Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 18: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Kingsindian (talk | contribs) →Timeline of Twitter: cmt |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* These articles were created in return for payments that were not, as far as I can tell, properly disclosed on Wikipedia, and they were stuffed with links promoting sites associated with the person who paid for them. WHOIS and SEO tag checks have shown this (see [[WP:COIN]] for more). The articles themselves read to me as obvious promotion, the principal source other than Vipul's SEO was press releases form the companies. They read as pure PR and were part of a major paid editing and promotion ring. That meets the definition of G11 for me. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC) |
* These articles were created in return for payments that were not, as far as I can tell, properly disclosed on Wikipedia, and they were stuffed with links promoting sites associated with the person who paid for them. WHOIS and SEO tag checks have shown this (see [[WP:COIN]] for more). The articles themselves read to me as obvious promotion, the principal source other than Vipul's SEO was press releases form the companies. They read as pure PR and were part of a major paid editing and promotion ring. That meets the definition of G11 for me. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
**Gonna need either a restoration (in draft space if desired) or some other way to see the articles. Also evidence of undisclosed paid editing would be useful. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 18:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC) |
**Gonna need either a restoration (in draft space if desired) or some other way to see the articles. Also evidence of undisclosed paid editing would be useful. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 18:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
::: Restoration in draft space would be good, but in the meantime, here's the archive.org [http://web.archive.org/web/20170222155313/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Twitter page]. The part about undisclosed paid editing is, at the very least, badly misleading. Vipul's userpage has links which list all payments made, in gory detail. See [https://contractwork.vipulnaik.com/topic.php?topic=Technology this], for instance. The other accusations are out of place here; if JzG wants, they can pursue the matter at ANI or ArbCom; in the meantime, they should stop repeating these allegations. JzG is free to think whatever they want, but they do not have the right to flout rules and bypass consensus by citing [[WP:BURO]]. <p>I repeat: the page has to be ''unambiguously'' promotional for the CSD to be applicable. Failing this, AfD is the right venue. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 19:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)</p> |
|||
Revision as of 19:32, 18 March 2017
Also see Timeline of Facebook, Timeline of Instagram, Timeline of Pinterest, Timeline of Snapchat, Timeline of LinkedIn. These are all improper applications of CSD by JzG, because CSD is meant for unambiguous cases. At least two admins Anachronist and DGG have already informed JzG that the material is not unambiguously promotion and the application of G11 was improper, but they refused to undelete and asked me to take it to DRV. CSD is not meant as a tool to bypass consensus; it would be fine to list these articles at AfD if so desired. See also the recently closed CSD here for Givewell, which was also CSD'ed by JzG. There is already a section on WP:COIN which deals with many similar articles. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- These articles were created in return for payments that were not, as far as I can tell, properly disclosed on Wikipedia, and they were stuffed with links promoting sites associated with the person who paid for them. WHOIS and SEO tag checks have shown this (see WP:COIN for more). The articles themselves read to me as obvious promotion, the principal source other than Vipul's SEO was press releases form the companies. They read as pure PR and were part of a major paid editing and promotion ring. That meets the definition of G11 for me. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Gonna need either a restoration (in draft space if desired) or some other way to see the articles. Also evidence of undisclosed paid editing would be useful. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Restoration in draft space would be good, but in the meantime, here's the archive.org page. The part about undisclosed paid editing is, at the very least, badly misleading. Vipul's userpage has links which list all payments made, in gory detail. See this, for instance. The other accusations are out of place here; if JzG wants, they can pursue the matter at ANI or ArbCom; in the meantime, they should stop repeating these allegations. JzG is free to think whatever they want, but they do not have the right to flout rules and bypass consensus by citing WP:BURO.
I repeat: the page has to be unambiguously promotional for the CSD to be applicable. Failing this, AfD is the right venue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Restoration in draft space would be good, but in the meantime, here's the archive.org page. The part about undisclosed paid editing is, at the very least, badly misleading. Vipul's userpage has links which list all payments made, in gory detail. See this, for instance. The other accusations are out of place here; if JzG wants, they can pursue the matter at ANI or ArbCom; in the meantime, they should stop repeating these allegations. JzG is free to think whatever they want, but they do not have the right to flout rules and bypass consensus by citing WP:BURO.