Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator instructions

< January 24 Deletion review archives: 2009 January January 26 >

25 January 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deadstar Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Band_VERY_valid DeadstarAssembly (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band was deleted as not being notable, per our guidelines for musical groups. Do you have something which shows how they fit those guidelines? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 08:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried reviewing it with the administrator who deleted it and found that even providing hundreds of links that proove the bands standing wouldn't be enough for him, so he had suggested to do it via this method. So here's a shortened version of the information I have provided to him:

The group have been around for 8 years and have appeared numerous times in publications both digital and print globally including such magazines as Zillo (germany), and Metal edge (United states). Also having toured the United States over a dozen times in that span, been sampled on numerous TV shows for stations such as VH1, MTV, and even ABC family, and have a pending release of its 3rd globally available album (retail, not only online), airplay on a global level on both satellite and air-broadcast radio, I would assume these would qualify them for a few of the criteria listed on the wikipedia's page of terms.

Below you will find a listing of just a fraction of the bands mention -

The bands listing on MTV http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/deadstar_assembly/artist.jhtml

Proof of the bands contribution to a major video game http://projectgothamracing3.com/gothammusic/Soundtrack+Samples.htm

Major music label #1 http://www.purerecords.com/

Major music label #2 (international) http://www.dockyard1.com/deadstar/

Proof of the bands endorsement with BC Rich Guitars http://www.bcrich.com/artists.asp

Proof of the bands endorsement with Kustom Amplifiers http://www.kustom.com/artist_main.aspx

Proof of the bands endorsement with SnapJack Cables http://www.zzyzxsnapjack.com/artists.html

Proof of the bands endorsement with DDRums (Under artists section) http://www.ddrum.com/main2.php

Proof of the bands endorsement with HotPicks USA http://www.hotpicksusa.com/artists.cfm

Proof of the bands inclusion (the cover no less) if a German Magazine called "zillo" https://www.zillo.de/cgi-bin/zillo2/shop/cgi/show_artikel.cgi?nextpage_params=&artikel=mag052006&prevpage=&pattern=&start=1&lang=deutsch&artikelid=&session=&warengruppe=64&pattern_ir=&nextpage=

(go to www.zillo.de to confirm the magazine as being not run via the band or an individual blog owner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadstarAssembly (talk • contribs) 09:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partial list of the bands touring history (Sadly unable to parse 8 years of touring data) http://www.deadstar.com/tour/past_dates.php

Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=deadstar+assembly&x=0&y=0

Simple google search for a review of the bands last album http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=deadstar+assembly+unsaved+reviews&btnG=Google+Search

Bands large list of videos on youtube (some with almost 200k views per) http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=deadstar+assembly&aq=-1&oq=

Bands listing on Rolling stone http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/10748864/unsaved

List of articles on blabbermouth (a major label run music blog) http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=deadstar+assembly&x=0&y=0

I can provide more if it would help show the standing of the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadstarAssembly (talk • contribs) 09:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Via email correspondence.

