Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacepol

Spacepol

This article is spam. It has been spammed across several Wikipedias, but has since been removed from many of them. Currently the only non-english article is in Finnish Wikipedia [1], where it is undergoing a vote for deletion (currently 26 votes for deletion, 2 opposes). Peltimikko 19:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Comment - The Finnish deletion debate referred to may contain unfounded and libelous allegations against third parties and as such be in contravention of US and Finnish law. Additionally, said page contains personal attacks and material which may insinuate dishonest or wrong-doing (including involvement in the editing or deletion process)on the part of the subject of the main article. Criteria applied for deletion appear not be be in keeping with general Wikipedia policies (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). Further, fi:wikipedia appears to have a practice of archiving deletion votes or debates indefinitely without removing possibly offensive material (see Wikipedia:Courtesy_blanking). There has been no administrator intervention to ensure that offensive, speculative and defamatory comments are removed from the Finnish AfD page on this and related articles.--88.114.56.7 04:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Comment - As an administrator for Finnish Wikipedia I checked the Finnish AfD and did not found any unnormal discussion there which could be referred as unfounded or libelous. --Ekeb 05:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not abnormal for many Finnish fi:wiki users, but definitely libellous, unfounded and speculative. See the policies noted and the Wikipage for Libel and Slander. Also, AfD pages should be courtesy-blanked if there is no malicious intent. Translation can be provided to Meta in a closed discussion if there is any doubt about the libelous nature of the content. (Check, in particular, the AfD BLP page for the founder of spacepol)--88.114.56.7 06:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should also notice that the policies of the English Wikipedia are not used in the Finnish Wikipedia which has its own policies. --Ekeb 07:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you seem to feel that the Finnish version of the so-called debate should be carefully considered here? Jreferee: Please let me know, if you feel translation of some of the Finnish comments found on the Finnish AfD Pages would be of help (due to their nature, I don't think it would be wise or morally defensable to publish them publically, though). BTW Ekeb, Finnish administrator, Wikimedia Foundation has certain issues about which there are no "regional variations" inclusing posting insulting or other material hinting at wrongdoing or dishonesty of living persons and organizations. --88.114.56.7 08:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you to specify which parts of the Finnish deletion debate do you consider to be "libellous, unfounded and speculative"? Might this be someone questioning whether the people named on http://www.spacepol.ca/home/who.html themselves know about their association with this company? Speculative, I agree, but falls well short of libel. Unfounded, perhaps, but some of these people have now been contacted in order to verify the claim. Lendu 11:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming or implying that someone likely does not have the credentials (educational, publications, etc.) that they are said to have, with reckless disregard for whether or not that is the case and thereby leading others to believe such things (see BLP AfD in Fi:Wikipedia) or implying that they have done morally questionable acts such as paying to be included in biographical works (that also libels the publishing company concerned, if is not true), just to name a couple. Good that somebody was finally fanatical enough to do "original research" and contact associates of this person. That will probably alert all concerned to visit Wikipedia and discover what has been written in Fi:Wikipedia about them.--88.114.56.7 12:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Spacepol has been on English Wikipedia for a year and a half. When was the article "spammed across several Wikipedias" and why is the urgency to delete the English Wikipedia article occuring now? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or do you also notice the penetrating silence on this particular issue, after you asked this question? --88.114.56.7 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spam and libelous allegations can be fixed. However, I could find no English reliable source material for this topic. If that source material is in Finnish, then it should be at least back by someone vouching for its content as posted on the English Wikipedia. Until then, delete as not meeting WP:N. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Spam. That's what it is. --82.128.246.156 07:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. --ざくら木 08:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jreferee. Article seems to be a vanity exercise. -- NordicStorm (t/c) 09:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jreferee. Vampcruftspam. --Fredrick day 10:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment You do all realize that you need to establish a reason to delete right? I'll admit to being unfamilar with the subject, but the article appears to be decently written with sources. It is not enough to say "spam" or "non-notable." Please elaborate as to why it is spam or non-notable. The Wikipedia process is built on logical discussion and debate, not straw polling and vote stacking. I also fail to see how what other wiki's are doing (or for that matter, the alleged conduct of editors of other wikis) is even remotely relevant here. Onikage725 13:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decently written? It's ad-speak waffle - making various grandious claims with little or no link to WP:RS - if this organisation has made the massive impact claimed - why are there no english language sources to that effect? --Fredrick day 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the AfD and subsequent debate at the Finnish Wikipedia is largely irrelevant with regards to the AfD here. As for sources, it seems to be mostly its own website. The article reads quite a bit like something a copywriter would cook up. -- NordicStorm (t/c) 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Observation Jreferee has stated this article fails to meet WP:N and two others agree. I would just like to mention that [[WP:N] does not mention the word "English" anywhere within its text. Therefore sources should not be considered irrelevant simply for being Finnish. English sources are preferable, not required. However, the article could certainly use more secondary sources. I think the relative lack of such would be the best argument against it. Onikage725 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any references to Finnish language sources in the article (and if there were such sources, they would of course not be irrelevant).-- NordicStorm (t/c) 14:24, 16 August 2007

(UTC)

Hmm. Here I'd have to play the Devil's advocate. I would say that Finnish sources would weigh less than English sources from an English-speaking country. The threshold for notability is quite much smaller in Finland than say even Canada or England, not to mention the US or Australia. But that said... --88.114.56.7 15:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]