff during the deletion process. I could give you numerous examples of articles I've deleted recently by contributors whose first language is not English and who appear to have been paid to post up spam they can't even read or who are trying to advertise their own small businesses without understanding - or, more importantly, being capable of understanding - the wikipedia guidelines. The proper place for them to "practise" editing wikipedia is on their own language wikipedias. If you look at my contributions, you will see how often I have tried to assist new editors and improve their contributions. Whilst I recognise this as part of my duties as a wikipedian, it is then frustrating to see people arguing about the finer points of our guidelines and taking me to task for not being sympathetic enough rather than themselves spending time on helping those contributors.Deb (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, Deb, I appreciate your efforts. The point is two fold. First, I disagree on the promotional aspect - at best, if you were following G11 own wording, you could've deleted parts of the text that seemed promotional and still live the remainder of the article in place; this would be more friendly to a newbie than deleting the entire article. Second, poor grammar is not a speedy criteria. Again, I'd have no problem if you just deleted parts of text, tagged the article with avert/grammar or such. I do have a problem that you just speedied it. And I am sorry we are wasting time of many editors here - but I stand by what I said; this shouldn't have been outright speedied. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. This was a textbook G11 - "Beautiful store gets their energy from the participation of citizens"? "And individual people`s are could participate this share marketplace, if they have just one donation"? Yes, the English is poor, but completely aside from that, the article uses advertising buzzwords, describes how great the business is, and solicits donations. Yes, there are some sentences that are factual. No, that doesn't mean that without a fundamental rewrite from a completely different approach, the article could stand on its own. And that - the fact that it couldn't stand as a non-advertisement without a fundamental rewrite - is exactly what G11 is for. Now, if the student or Piotrus wants to keep working on the article, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't move it to their userspace(s) and keep hacking away at it. Maybe something can be made of it. But as it stood today, its deletion from mainspace was absolutely correct. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Content is obviously promotional, which sufficiently meets WP:CSD#G11, and until I see anything that would meet WP:CORP, it should remain deleted. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 05:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Deb/Piotrus, am I correct that the article itself had no indication it was part of a class project? Whether I defer to the instructor of a course project depends to a considerable extent on the reliability of the instructor/ambassador. I trust Piotrus to correct the errors of his own students when notified of them . DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This was mainspaced and deleted before I got to tag it with. Good reminder, though, I forgot about those. Will add them to the current articles. At least one of which I'll move back to the userspace, probably, as the students are not addressing the issues which I think should result in article's speedying :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore Looking at the article history and the editor's talk p, Deb was apparently aware that this was a page written for a class Piotrus was supervising. Yet she chose to do this deletion, rather than discuss it with Piotrus. Further, she did the deletion single handed. I too have sometimes deleted some G11s single-handed -- especially some old AfCs by G11 that we truly unmistakable advertising beyond any possible question, but I would never do this in any situation where there matter might be open to even the slightest question, but tag them and send them to Speedy for another admin to confirm. I think I'm pretty accurate, but I know I'm not perfect, and a few percent of my G11 nominations have been declined by another editor--sometimes they may even have been right at that. I consider the deletion an over-reaction, but i do not in the least blame Deb for it, for the problems with some of the students in the ed program are enough to induce one in anybody. But when there's a responsible instructor or ambassador, they should have first chance to deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse obviously promotional to the point that deleting it was in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse use of WP:TNT I've found several English-language sources from which a short article could be written. But what we have now would not be that article. I'm not especially enamored of articles that are entirely lacking in English language sources, but the current tone and poor English make this unsalvageable. Mangoe (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy if the article creator or anyone else wants the page to be userfied. The topic seems like it could be the basis for a legitimate article. However, if nobody wants the page any more, endorse deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|