  • This is the deleting admin. I can confirm that I was contacted by e-mail regarding this deletion, but I have not had time to review the last three e-mails I received, and will not be able to until this afternoon or this evening. I will outline my justification for deletion (and my decision to decline restoration) at that time, but for now, admins can view the article through the deleted history. What I deleted was an unreferenced wreck, which had already been previously deleted twice before, including an AFD which closed as a speedy delete. Horologium (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any mainstream media coverage? Stifle (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — above account has been indefed for being a promotion-only account here. MuZemike 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin's response: To answer Stifle's question, there doesn't appear to be much mainstream coverage, but there is a lot of non-notable webzine reviews and the like. The number of GHits for the band is substantial, but it's mostly fancruft. (Almost all of the reviews are to 'zines which lack Wikipedia articles). There is a cursory review of their second album at About.com ([1]) and a review at Blogcritics ([2]), but I didn't find anything else that was worthwhile. (There are a lot of lists which prove that the band exists, but nothing other than track listings and lists of the members of the band (all monosyllabic stage names, no real names anywhere). The MTV link cited above is nothing more than a scrape of the Allmusic mini-bio of the group. The only really notable factoid is the inclusion of one of their songs on the soundtrack to Project Gotham Racing 3; everything else only confirms that they exist, not that they are notable. FWIW, there is an article on de.wiki for Zillo, so that may be something worth pursuing. My two dozen word German vocabulary is not going to be worth much; perhaps a German speaker can take a look.
  • I should also point out that in his initial request for restoration, the user's rationale was: Sadly we are unable to find the exact reason for these actions [the deletions], and request that all deleted material be re-posted as soon as possible as it is a vital source of information used by the fanbase to keep up to date on the band activities. I directed him to points four and five of WP:SOAP, which address self-promotion and advertising. The band's MySpace and Facebook pages are appropriate as a way for fans to keep track of the band; Wikipedia is not.
  • I will be dropping a note on the blocked user's talkpage encouraging him to create an account with a non-promotional username; I don't feel right about blocking him during a discussion, even though I stand by my original deletion of the articles on the band and its three albums.It just seems a bit petty to indef block him straightaway, although the username needed to be changed. Horologium (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zillo is a German based print magazine, thus why it was listed as a viable source of mainstream recognition (maybe not an American mainstream, but in Germany it has been running for over 2 decades). There are several other publications of which the group have been featured in both nationally and internationally, but since they are all print, there are no digital reproductions of them on the magazines websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify the titles and the issues? If they are notable, they will be archived in libraries, and the articles can be verified. It appears that you are not differentiating between mentions of the band and coverage of the band, which are two different things. Mentions of the band are fine if one is trying to establish that the band exists; we're past that—everyone agrees that the band exists. However, there is no discussion of the band in reliable sources; the Rolling Stone link you provided above has no discussion of the band, only a listing of the songs on the album (which was not reviewed by the magazine). The touring list is from the band's website, not a valid source; nor is the YouTube channel. The handful of mentions at the blabbermouth site are undermined by the disclaimer at the bottom stating that it is not affiliated with Roadrunner Records, and they are not responsible for any of its content. All of the links you provide for "endorsements" simply show that the band exists; they don't discuss the band at all.
A recent deletion discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Rocket to the Moon, another band. Like Deadstar Assembly, they don't have much in the way of mainstream coverage, although a GHit check returned >400K hits. None of them were notable, and like DA, the band's article had already been deleted more than once. The deletion was effectively endorsed at the deletion review earlier this month was "no consensus to overturn". Again, like Deadstar Assembly, there was little in the way of reliable sources in the article (it at least had some citations, albeit not to appropriate sources), and the deleting admin was willing to userfy the article. I will extend to you the same offer. Horologium (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine posted above has the band on the cover, and thus indicates that there is more than just a mention of them. The specific article is archived (partially due to them being a print magazine and thus wont post the entire article online) on their page at the following URL (in german however)

http://www.zillo.de/magazin/mags/052006/magazin_leseproben_052006_deadstar_assembly.html Issue # 05/2006 Pages 12-18. Article title: Deadstar Assembly - Bizarr und intemsiv"

In the meantime I will provide you with a link to another Euro based print magazine of which the band was featured http://devolutionmagazine.co.uk/issues.htm (issue #10). Pages 40-41..a 2 page interview with the band.

And another euro based print magazine called "rimfrost" of which the band was featured: http://www.gothic.no/rimfrost.htm Issue 12. pages 7-12. Another interview with the band titled - Deadstar Assembly En Giftig blanding av death-pop og goth-rock"

http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/ featured the band in their June 2006 issue (waiting on exact page #) http://www.caustictruths.com/ an american print magazine which featured the band on page 54 of issue # 107.

http://www.sonic-seducer.de/index.php another german magazine that had a 2 page feature on the group. Waiting on exact issue #.

