Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collusion Syndicate

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collusion Syndicate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable business per WP:CORP. A related article has been speedily deleted and the creator warned for creating inappropriate material. Mh29255 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while TexorcisT has some media coverage, this syndicate does not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nom was correct at the time but Operknockity is working hard to add references to demonstrate notability. Let's not bite the newcomers and instead help improve the article. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This an historical article, not about a current organization. I think we should show more leeway to an historical entity simply because references are harder to find. If this were a current organization I agree that it would not be notable, but considering the relative difficulty of finding references I think the organization was notable at the time. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - have you looked at the referenced articles? They don't mention Collusion Syndicate. WP:BITE shouldn't extend to keeping articles on non-notable organizations. Addhoc (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started looking through them. Most of them mention either TexorcisT, the founder of the group, or collusion.org, the web name of the group. I admit that they are tenuous but it appears that the group was notable at the time. Note that this organization should be classified as historical, not current. I think that it was notable, but is not currently notable. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Intended - I have been writing this as a historical article. Is there some way I was supposed to notate or tag it as such? - Operknockity (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using "was" vs. "is" would help. Also adding the date it was disbanded. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - That makes sense. I've changed the is to was and put in the estimated date of the group disbanding. Thanks - Operknockity (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Are we voting here? If so, I vote we keep it! =) - Operknockity (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not a vote. The final decision should be based on the quality of arguments, not the number of votes. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This vote is for DGG who states below "if our standards don't recognize this as notable, it's time to adjust our standards". Can I do that? Can I vote for him? =) - Operknockity (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... No, you probably should not vote for him. He is a very experienced editor and could have "voted" here if that's what he meant. But no harm done, since you signed honestly and made his comments more visible. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep in case anyone was wondering. I rather thought it was redundant, since after all this is not decided by count of !votes, but by the consensus of reasonable opinion. I've learned my lesson, and I'll be more explicit next time around.DGG (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here? is this where this discussion is to take place? If not, please advise...
  • "Written like an Advertisment" - I've reviewed these rules and this article abides by all in that it is firstly, not a business and secondly, not promoting or recruiting for the group.
  • "Notability" - it seems that you are conceding that the media coverage is sufficient but that it is covering the TexorcisT not the group. I'm having trouble understanding how this guideline is applied as all of that media coverage is from when TexorcisT was leader and spokesperson of the group. The television coverage in particular clearly mentions that the footage was taken in the Collusion Syndicates HQ and denotes TexorcisT as a member thereof.

In what way is this article less substanciated then other similar groups such as the Cult of the Dead Cow?
I've reviewed these articles and everything seems like I'm doing it right:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP

Thanks, - Operknockity (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain how the review process works? I add the hangon tag and the someone else comes and removes it; case closed?

The hangon tag was removed only because it was the wrong tag. That tag is used only below a nomination for speedy delete, not for an AFD. (There are lots of process details for a newcomer to learn.) Sbowers3 (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a good faith effort to submit what I believe to be worthy content and when criticized I have attempted to make the appropriate corrections/improvements. This has been met with more vague criticism but nothing that appears to be constructive. And now, after being a member for only one week and attempting only two submissions (really only one since the second was really more of a repurposing of the original at the advice of some of the afore mentioned criticism) I am being threatened with being blocked? Really? PMDrive1061 has retracted their previous accusation of my being a repeat offender and their apology can be referenced on my talk page.

If I'm missing something, please advise. I'm new so all advice is welcomed!

Thanks - Operknockity (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two of Wikipedia's most important policies are notability and verifiability. A subject must be sufficiently notable to be worth including in the encyclopedia and that notability must be able to be verified through references to reliable sources.

To oversimplify, if there are newspaper articles with enough information to write about a subject, then that subject is notable and those articles can verify the information in the Wikipedia article.

A cursory Google search does not show any mention of Collusion Syndicate in any reliable sources. That indicates that the subject is not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines and that is the reason it probably will be deleted. If you can find mentions of the Syndicate in newspapers or magazines then you may be able to satisfy the Notability guideline. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By comparison, Cult of the Dead Cow has references from Wired, BusinessWeek, tectonic, BBC, and ZDNews. Those are good enough to demonstrate notability. If you can find similar references then Collusion Syndicate will satisfy Notability and Verifiability. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sbowers3 -

Thank you for the advice. The reason the you don't find a lot of back links is because this group is historical (disbanded in 2001-2002 I think...my research is still in progress). A Google search used to elicit hundreds of mentions.

