mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VT iDirect Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VT_iDirect

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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VT iDirect

[edit]
VT iDirect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Declining db-spam speedy because two people shouldn't be making this call, there's a lot going on here, but taking to AfD because I believe a solid majority wouldn't see a great deal of difference between this company's brochure ([1]) and this article. There were copyright problems, the article creator worked on them and contacted OTRS, and the article was restored by Moonriddengirl. I'm hoping that additional work will be done and we can keep the article, but not in its present state. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD isn't cleanup, folks. The purpose of AfD is to decide whether this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia, and that's all it's for.

    The idea that you can bring an article to AfD so that other people will do a lot of work researching the sources and fixing the problems is a fallacy that needs to be challenged every time it surfaces.

    WP:BEFORE says quite clearly that where the article's imperfect or a stub, AfD is for evaluating its potential rather than its current content.

    I do see the concern about copyright, but it belongs on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, not here.

    Speedy close under WP:SK ground 1.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe I've committed that fallacy, since a number of admins and taggers would have had no problems with a db-spam speedy deletion of this article in its current form. It can't be a speedy keep and a speedy delete at the same time. The theory is that, for contributions with COI (which is clear here) and which read like a brochure, Wikipedians have decided that in many cases, throwing them away rather than improving them is exactly what we want to do. However, I believe there is notability here, and if either the article creator can get up to speed in a hurry on WP:NPOV, or new editors (which is the purpose of bringing this to WP:AfD) will inject some neutrality into the article, then I hope a speedy deletion won't be necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan, I'm sorry, but your reply makes it seem even clearer to me that the purpose of this nomination is to try to impose a deadline on other people to get the material fixed. Isn't that right? And if so, isn't it an attempt to use AfD as cleanup? If there's more to this, then I'm missing it completely.

    If you were challenging to the article's notability, sourcing, or verifiability then I'd see something to discuss, but you don't seem to be. All I see is a challenge on WP:NPOV (which, I think, means "rewrite it so it's neutral", not "bring it to AfD") and a challenge to its copyright status (which, I think, belongs on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, though I must say that it was Moonriddengirl who restored it and I tend to take her view about copyright as gospel because of her expertise in that field).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's possible, but there's a more practical point of view: if I didn't AfD this, but instead went in and made some cosmetic changes designed to make it more attractive to Wikipedians, I think there would be an argument that I would only be doing a coverup of the problem (COI, db-spam) rather than fixing the problem. This is also a very technical subject, so having people like me fiddle with the tone of the article is not likely to improve the content, and could easily make it worse. And if I don't change it much and just throw it back into the pond, given how many taggers and admins feel about db-spam, the article would be likely to sink without a trace. Normally that would be fine, but since I know the article creator has been responsive, fixing the copyvio and dealing with OTRS, I'm hoping they'll continue to be responsive. There's a shaky consensus, I think, for the principle that, except for db-attack and db-copyvio, any admin can decline any speedy and bring it to AfD instead, as long as they're ready to make a case for why giving the article more time might lead to an improvement. That principle wouldn't mean much if such articles could be automatically turned away from AfD by WP:SK. Having said all that ... which is a damn good argument, if I do say so myself ... if people are uncomfortable tackling db-spam brought to AfD, and if this doesn't work for any reason (including a WP:SK close), then I'll just have to find another way to deal with the problem ... probably db-spam, I'm afraid. It's always allowed in cases of COI. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But this article should be a bluelink on Wikipedia.  :) The subject's notable, there are sources, a good article could be written with this title, so WP:BEFORE applies. QED.  :)

    I'll add the {{expert}}, {{advert}} and {{coi}} tags to address your concerns.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11; it's blatant advertising with or without an OTRS-logged release. If that isn't acceptable, delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING; while AfD is not cleanup, WP:NOT is still a valid deletion rationale, and this article fails it. If the article is cleaned up to the point where WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't apply, consider my !vote "speedy keep". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, I cleaned the article up somewhat today to force it into compliance with the various manuals of style. However, I believe all that will come of this is the case which Dank mentioned above, that it's just covering up the issue of the content's obvious failure of WP:CSD#G11. The article still would require a fundamental rewrite before it would be acceptable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Blatant spam; OTRS is not a license to spam Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G11) – I'm sorry, but this clearly falls under wikispam. Depending on how you read it, it's either a clear attempt to advertise or act as a PR piece. Neither is acceptable here. MuZemike 02:54, 30 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.