Orkus magazine featured the band on pages 48-49 in the following issue:

http://www.orkus.de/index_d.php?siteId=backissues&vonEg=15&wievielEintraege=15#

Issue - 2006-05 Article title - Deadstar Assembly (Newcomer des Monats) http://www.orkus.de/ (original site for reference)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the deleting admin mentioned Project Gotham Racing. I believe this meets WP:MUSIC#10: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)" We could redirect, but deletion is not suitable. - Mgm|(talk) 05:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That needs to be verified, though. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has been verified, by the link that was provided above, from the game's official website; it wasn't cited in the article at the time I deleted it, although there was a passing mention. The website doesn't discuss the band, but includes a 30 second sample of one of their songs and a link to the band's website. I'm not sure that the inclusion in a video game alone is enough to confer notability; it's not a theme or a performance in a notable movie/TV show, and it's not from a compilation album; it's one of 90 tracks from a video game, albeit a notable one. I'm not opposed to restoring the article, but the sources that are available are of extremely low quality. Horologium (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added a few magazine references above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • After looking at the new crop of references added today, I believe that this group *is* notable enough for inclusion; it seems to have a lot of coverage in European music magazines, especially that feature article in Zillo. There is an article on the band on de.wiki at w:de:Deadstar Assembly, but it's as crappy as the one here (it claims the band is from South Beach, not Fort Lauderdale); w:pt:Deadstar Assembly (Portuguese) is a sub-stub. It's frustrating that the article had to be nuked before any semblance of sourcing could be produced, and that it had to come from someone with a financial interest in the band. This article,if retained, needs to be totally rewritten and referenced (preferably by someone with an understanding of German and no CoI issues.) WikiProject:Industrial (Music) might be able to help, since this is their genre. Horologium (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also proof of the bands inclusion in the ABC Movie "Picture This" -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTB39MwFTe4

at 5:32 in the above video.

The song referenced is "Just Like You" which can be confrimed via streaming on our last fm page:

http://www.last.fm/music/Deadstar+Assembly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More references:

X Tra X Guitar Deadstar Assembly Guitar Giveaway in Germany

http://www.x-tra-x.de/gallery/index.php?pageType=folder&currDir=./Deadstar-Assembly-Gitarren-Verlosung

Zillo Magazine Info: (newer article from very recently) Dezember/Januar 2009 - 12/08-01/09, 20. Jahrgang

Page 8 News Page 10 Die Szene kocht: DeadStar Assembly Page 48 DVDs: DeadStar Assembly "Dark Hole Sessions Vol. 2" DVD Review —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the next course of action? If reinstated I will re-write the article to make it properly referenced as to meet the requirements of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of algal culture collections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

