- TIPPS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
TIPPS is the first TOEFL and SAT test prep center in Turkey. Furthermore, it was deleted for a reason (A7) that explicitly states pages about educational institutions cannot be deleted under this criterion. TIPPS is an educational institution. Sercandemirtas (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion has been deleted 4 times in as many months, 3 for promotion and once for A7, and has now been protected against re-creation. One could possibly make an argument that the 4th deletion should have been for promotion too, but the article isn't coming back and nitpicking the reason would be pointless. Besides, I wouldn't say that a test prep company counts as a "school" for the purposes of dodging A7 anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List at AfD so that there is at least one proper discussion on record. Four creations in four months means that Speedying is not saving time and effort, someone needs to have a discussion. Salting due to alleged G11 promotion of a foreign educational institution is unjustified without even one formal discussion to point to. New, inexpert editors should be expected to make the mistake of promotion-style writing in their first attempts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a little one-time newbie mistake. The article was re-created 4 times, in 4 consecutive months, by 3 seperate throwaway SPA accounts. All 3 accounts have warnings on their talk page not to post promotional material, including a final warning, which they have chosen to ignore. They also specifically admitted to being a TIPPS employee in one edit (just in case there was any shred of doubt). Also, can we knock off the silly euphamism? Referring to a serial socker/spammer as an "inexpert editor" is as goofy as calling a mugger an "unrequested funds transfer coordinator". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Send to AfD for the same reasons as SmokeyJoe. A7 articles (unless you can also apply an "emergency delete" policy like G10 or G12) won't hurt to sit around for a week while a permanent discussion is kept for all to see. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion The exception to speedy A7 is normally interpreted to a only to degree-granting institutions--we have frequently used it for tutoring centers of all sorts. G11 applies to everything, and there is harm in permitting advertising in WP even temporarily. PEople are not evil for trying to insert promotional articles, but it's still inappropriate here whatever the motive. New inexperienced editors should indeed be permitted to make errors, and not blocked for them, but that doesn't mean we need to accept what they do. Salting is the appropriate technique for a continued failure to understand. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion is a very clumsy teaching method. AfD is less clumsy. I am not convinced that these spamming authors have so terrible, AGF can go a long way to our credit without hurting. COIs do not mandate G11s. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion the "educational institution" exemption from A7 is meant for schools, universities, colleges etc (see Types of educational institutions), not for a "test prep center". That an article has been recreated a number of times and that the creator is new do not make speedy deletions invalid or mandate that another process should be used. Hut 8.5 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, and reconsider the "educational institution" exemption from A7 while we're at it. Regardless, though, we delete spam, and it stays deleted. Period. If an appropriate article can be created, unsalting can be considered at a later date, but "It's marginally related to education so it's exempt!" is utter rules lawyering. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm new to this, but I was able to understand why the article was deleted for promoting/advertising. I deleted everything in the article except for two factual paragraphs giving the background of TIPPS. No products, services, stats, etc. were mentioned in any way, shape, or form. Despite the fact that "educational institutions" refers exclusively to degree granting institutions, thereby belittling other educational organizations that do not, deletion on the grounds of A7 means that there was no indication of importance. Beginning an entire new sector in a country by being the first prep center recognized by the federal government of a nation seems to satisfy the importance criterion in my mind, but if it doesn't for others, I would be interested to know how other test prep centers such as Kaplan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan,_Inc.), Barron's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron%27s_Educational_Series), and Princeton Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Review), which make no such claims of importance, satisfy this criterion and are not deleted for promotion despite listing courses offered and published materials. There seems to be a contradiction here. Furthermore, a history of past offences (i.e. being deleted 3 times for promotion) does not necessarily mean that the article should continue to be deleted for such reasons, as Andrew Lenahan and others seems to think. I understand that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but let's face the facts in front of us instead of mistaken assumptions based on history. I would really like to read a well thought-out response as opposed to the drawn-out discussion on "educational institutions" that seems to have plagued this deletion review thus far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sercandemirtas (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's get the obvious out of the way first: as a TIPPS employee you have an unacceptable conflict of interest, and you can not re-create the article, or edit it if it somehow gets created. IF it is notable and verifiable and passes our corporation guidelines, someone else will eventually create an article, although in your rush to have free advertising on Wikipedia you have created a significant obstacle to that by getting the page protected. With that said, let's examine the 3 other articles you mention. (1). Kaplan, Inc. - multibillion-dollar corporation with 80 years of history. Not exactly comparable to your business, is it? (2). Barron's Educational Series more of a publishing company, with 2000 titles and 300 new titles each year. Not really much comparison there either. (3). The Princeton Review, also a publisher, operates in 22 countries and... hey, wait a second here, 22 countries... WOW! Look at that! According to this site The Princeton Review has been operating in Turkey since 1996, and according to the deleted article TIPPS started in 1998! That would mean that TIPPS' one and only semi-claim of notability of being Turkey's first test prep business isn't even true! What an absolute shocker! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You said it right there "beginning an entire new sector". This statement in and of itself should show it doesn't probably meet the guidelines. If you don't understand how Princeton, Barron's, or Kaplan meet the notability guideline with the tons of information from reliable sources on them I'm not sure you understand notability. Anyway WP:OTHERSTUFFEXSITS would apply. Caffeyw (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Continuously recreated, continuously speedy'd. I find this a valid reason to salt. I don't believe there's an issue deleting under A7. OSborn arfcontribs. 05:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
