Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goget: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*'''Keep''' Considering that the author is new to Wikipedia, it seems only fair to ask for some specific changes to be made rather than deleting the article. My suggestion is that the article be rejigged to focus on the generic benefits of carsharing within major Australian cities and a comparison of the Australian approach with precursors in other countries. This approach could readily satisfy the requirements for articles to be written in an objective and unbiased style. It would be a pity if information about this socially-beneficial approach (did I hear anyone mention petroleum crisis?) was excluded because of a suspicion about 'free publicity' being the major motivation for submission. Maybe as suggested, it could be included in the [[car sharing]] section under a heading of car sharing in Australia. I'm sure that the material could be revised somewhat by the author to prevent the unfortunate impression of a lack of impartiality. The fact that the author has dual motivations should not prevent him/her being able to produce a revision that focuses upon the social good aspect. Or do we assume that any submission by someone who has mixed motives is intrinsically tainted? That would seem a bit rich. Surely we should judge on the nature of what's finally actually submitted rather than taking an 'original sin' approach - I vote that we ask for the article to be edited so that it is 'balanced' in a manner analogous to that found in the Flexcar article. <small>unsigned comment by 134.7.248.129, 01:06, 10 October 2005</small> |
*'''Keep''' Considering that the author is new to Wikipedia, it seems only fair to ask for some specific changes to be made rather than deleting the article. My suggestion is that the article be rejigged to focus on the generic benefits of carsharing within major Australian cities and a comparison of the Australian approach with precursors in other countries. This approach could readily satisfy the requirements for articles to be written in an objective and unbiased style. It would be a pity if information about this socially-beneficial approach (did I hear anyone mention petroleum crisis?) was excluded because of a suspicion about 'free publicity' being the major motivation for submission. Maybe as suggested, it could be included in the [[car sharing]] section under a heading of car sharing in Australia. I'm sure that the material could be revised somewhat by the author to prevent the unfortunate impression of a lack of impartiality. The fact that the author has dual motivations should not prevent him/her being able to produce a revision that focuses upon the social good aspect. Or do we assume that any submission by someone who has mixed motives is intrinsically tainted? That would seem a bit rich. Surely we should judge on the nature of what's finally actually submitted rather than taking an 'original sin' approach - I vote that we ask for the article to be edited so that it is 'balanced' in a manner analogous to that found in the Flexcar article. <small>unsigned comment by 134.7.248.129, 01:06, 10 October 2005</small> |
||
*'''Keep'''. I [[Be bold|was bold]] and rewrote it, stripping it down to a brief and factual article and taking out as much of the advertising as I could. It was certainly pretty advertising-heavy, but it appears to be a notable service in its area, and [[car sharing]] services are becoming much more prominent recently, so I think it's important to have an article on this one. [[User:Bikeable|Bikeable]] 01:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. I [[Be bold|was bold]] and rewrote it, stripping it down to a brief and factual article and taking out as much of the advertising as I could. It was certainly pretty advertising-heavy, but it appears to be a notable service in its area, and [[car sharing]] services are becoming much more prominent recently, so I think it's important to have an article on this one. [[User:Bikeable|Bikeable]] 01:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep.''' The revised version from Bikeable seems fine to me - it does a great job of informing about the idea without the former problem of the advertising overlay. [[User:Albertus Pictor|Albertus Pictor]] 00:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Keep.''' The revised version from Bikeable seems fine to me - it does a great job of informing about the basic idea without the former problem of the advertising overlay. I'd like the original author to expand the article along these lines (without advertising!) as suggested above to point out how the general car sharing approach has been 'tailored' to the the specifics of the Australian context. I think this would be very useful for people in countries where such schemes do not yet exist.[[User:Albertus Pictor|Albertus Pictor]] 00:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 00:09, 14 October 2005
delete, blatant commercial advertising. Shouldn't there be a speedy category for such egregious cases? --Trovatore 21:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- What, you mean like this one? Flexcar unsigned comment by 218.214.34.243, 21:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC); same IP address as author of Goget
- That one's borderline. Goget is plainly an ad. --Trovatore 21:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Im new to wikipedia: do i simply need to make it more factual? Search 'carshare' in google and Newtopwn carshare, our sister site, comes up 6th - i think its relevant. - Nic, author of page
- I came across this: "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style" - so if I change it will it be acceptable?
- I'll let someone else take this; I'm not sure where the boundaries are. The fact that you're writing about your own company, while probably not per se forbidden, raises strong suspicions that you mainly want to use the article as free publicity for a commercial venture. There must be someone who has more experience with this issue who can comment more authoritatively. --Trovatore 21:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time on this - as I said, I am new to Wikipedia - and I have dual motivations. I saw an article about the US companies (contributed by unknown persons) so I figured I could contribute one on what we've done in Australia, seeing as how we were the first ones to do it here. Anyway, I guess I have to leave this one up to the community!
- Appreciate your honesty, in any case. --Trovatore 21:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep An interesting and informative article on a cutting-edge and valuable service. Denni☯ 01:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Should every business providing a trendy, valuable service, get an ad on WP? Give them a sentence or two in car sharing, and an external link to their website; if they make some money off of that, great. But we shouldn't have articles promoting particular commercial interests. It reflects badly on the impartiality of the whole encyclopedia. --Trovatore 05:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Considering that the author is new to Wikipedia, it seems only fair to ask for some specific changes to be made rather than deleting the article. My suggestion is that the article be rejigged to focus on the generic benefits of carsharing within major Australian cities and a comparison of the Australian approach with precursors in other countries. This approach could readily satisfy the requirements for articles to be written in an objective and unbiased style. It would be a pity if information about this socially-beneficial approach (did I hear anyone mention petroleum crisis?) was excluded because of a suspicion about 'free publicity' being the major motivation for submission. Maybe as suggested, it could be included in the car sharing section under a heading of car sharing in Australia. I'm sure that the material could be revised somewhat by the author to prevent the unfortunate impression of a lack of impartiality. The fact that the author has dual motivations should not prevent him/her being able to produce a revision that focuses upon the social good aspect. Or do we assume that any submission by someone who has mixed motives is intrinsically tainted? That would seem a bit rich. Surely we should judge on the nature of what's finally actually submitted rather than taking an 'original sin' approach - I vote that we ask for the article to be edited so that it is 'balanced' in a manner analogous to that found in the Flexcar article. unsigned comment by 134.7.248.129, 01:06, 10 October 2005
- Keep. I was bold and rewrote it, stripping it down to a brief and factual article and taking out as much of the advertising as I could. It was certainly pretty advertising-heavy, but it appears to be a notable service in its area, and car sharing services are becoming much more prominent recently, so I think it's important to have an article on this one. Bikeable 01:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The revised version from Bikeable seems fine to me - it does a great job of informing about the basic idea without the former problem of the advertising overlay. I'd like the original author to expand the article along these lines (without advertising!) as suggested above to point out how the general car sharing approach has been 'tailored' to the the specifics of the Australian context. I think this would be very useful for people in countries where such schemes do not yet exist.Albertus Pictor 00:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)