As noted by me and two others who commented, the article violates WP:NOT#LINK. Some argued that the links could just be made into references, but it would then become a directory of these farms, and so would violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Since these reasons are policy, those supporting keep did not refute this, and consensus is based on policy, the consensus here was that the article should have been deleted. seresin ( ¡? )  23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • sustain no-consensus If not improved, just wait a month or two and renominate, hoping for a clearer consensus. The basic feeling at the AfD was that this mainly needed major reformatting. give the interested people a chance to do it. I continue to not see the point of appealing a no-consensus close, unless it is really bizarre. DGG (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain no-consensus. I can find me in DGG's opinion. If someone thinks an article can be improved, they should get the chance to do so. Concerns about the links can be met by adding {{NOINDEX}} while work is ongoing. -Mgm|(talk) 09:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The arguments in support of maintaining this linkfarm were in the WP:USEFUL family and should have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn to delete Statistically the AfD is even, but none of the keep arguments even bothered citing any sort of policy. As Stifle said, they were just of the WP:USEFUL variety. The only arguments citing policy (correctly, in my opinion) were the arguments to delete. Themfromspace (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close Per DGG. Give them time to fix it up. there is no deadline. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close per DGG. A good and well written article could exist here. Hobit (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettable endorse close here's one that I think strongly ought to be deleted, but the community was mixed, hence "no consensus". Much of the keep spirit was animated by the much heralded and promised expansion. Give it a month or two, as DGG says, and if it's not improved it should go and those promising improvement slapped with a WP:TROUT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse "no conensus" as reading the discussion indicates that the will of the community is neither to keep nor delete and as default we keep in such instances. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete The "keep" !votes claim that "reformatting" will solve the problems, but they give no method of doing so. Reading the debate, those in favor of deletion are well-supported in policy by WP:NOT; the arguments for keep are rather unconvincing. If you just read the vote count, it's 4-3 in favor of deletion, which would result in a "no consensus" close if all things were equal, but they're not. This is one of those cases where, even if everyone but the nominator were arguing for keep, I would still have closed as delete. The keep arguments in this case are indeed that weak.--Aervanath (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Creation of this article has been permanently blocked since July 2008 because of repeated recreations without establishing notability. I have an article sitting in my User:Americasroof/Sandbox which I believes establishes notability including a IMDB profile and a New York Times story. A google search on the guy's name produces more than 500,000 hits. He has done a movie in addition to his commercials. I was not part of the previous articles. If people still have a problem with him it should go to afd rather than being permanently blocked by one administrator. Americasroof (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I checked the NY Times article, but Eric Violette does not appear in it. May I suggest you tighten your citations before asking that the article be unsalted? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The NYT article doesn't mention the subject, the imdb link offered says he played a nameless character in one film, as does this imdb link and there's nothing in the Google News archive about this Eric Violette, which I'm sure there would be for any notable 21st century American actor. I just wish people would realise that the cool thing these days is to get your Wikipedia article deleted, rather than to have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Fiddle Faddle. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and do not reintroduce the article at this time in the current state as indicated in the sandbox. Also (immaterial), I only get 13,000 gHits doing a search under "Eric Violette" in quotes. MuZemike 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted IMDB apparently doesn't know which character he plays in the French-language Canadian film mentioned and several sites have him near the bottom of the list of cast members which doesn't really help in establishing whether is part was relevant. His personal site isn't reliable for anything but personal details (age, birth name, etc), Maholo contains user-submitted data and isn't reliable and the NYT article doesn't mention Violette. In short: there's no reliable sources to build an article with.- Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The NYT article is a red herring; there's no mention of him there. None of the other refs are reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been salted longer than WP:SALT permits This article has been salted for nearly six months. The WP:SALT policy says "Non-existent pages may be protected, for limited periods of time" By any stretch of the imagination six months is a long time in Wikipedia terms. Comments here are judging my sandbox item. If that is the case, then the article should be judged via the AFD process and not prempted here. Whether you find 500,000 or 30,000 hits on the google search, there is clearly interest in him. There are several radio interviews with him. My initial interest was doing an article about the ad agency and its copywriter who wrote several famous campaigns (and contrasting the ad with questionable practices (e.g., the credit reports are not "free"). The salting process is very osbscure on wikipedia. This is the first time I have encountered it and it is very difficult to figure out what to do once you encounter a salt item. The help screens are not clear at all on this. Therefore I ask that you unsalt the name and then if you wish put the article up for afd. The fact that so many apparently different editors have tried to write to the article is an indication in interest. Eventually one of them will probably get it right. If you want you can throw prods on them but the article definitely should not be salted. Americasroof (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion for now Once something has been salted it is a good idea to have a functioning article. I'm a bit annoyed that the user came to us with a nominating statement that mentioned a New York Times article without mentioning that the individual in question was not mentioned at all. The editor says they are uncertain about what to do after salting. The answer is simple: create an article in a sandbox that at least seems to be meet notability (in this case WP:BIO). If there are additional sources such as radio interviews with the individual then cite them in that draft. That should be enough to allow for recreation. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Admin failed to recognize systemic bias Trachys (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I was the nominator, so declare my interest, such as it is. I saw the article become greatly improved during the AfD, but it was, for me, still way on the wrong side of the "keep" fence. I see a good closing rationale, support the fact that there is a deletion review because this is inherently a good process, and find the review reason to be somewhat harsh. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have no personal bias in this conflict. I see all such conflicts as damaging and wrong. I do not have the knowledge to be biased in favour of or against either party. My only interest here is in Wikipedia articles. I did not see any systemic bias in the various arguments raised. Any pro and anti participant comments seemed to me to even each other out, broadly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, I'm a bit worried about deletion for content reasons. If the article was too detailed, it seems likely clipping things would have done a better job rather than deleting the whole thing. But again, I'd want to see the article. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reluctant endorse of deletion (Sorry I missed the userfication above) I think something like this could and should exist and I've have !voted to keep the article (but trim to that which is sourced as this is certainly a controversial topic, though I'd consider the PNN an acceptable if not idea source). But arguments for deletion in the AfD were reasonable (if wrong IMO) and thus the close was reasonable... Strongly recommend someone sit down and try to write a better version of this. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the closer got it right; there seems to be no real answer to the fundamental objections to the article: the one most encountered was that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - well, nominate that other crap for deletion - I'm with you there, but that doesn't mean that this gets to stay. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


