- 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 keep. Because the article has been rewritten by a non-COI editor, and all opinions expressed since then have been in favor of keeping the article, I must consider that the concerns about promotionalism and COI expressed in the first half of the discussion have been addressed, at least as concerns this article. Sandstein 08:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Joel Comm
- Joel Comm ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He's probably notable, but this is part of a promotional closed ring of articles written primarily by a SPA, with help from sockpuppets and known paid editors. When an article is contaminated to this extent, we need to remove it.
Borderline notability is not the only reason for deletion. Even for a notable article, having been written and maintained with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason--or even better. Variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. We're going to need drastic measures to deal with this, and removing the articles is a first step. The second will be figuring out ways to keep getting additional ones submitted. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Deletion is not cleanup and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Cunard ( talk) 01:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
- Strauss, Steve (2014-07-06).
"Ask an Expert: Celebrating entrepreneurs".
USA Today. Archived from
the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
The article notes:
One person who knows the answer is the great Joel Comm. I say great because it is an apt description of the pioneering Internet entrepreneur (he created his first website, WorldVillage, in 1995, one of the first 18,000 sites ever on the web). Over the past 20 years, Joel has created businesses and products that have dominated more than a few mediums:
• The Internet: In 1997, Yahoo! bought his site ClassicGames.com and turned it into one of the world first and largest multi-player gaming sites. In fact, Joel became an icon on the site, one I remember choosing back in the day
• Writing and publishing: with the New York Times bestseller The AdSense Code
• Social media, 80,000 followers and counting, and the world's best-selling book on Twitter for business, Twitter Power
• Mobile apps: Five years ago, Joel created one of the most infamous, and best-selling, apps in the iTunes Store, iFart.
- Johnson, Kimberly S. (2007-07-30).
"Who wants to be an internet millionaire?".
The Denver Post. Archived from
the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
The article notes:
A Loveland entrepreneur who has reportedly made millions with his online ventures is trying to do the same for others - with a reality-TV twist.
Joel Comm, who sold his first business to Yahoo Inc. in 1997, is the co-creator and host of "The Next Internet Millionaire," an "Apprentice"- type reality show being filmed in Loveland. The show will be aired exclusively online beginning Aug. 15.
Comm moved to Colorado this year and came up with the show idea with co-creator and Fort Collins resident Eric Holmlund.
"Reality TV is huge, and online video is gaining momentum," said Comm, 43. "My goal is to prove that Internet (video) is ready for prime time."
...
However, Comm, who wrote a book on using Google's ad server to maximize business, said that viewers not only will see a reality show but will learn how to use and apply some of his techniques to their own businesses.
"It seems like (Comm) is trying to be the Donald Trump of the Internet," [Richard] Ayoub said. "It's a way to showcase him as a leader in the Internet. It's a big PR stunt."
- Middleton, Diana (2007-06-23).
"The next Internet millionaire?: Local businesswoman in the running to win big through an online reality show".
The Florida Times-Union. Archived from
the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
The article notes:
Show creator Comm, an Internet marketer, claims to have all the tools to squeeze profitability from Internet ventures. He owns several domains ranging from online coupons to a personal blog. However, one of Comm's more notable Web sites, the family-friendly World Village, has seen rapidly declining traffic, with the number of global Internet users visiting the site dropping 37 percent within 3 months, according to Alexa, a Web tracking company.
Comm sells online know-how
Comm has written several books detailing how to utilize "search engine optimization," a method to make search engines rank your site above others - and he's aggressive about nabbing buyers for his online video tutorials and e-books. In order to view the show's audition videos, viewers must sign in with a name and e-mail address. Then, they see a splash page touting Comm's books for "a short-cut to online wealth."
- Stafford, Jim (2003-12-20).
"Consumers overcoming online fears".
The Oklahoman. Archived from
the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
The article notes:
Edmond resident Joel Comm operates an online business that attempts to match bargain hunters with retailers offering discounts. DealofDay.com lists hundreds of discounts at any one time, providing consumers with special codes that generate the discounts.
Retailers pay Comm a percentage of each sale that began with a link on his site. Dealofday.com has been linking users to discounted merchandise since 1999. Dealofday and its sister site, Worldvillage.com, are part of an active community operated by Comm that has 130,000 registered users who share shopping secrets with each other.
"Sometimes the members are the best resource for deals," Comm said, although he has on occasion been asked by a retailer to remove a discount code that is meant only for "family and friends."
Comm offers several holiday shopping suggestions for online bargain hunters that include looking for the opportunity to use discounts online that are clipped from printed ads found in a newspapers or magazines.
- Kincaid, Jason (2010-06-01).
"Former App Store King iFart Gets Blocked From The iPad".
TechCrunch. Archived from
the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
The article notes:
Joel Comm, CEO of iFart’s developer InfoMedia, says that it took a month of waiting before he got ahold of an Apple representative, who told Comm that he’d have to add quite a lot of functionality to the application to have it approved for the iPad — sound boards, even well-known ones, don’t cut it.