I think I may be doing my references wrong. Maybe you can help advise me? I have several clips and clippings that I have located on their site. (I remember when I was growing up seeing them in the news for something they were doing or had done all the time but much of this seems to be archived off of the newspapers and news stations websites) What I did was stick them in that Media section I created and just reference from there the main page of the media outlet. How would you advise I do it?

THANKS! - - Operknockity (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz -

Forgive my being new and non-proficient but I am trying to fix this article. I am told I have five days to do so (AfD). If I have done something wrong here or there I understand you may need to make edits. I do not understand why you would need to undo two pages of edits wherein I was fixing numerous issues (mostly links) and label it a "m" (minor edit) Please explain your edits so I can know what I'm doing wrong.

I'm guessing this may have to do with the commenting of tags. I notated in the remarks why I assumed this to be appropriate and was careful to only edit after the AfD feel free to edit beyond this point comment. If this is your issue, can we just fix that and not throw out all my corrections?

I'm very new so all advice is welcomed! - Operknockity (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I have also posted this inquiry to your talk page in case you don't have this on your watch list, seeing I only have 5 days to finish this work.)

Xoloz - Thanks for the note of apology on my talk page! I understand now that you were attempting to help and deleting my edits was accidental. Thanks for your help! - Operknockity (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if our standards don't recognize this as notable, it's time to adjust our standards to meet reality. A full array of sources appropriate to the subject--if we don't recognize them as suitable, we haven't adjusted to the internet. Seems a strange thing to say about WP, but in its quest for respectability, it's gotten stodgy. DGG (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranged a bunch of stuff, changed the way I was referencing media clips (I hope it's better) and added a bunch of additional references. So...tell me what you think. Enough or should I add more? Please advise. - Operknockity (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make any difference - the articles don't mention Collusion Syndicate. Addhoc (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify - I think that statement might be a little too generic. All the references on here either are about the group or site ("Collusion Syndicate", "Collusion Group", "Collusion.org"), about members of the group (usualy the spokesperson, TexoricisT), by members of the group (their work) or referencing them as a source (which I would assume would help prove their influence). Which ones are you classifying as articles that "don't mention Collusion Syndicate"? - Operknockity (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first 'reference' is the company home page. The second is http://collusion.org/Media/010509/index.htm which doesn't mention collusion. Addhoc (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An organization's website is a primary source and not be used for validating notability but is still a valid reference for content.

References 2-7 are secondary sources, albeit locally archived, and are referencing that "the group was often interviewed with regard to Internet security issues by reporters for a variety of media outlets". References 2-7 all are main stream media articles or clips that reference a listed member of the group and usually also reference the group by name (old or new) or by URL. - Operknockity (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the 2nd article doesn't mention collusion. Addhoc (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it does mention TexorcisT, the leader and spokesperson for the group, and the quote is taken and article written from that time period. Are you asserting that no references that don't specifically reference the title of the article are valid? That is not the scholastic standard. Can you point me to some documentation regarding this rule? If the article is about X and A, B and C are components thereof, articles referencing A, B and C are logical and valid when describing those components as part of the due process of describing X, regardless of if they reference X directly? I have browsed through a lot of articles and am finding this to be commonly accepted. - Operknockity (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, have a look at the general notability guideline.--Addhoc (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading what you are stating in that guide. In fact, the Notability Guidelines Do Not Directly Limit Article Content seems to support my case. If you are only concerned with notability, then you can ignore but not expect removal of references that do not mention the article's main subject if you like (I still think it's debatable) and there are plenty of references that DO mention "Collusion", be it Collusion Syndicate, Collusion Group or Collusion.org. I did a quick search and references 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 29, 30, 31 and 32 are all secondary references and all mention the group in one of the above syntaxes and 3, 4 and 5 display the group below the name of the person being interviewed. - Operknockity (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of which appear to be trivial coverage. Addhoc (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if our standards don't recognize this as notable, it's time to adjust our standards to meet reality. A full array of sources appropriate to the subject--if we don't recognize them as suitable, we haven't adjusted to the internet. Seems a strange thing to say about WP, but in its quest for respectability, it's gotten stodgy. DGG (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of a single valid reference? All of the links I've clicked were either not directly relevant or trivial coverage. Addhoc (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.