Carolyn Joyce Carty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Couldn't find the AFD; but, in any case, the article is salted; but, should probably redirect to Footprints (poem), as a likely search term. Neier (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went to the admin's page, but, noticed this comment, so, it seemed like DRV was the next logical step. I've no idea what OTRS is; but, none of that was mentioned in either the conversation above, or the deletion log anyway. Neier (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note- this article, and it's subject, as well as the Footprints poem article, are all the subject of an OTRS legal ticket. The article was becoming a trouble spot; it had previously been a redirect to the Footprints poem article, but a banned user (banned in relation to the aforementioned ticket) insisted on recreating it. The subject of the article itself does not merit their own article; this is about whether there should be a redirect or not, which is not the point of Deletion Review. For the purpose of not exacerbating the ticket and correspondence surrounding it, I would ask that this be closed and the matter be dropped. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we have the ticket number so that other OTRS users can have a look? Stifle (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem the obvious solution is to create the redirect and protect it. Ditto for the other proposed authors. DGG (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the obvious solution here. Doing so would greatly exacerbate the current situation that OTRS is dealing with. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - I'm sorry to have raised such a ruckus. Had there been a mention of WP:OTRS in the deletion summary, I probably would have not bothered to come here. Obviously, I can't judge the merits of the legal issues; but if having the redirect in place and protected would still cause trouble, then, I agree with the current decision. Neier (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Comsec Consulting Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I think this page was unjustifiably deleted a number of times. It was written from a neutral POV, citing a number of third party substantiated references. There are MANY companies on here of the same size, and the same caliber that have pages that are much more advertising-oriented. I made a point of using phrases such as "commonly known for" and "active in", not provides services or our product line - as many other companies have done. I have proven our certification, and linked to our publicly traded page. As this is a public company, there are people with vested interests in the company who will find it important to be able to readily gather background information about our company. Wikipedia does not have a legal leg to stand on when deleting our page, when other company pages are present. This is clear bias. Furthermore, there has been a blatant disregard to Wikipedia policy. My tags for Deletion Review, and Speedy Deletion Review were just deleted and ignored. If I am to respect the Wikipedia guidelines, then certainly Wikipedia admins are expected to hold to them as well. I would be more than happy to respect any proposition for edits or changes to the piece to make it seem less like "blatant advertising" according to certain admins. No attempt to edit or modify the piece was made it was simply deleted, even after having been edited for the purpose of neutrality - which I believe was not even noticed or appreciated by the admins, it was simply redeleted without having even been read. Shar1R