Comm has been through this before. When the App Store first launched Apple was routinely blocking applications like iFart and Pull My Finger, until it finally opened the floodgates to these ‘joke’ applications in December 2008. This time though, the application isn’t being blocked on the grounds of profanity or crudeness. Rather, it’s a lack of functionality, which is harder to change. The only consolation is that Comm can add a landscape mode to the existing iPhone app, but it wouldn’t be a native HD version.
- Elliott, Christopher (2009-02-10).
"Changing travel one tweet at a time".
CNN.
Tribune Media Services. Archived from
the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
The article calls Comm a "social media expert".
-
"What Can You Learn From A Digital Superstar?".
Radio Ink. 2015-05-20. Archived from
the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
The article notes:
Joel Comm started out in radio. It was during a time when computers were coming on strong and the Web was still known as the "World Wide Web." And it didn't take Comm long to figure out he could probably make a lot more money with new and emerging media than he could spinning records and reading the weather. Plus, he was getting frustrated with the sameness of radio and the slide away from creative announcing.
Comm left radio, and, after a productive career as a mobile DJ, headed to the Internet and created a website in the early '90s, soon becoming a pioneer in generating digital revenue. And when he learned how using Google AdSense could generate serious income from a website populated with strong content, he was making hundreds of dollars every day. Comm is a keynote speaker at Radio Ink's Convergence Conference May 27 and 28 in San Jose. He's also on the cover of the current issue of Radio Ink magazine. Here's a portion of our interview with Joel and part of what you'll miss if you are not in San Jose next week.
Joel Comm knew how to generate income so well he wrote a book about it that became a New York Times best-seller. He's now authored a dozen books, including The AdSense Code, Click Here to Order: Stories From the World’s Most Successful Entrepreneurs, KaChing: How to Run an Online Business That Pays and Pays, and Twitter Power 2.0. He has also written over 40 e-books, appeared in the New York Times and on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, and on CNN.com, Fox News, and many other outlets. Joel Comm went from having only 87 cents in his bank account to creating multiple successful businesses. We asked Comm how radio can improve its position in the digital world.
- Strauss, Steve (2014-07-06).
"Ask an Expert: Celebrating entrepreneurs".
USA Today. Archived from
the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
- My argument was not lack of notability. My argument was being part of a promotional campaign. We are not obliged to keep every article that passes the GNG. - Rather , we e can and should delete whatever we think should not be in WP
DGG (
talk )
01:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is your personal opinion that Wikipedia should exclude an article on a notable topic that does not meet a speedy deletion criterion at
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I decided whether articles should be kept by following
Wikipedia:Notability, which says:
Since this topic meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and is not excluded under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I believe it should be kept.A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
- It is your personal opinion that Wikipedia should exclude an article on a notable topic that does not meet a speedy deletion criterion at
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I decided whether articles should be kept by following
Wikipedia:Notability, which says:
- My argument was not lack of notability. My argument was being part of a promotional campaign. We are not obliged to keep every article that passes the GNG. - Rather , we e can and should delete whatever we think should not be in WP
DGG (
talk )
01:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it is my personal opinion that WP should not keep articles that are part of a promotional campaign. The policy is WP:Deletion policy, section 1, pt 14. " Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" . Some of the cases are defined by WP:NOT. Other cases exist also, if the community agrees on any specific instance. The consensus will decide. To make things clearer and more consistent than individual decisions, I shall be proposing additions to NOT. Anyone who does not realize my motivation why should examine the edit history, and then read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody and realize that it is just one of the many cases being investigated. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- This article is unrelated to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody. It is not listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles. Cunard ( talk) 05:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
-
Cunard that's not a good argument... Do you have evidence for that claim? Not being listing on the latter is no logical argument.
Widefox;
talk
13:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I never said it was connected; my point was that the multiple cases of this sort, of which this is only one representative, give the reason for being particularly concerned about promotionalism.
DGG (
talk )
14:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- At least one account overlaps Orangemoody on one article. Don't know more details at this point. Widefox; talk 17:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I never said it was connected; my point was that the multiple cases of this sort, of which this is only one representative, give the reason for being particularly concerned about promotionalism.
DGG (
talk )
14:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
-
Cunard that's not a good argument... Do you have evidence for that claim? Not being listing on the latter is no logical argument.
Widefox;
talk
13:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Purely promotional and obviously so due the the subject's professional activity. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cautious Delete yes delete per Kudpung, DGG. This is about what WP is not for the future. A web of self-promoting articles and editors is NOT. But to be clear - no prejudice. Widefox; talk 13:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am currently working on rewriting
Joel Comm.
