|
Simple Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
This longstanding article was stripped of copyright violations recently. Since all that remained was a basic description of the product (allegedly), the deleting admin felt it was blatant advertising. This is not supported by CSD 11, which states that being about a product it not the same as blatant advertising. In the larger scheme of things, I edited this page a long time ago and added a couple references (I think). I did not add copyright violations. So clearly there was some content available that could have been added, but was not. This is a fairly prominent cleaning product in North America; notability is not really a question. Sources are available for it. The deletion was questioned by Neil916, who wondered why an AfD wasn't used and said "I'd really be surprised if there was consensus to delete". There would have been at least 2 keep votes at that AfD. A userfication is not available. I would be happy to have one at User:ImperfectlyInformed/Simple Green, but only if the history is included in that userfication. II | (t - c) 23:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn I rewrote the article, adding back some of the references which used to be there. I suppose asking admins to troll through article histories to see good parts of the article is a bit much. I still don't like the carte blanche granted by speedy deletes, or the fact that this entire discussion revolved around an article which I couldn't see -- only a cache (who knows how recent) from Google was available. And most of the deleted articles being reviewed here don't even have that. I guess this is a place where users (rather than admins) aren't really expected to carry much weight. And some of those users who do comment here seem happy to learn about the deleted articles secondhand. II | (t - c) 04:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A look at the deleted article suggests that it was at least somewhat promotional for the entire life of the article. I'm not entirely sure that I'd have called it blatantly promotional, however, in the final version, though it was lacking in sources as noted by Akradecki. I'll have to go with a weak restore and take to AFD though, as I suspect it's got potential for sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn/Keep. As I mentioned on the deleting admin's page, the article had many flaws in it, including an overly promotional tone and an edit war between IP addresses registed to the Simple Green company and the Clorox Company, a competitor. My limited involvement in the article revolved around cleaning up the vandalism and POV-pushing in that edit war and attempting to clean up afterwards, including hunting down and linking to some references. There was still a ton of work to do on the article. I'd considered spending some time when my real-world schedule cleared up, so I left it on my watchlist. The
drive-by deletion of this article really shocked me, however, as this was far from an article about a high schooler's garage band or a new web page someone started after purchasing a $35 get-rich-quick information booklet. I expressed concern on the deleting admin's talk page suggesting that if he thought that the article was inappropriate, AFD would certainly have been a better choice, as unlikely as it was, in my opinion, to be actually deleted. His response suggests to me that he read the first couple of sentences of an article that had just undergone a major content pruning and didn't review the article history. Bring it to AFD if you must, but I don't really see the point, given this product's prominent market position, plenty of controversy and press coverage surrounding the maker's claims of safety and environmental friendliness, and so on. The deleting admin made a half-hearted gesture by offering offered to put the article in a sandbox on my userpage, but since I'm unlikely to spend much time rewriting that article in the near future, I'd rather tag it appropriately and leave it in article space so the editing public can improve the article...isn't that the point of a wiki, and article improvement tags? I'll admit that I've been stewing about this deletion for a few days, hence I haven't gotten to bringing it to DRV myself because I was planning to privately request a second opinion from an impartial party about whether they thought this was an appropriate deletion before making a big stink about it, but User:ImperfectlyInformed has provided that second opinion for me. So here I am. This article should be restored. Neil916 (Talk) 06:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn This isn't a G11. It may not be notable and it does need to be rewritten, but it isn't a speedy candidate. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion. I think the product is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Any advertising-style content should be removed through normal editing processes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Create a new article There is no question the product is notable, however, the previous articles of the article we cannot restore at all. As I pointed out to II, the history section was a copy and paste from the UK website, and other information was copied word for word from other websites without credit to the original source. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AfD. While written in an inappropriate tone and with some poor content, it was not "blatant" advertising. The decision to temporarily delete in order to remove the copyvio content from the page's history was reasonable. The decision to delete everything went too far. The assertion that all the content was copyvio does not appear to be supported by the edit history. This is a page that AfD should sort out. Rossami (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Start over per Zscout370. It'll be easier. The history is too tainted with copyvios and spam to be useful. I see very little salvageable content in the recent revisions; mostly overly promotional content that would have to be entirely rewritten (and may be a copyvio) and a fair bit of original research, all lacking in secondary sources. I'll also note (again) that in the time spent arguing here and with the deleting admin, and trying to change the deletion policy to get this undeleted or sent to AFD, it could have been rewritten several times. Mr.Z-man 02:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from deleting admin...this wasn't a "drive by" deletion as has been alledged. Actually, I put a lot of thought into it. Some observations...G11 doesn't take into account notability. Yes, it's a widely known product, and probably should have an article. However, this wasn't it. There was so much COI editing, as well as predatory editing by reps from the company's competitors that the history was full of copyvios and other edits that just shouldn't be there. Even with the material removed, it was, in my opinion, still way to spammish to be effectually rewritten. For instance, the lead sentence read "For North American consumers, the most recognized product in the line of approximately 25 Simple Green products is a concentrated all-purpose cleaner and degreaser." That reads like a promo piece, and the rest of the article was little better. So, with the problems with the history, and the problems with the article, I felt that the provision of G11 that reads "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic" really did apply, and thus I speedied it. I have no problem with someone rewriting it from scratch, but I stand by my view that this article shouldn't be in the encyclopedia as it stood. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I just want to clarify that when I used the phrase "drive-by deletion", I wasn't referring to a deletion that was undertaken lightly or overly hastily, but a "deletion on sight", where an article wasn't tagged by an editor for deletion and then a second, independent and uninvolved admin reviewed the tag and the article, agreed with the rationale, and then deleted the article. Sorry if I wasn't clear on my usage of the phrase. Neil916 (Talk) 23:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse all actions taken to date (including recreation), and close as the current status seems to be fine. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Talk:Simple Green needs undeletion. --NE2 13:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that this is a new version of the article (and much better, I might add), I'd prefer that the old talk page with its COI issues also remain deleted. Any new discussion should be entered into without that prejudice. However, I will reproduce any project tags that were on the old talk. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