Endorse deletion. The content is clearly intended to advertise, and that justified deletion. To address the nominator's points:
  • "I have proven our certification, and linked to our publicly traded page." - WP:COI
      • Where is the conflict of interest? There is no conflict of interest here. I am a writer by profession, and if I didn't know how to remain neutral I would have long ago been searching for a job.
  • "Wikipedia does not have a legal leg to stand on when deleting our page" - (a) it's not your page, (b) law has nothing to do with whom Wikipedia does and does not permit to use this private website.
      • If a company is clearly being discriminated against, for no apparent reason, then yes that's not legal, especially if this is a website that claims to be welcoming to all.
  • "Furthermore, there has been a blatant disregard to Wikipedia policy." Yes there has. By you. WP:SPAM for one, and also you removed deletion tags from the page despite that they clearly say that the creator may not remove the tag.
      • I hadn't seen that when I removed the tag. There's a social bullying policy here on Wikipedia where admins instead of helping newbies choose to purposely hinder progress, instead of contribute to the success of an article.
  • "My tags for Deletion Review, and Speedy Deletion Review were just deleted and ignored" Incorrect. This deletion review has not been ignored, and the hangon tag you added states "Note that this request is not binding". The admin who deleted the page noted your request, but did not abide by it.
      • Yet another demonstration of the social bullying. I have a funny feeling that admins rarely abide by them, and thus there is that blatant disclaimer which they probably constantly use as a defense. Give a real reason why they didn't bother to consider it, and I'll respect it. The "just because I don't have to" is pathetic.
  • "If I am to respect the Wikipedia guidelines, then certainly Wikipedia admins are expected to hold to them as well" - I don't see any breach of guidelines by any admin.
  • "As this is a public company, there are people with vested interests in the company who will find it important to be able to readily gather background information about our company" - Sure. That's what your company's website is for.
      • Uh ok. Those other companies have websites too. This isn't a free web hosting site. It's an encyclopedia. If one company is encyclopedia worthy, than another is, as well. There is no justifiable claim otherwise besides bias.
  • "There are MANY companies on here of the same size" WP:WAX
      • These are such ridiculous unsubstantiated arguments. Companies of the same exact size, in the same exact area of interest, written much less neutrally are on here. I can give PLENTY of examples. You can not use the WP:WAX claim as a justified response. Where's the policy on fairness and equal opportunity? That doesn't exist. It's whoever is friends with the admins? Why is one company clearly given a free pass, and another is disparaged and attacked in an unjustified manner? Talk about systemic bias. British companies can be on here, but Israeli ones are prohibited? Please.
Speedy deletions do not normally prohibit recreating the page, but because you repeatedly recreated the page it has been locked. If you wish to recreate this page, you should create a neutral draft with citations to reliable sources (which have to be independent of your company), and then come back here to request permission to move it back to main namespace. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand what this last comment means, however I DID cite NUMEROUS unbiased, objective sources that make reference to our company - believe me we don't own Computer Weekly and SC Magazine - you can even check on Wikipedia. I can name PLENTY of companies on here that have much fewer citations, and are still here. And if that is the case I will start proposing all of them for deletion, as this is a clear bias.Shar1R
  • Restore. See this Google News archive search and this Google News search. I think the references from reliable sources (ignore the press releases that show up in the search and concentrate on the newspapers and magazines) are enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article can start out with problems such as bias or (in other cases) bad writing and still be about a notable topic. The fact that the original contributor removed a speedy tag should not be allowed to hide the possibility that the topic is notable. If the article can be easily salvaged and turned into an adequate one, then it should be. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse These deleted content was clearly an advert and wikipedia is not the place to promote your business. Eastmain, there is no reason why an independent article can't be written if it meets WP:CORP but you need to specify exactly what sources you think there are as editors are not going to parse google searches for you. I had a quick look and note of the references were non-trivial. Of course, I can revisit if you actually cite the sources since I didn't actually look very closely. Spartaz Humbug! 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse advertisements should be deleted, other crap exists is not an overturning reason. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I placed the original CSD tag because the page was nothing but blatant advertising of a non-notible company. Eeekster (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — this has been reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard. MuZemike 06:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Please may we see the deleted text? A simple search of Google shows that this organisation is potentially notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been restored under a tempundelete tag for now. