- 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 Deleted as a CopyVio based upon find of Mr.Z-Man. If you want to discuss what G11 is/is not, take it to WT:CSD---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Total licensing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Declining speedy. Some would be comfortable with db-spam, but I'm more conservative with db-spam. No independent sources, no suggestion that they exist, and no significant hits at news.google.com/archivesearch. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you don't like db-spam then why close speedies? Why should we waste our time reviewing an article that you say has no sources, no suggestion that they exist, and no significant hits at Google news? Isn't that exactly what db-spam is for? If not, then what is it for? Drawn Some (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but there isn't a single, snappy answer to that question. I use A7 (notability) instead of G11 (advertising or promotionalism) whenever I think A7 fits. When A7 doesn't fit, G11 is for those articles where wiki-experience and real-life experience tells me that I'm wasting my time trying to improve the article. Some people say that I don't approve enough G11's, but those people haven't looked at my deletion log. The language in this article doesn't ring a bell with me as being an obvious sign of someone who's out to promote their own product and nothing else. A full discussion of what language does and doesn't ring that bell would take up a lot more time than we've got here, but I'll come back to that conversation some day. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G11 is not for things that don't meet A7, G11 is for spam. This article is copied almost entirely from the company's website. What more does it need before you would consider it spam? A link to subscribe to their publications? Mr.Z-man 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had known that the article was written by a company employee and was a partial copyvio of their website, I would have db-spammed it. I can put more energy into investigating these things before bringing it to AfD, if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G11 is not for things that don't meet A7, G11 is for spam. This article is copied almost entirely from the company's website. What more does it need before you would consider it spam? A link to subscribe to their publications? Mr.Z-man 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but there isn't a single, snappy answer to that question. I use A7 (notability) instead of G11 (advertising or promotionalism) whenever I think A7 fits. When A7 doesn't fit, G11 is for those articles where wiki-experience and real-life experience tells me that I'm wasting my time trying to improve the article. Some people say that I don't approve enough G11's, but those people haven't looked at my deletion log. The language in this article doesn't ring a bell with me as being an obvious sign of someone who's out to promote their own product and nothing else. A full discussion of what language does and doesn't ring that bell would take up a lot more time than we've got here, but I'll come back to that conversation some day. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Dank, I honestly didn't mean to start a shoveling of abuse onto you. You did say that you investigated it and found that no resources were available. It doesn't have to have 12 exclamation points at the end of every sentence to be spam. Drawn Some (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball delete - spammy article with no references that should've been speedily deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete anyway, blatant spam. Dank is far too conservative with speedies, I've found. He does more speedy wonkery than I do. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanwhile, over at WT:CSD, I'm getting criticized for being far too liberal with speedies. If the art of politics is making sure everyone is equally unhappy, I've succeeded. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You would be happier if you ignore people who state on their user pages that they ignore notability guidelines because they think anything verifiable belongs in the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem, as TPH alludes to, is that you're overly concerned with "does this meet the policy" rather than "does this improve the project" Mr.Z-man 18:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Delete, but not speedy. I'd have declined this one too as an advert, because although it was written by an employee of the company[1], it could also be seen as a semi-legit attempt at an article. To me, something that is fundamentally an advert is just that: "we're the best! buy our stuff! visit our website and be amazed!". However, a gsearch isn't turning up notability, so prod or AfD are very appropriate deletion methods here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Due to the question about CSD and this article, it was raised at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Declined_G11_at_AfD
- Thanks kindly for the note, I'll remember to add it next time there's a CSD discussion at AFD. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I look at G11, the less impressed I am with it as a category. Speedy deletion criteria should be well defined and obvious. Unfortunately, G11 criteria are not well defined and there is no concrete way to know where the line is drawn between a good start and an article needing to be worked on. IMO this article needs to be deleted, but not via speedy deletion. Lack of sources is not a criteria for speedy deletion and this article does make a claim to significance/importance, thus avoiding A7 speedy deletion. As for blatant advertising? It has some advertisy pieces, but don't most articles on companies, especially when the article is first started? I would be answering this different if the article were saying "we are" or "our experts" but as it is worded in the third person, my inclination is to have it go through the AFD process, give the author a chance to save it, then delete it if no improvements come. Keeping an article around for a week, does the project no harm. Speedy deleting an article that can be saved, can be harmful.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sympathetic to these arguments, Spartacus, and we really need to nail down what is and isn't G11 (and that's not going to be easy or quick), but if we just get rid of G11, the reaction we're getting here will be multiplied by 100. There are articles that don't get sufficient attention even in 14 days at AfD; if we dump all the G11s here, people will be upset. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Created by an employee with no references or rational for notability? Obvious answer. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete- This page is full of spammy language - "publishes three key publications", "The company is dedicated", "on a worldwide basis", "has seen wide success in the industry." - The article is overly positive, spends more time describing "achievements" than what the company actually does, doesn't even mention the history of the company, and has no sources. The article is copied almost verbatim from the company website - [2]. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a copy vio or near one from the company website, then I have no problem with so deleting the article speedily. The problem with reconciling G11 and A7 is that in order to fulfill the requirement for A7, you often have to write fluff such as "publishes three key publications" "on a worldwide basis" and "has seen wide success in the industry." (Note: I did not include "the company is dedicated.") Unfortunately, G11 is too vague...---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:34, 26 May 2009 (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.