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I have userfied the article here (hope that is Ok) because I'm going to try to guide the creator into a rewrite. Since I can see that it was written as an advert (intentional or accidental) I endorse the initial deletion, but ask for unsalting to make way for a much enhanced future article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forgive my lack of procedural knowledge here. In the creator's userspace it's taken me about 30 minutes to perform radical surgery on the article. There is more required, but I am standing too close to be able to do more to it myself with any validity. The corporation has notability and verifiability, and it might make sense to look at the current state of the userfied article, edit it more to make it fully acceptable, and consider restoring that version. I'm simply not sure if that is part of this process. It does need more surgery prior to restoration. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore (userfy if it helps). Despite claims above that the company is blatantly non-notable, WP:CORP says that publically traded companies are notable if multiple sources exist to build an article with. The deleted version of the article already contained such sources like this (discussing new director), but there are others including: [3] [4] [5]. Issues of advertising can be addressed by trimming and rewording. - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles which have been speedied can be recreated by any editor as long as they overcome the reason why the article was deleted to start with. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikipedia shouldn't be used by advertisers in such a way. Themfromspace (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Fiddle Faddle that the userified one is much better, and that the company is likely notable. If Shar1R is open to working on that version to make sure it fits within policy, then either Endorse Deletion of the original until the userified one is ready, or just outright Replace the existing page with the userified version, with the understanding that it needs some additional work. The latter would be the less bitey way, imho. ArakunemTalk 16:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request I am not sure of process. I'm not sure if I was right to draw that line either :) If I am out of order please slap me gently. I have done substantial work on the userfied version. The originator seems to be saying that they are not going to work on it, something I feel to be wholly sensible. That article is at User:Shar1R/Comsec temporary page. I believe that the page is ready for other editors to work on in the main namespace and would like to move it back over the original speedily deleted and salted version. I can't do that because (a) this process here is not finished, and (b) I am not an admin. So my request is that we close this discussion early on the basis that the original deletion was correct, and then someone with the administrative power to move the userfied page moves it to the main namespace (if they consider it to be ready and appropriate there) and we allow it to take its chances there. The only references I am doubtful about I have noted on the userfied talk page. I think that needs to be moved with the article, please. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore although it has borderline sources. If anyone is really unhappy, they can do another afd on it. I think there are more pressing matters than to bother removing borderline articles like this. after reasonable amount of improvement. DGG (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working with the originator to find additional citations, though I think SC Magazine itself is pretty authoritative. I do agree that a wider spread would be substantially better. I think the article would probably survive AfD now, though nothing is certain. It is certainly no longer a Speedy candidate, and it does need more work. I hope the restoration of this much stripped down version will encourage other editors to look at it and improve it. The thing is, someone needs, please, to bite this bullet, determine whether this discussion is at an end, and, if so, come to a conclusion about closure, and, I hope, unsalting and moving the new version over the temporarily restored version. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikipedia is no place for advertisements from editors with conflicts of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you missed something here. Yes, the original deletion is to be endorsed, even commended. It was correct. The article was written like a PR bulletin. It went. Good. But the new article, with a few factual elements left from the original and all the PR stuff removed is the one I am hoping to restore, simply because the corporation itself is notable and verifiable. I agree with your comment, but that is, surely, about the original and inappropriate article. The originator is not going to touch the new article because they now understand COI. And they are not sure how to rectify the mess they caused with the flurry of bold above. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:CSD#G11 applies here. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_25&oldid=1136460179"