Cunard (
talk)
17:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- As you know, this may be deleted at any time, and G11 has been floated at ANI for all articles by one of these editors. As said, I believe this BOGOF editing is detrimental to the project. Widefox; talk 18:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
ProvisionalKeep If a member of the community chooses to write a NPOV article about someone who is otherwise notable, I don't believe a prior paid editing version should prevent us from having a well article on the topic. Keep providing Cunard completes the rewrite (already see enough sourcing for notability). -- Green C 20:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Green Cardamom ( talk · contribs), I have rewritten the article. Would you take a look and see if it satisfies your concerns? Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 22:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cunard, good work. I left a notice on the article talk page that Joel Comm has been recommending ResultSource to his clients. ResultSource manipulates best-seller lists for a fee through bulk-buying and other methods. Given the paid editing at Wikipedia, and now ResultSource, I harbor doubts that his books were really best-sellers and hope future editors might be able to provide additional information that we can use to fill in the article. That of course would not be possible if the article were deleted. -- Green C 23:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have rewritten the article. Cunard ( talk) 22:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep He passes WP:GNG. period.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I left a !vote on The Next Internet Millionaire but will abstain here. What I find disturbing is this comment "We are not obliged to keep every article that passes the GNG. - Rather , we e can and should delete whatever we think should not be in WP." If that's the case, then why the f**k are we discussing the article in a deletion discussion? -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 20:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
-
WP:NOTE is a Guideline not a red line policy; if there is a consensus notable articles can be deleted. But by tradition NOTE has strong support in the community and thus AfD is usually about NOTE, but technically doesn't have to be. --
Green
C
21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Uh... no. WP:N is absolutely a policy, per the language at WP:V, and I quoth: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The wiki-culture in 2005 was that, if something obviously nonsensical was uncited, it was okay to put citation needed after the sentence. The wiki-culture as of 2010 was that, if something borderline was uncited, just go ahead and delete it, because that's not rudeness personified, that's WP:BRD aka a friendly invitation to have a friendly conversation on the talkpage. The wiki-culture as of 2015 is, which we are living in right this very second I'll point out, that EVERYTHING is gonna be challenged, so WP:N and WP:PROVEIT are de facto mandatory wiki-policies, albeit not yet de jure, and anybody who doesn't follow the letter of the wiki-laws is guilty until proven innocent of being an evil wiki-criminal, block first and ask questions later.
- Don't kid yourself GreenC -- wiki-notability is a bright red hardline policy, enforced whenever anybody feels like enforcing it, and more and more people would rather enforce guidelines as policy, and make up whole new policies out of whole new cloth, than go back to a more friendly wiki-culture. There is an ever-stronger push to re-write the meaning of wiki-reliable, so that sources that are WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be deleted, and to rewrite wiki-notability, so that articles which are WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be deleted. Wikipedia is in trouble, and these are but symptoms of that larger trouble. But pretending that WP:42 is 'just a guideline' definitely cannot be sustained. Not only is it the wiki-law in practice, plenty of people treat it as speed-limit-law, which is to say, they only enforce it when they feel like it. Terrible for wikipedia to have inconsistently enforced wiki-laws, and a wiki-culture that sees inconsistent enforcement as "okay" and perfectly "fair" ... because enforcing the letter of the wiki-law is 'more fun' than doing the hard work. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 19:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
-
WP:NOTE is a Guideline not a red line policy; if there is a consensus notable articles can be deleted. But by tradition NOTE has strong support in the community and thus AfD is usually about NOTE, but technically doesn't have to be. --
Green
C
21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- COI Comment User:Green Cardamom User:Cunard User:DGG This article has been rewritten despite awareness of previous undisclosed COI / promo and/or paid editor activity. The COI tag is used here (at least during the AfD) to indicate not that the previous COI issue are obviously still present in the text (although a double-check would be useful), but that ultimately the COI issue may hang-over possibly only in its continued existence (per our guideline that COI editors should wait for it to be created. It does not say but if you have a COI, someone will come along and save it anyway). The process of a volunteer knowingly saving a paid editor created article is a phenomenon I'm calling BOGOF. (note I have no knowledge if the creator of this article was paid, just that the account's SPA activity indicates a COI and there are also disclosed paid editors - one of which is blocked). Editors should be aware that notability alone is no guarantee that it will be kept. I remain neutral as to whether BOGOF is damaging in the long-run - it needs more analysis. I do think this phenomenon needs clear transparency, hence the tag. I will write this as an essay to help. Widefox; talk 01:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- You should be cautious about maligning editors who are working in good faith to improve Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with editing an article created by a paid account. The COI tag doesn't indefinitely "hang over" an article, it's not a "badge of shame" per the template documentation. Rather the {{
connected contributor}} tag is used to document COI editors on the talk page. --
Green
C
03:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with doing it, provided you like doing work for which others are being paid. If a garage tried to fix your car, and did it incompetently, would you expect the guy who redoes it right to do it for free? Personally, I prefer to help the volunteers. We need more new volunteers, and they deserve all the help they can get.
DGG (
talk )
05:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. It's unfortunate undisclosed paid editing has created division among volunteers. It wastes our energies in debates like this. I wish we had a larger consensus because it's a perennial problem. --
Green
C
12:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
-
User:DGG, methinks you have gone off the rails here. Consider
GE Ventures, which was created by an undisclosed paid editor (since disclosed methinks), and then re-done right by myself. If you want to help volunteers, am I included in that set? Because I see the stub-creation of
GE Ventures as Improving The Encyclopedia, no matter who did it. Along the same lines, your argument about the mechanic is also wrong -- which I've actually seen, in real life, at least two cases where a paid but incompetent garage-mechanic screwed up somebody's engine and then a volunteer buddy fixed the damage later in beneath the shade-tree gratis. Consider a case where I create an article from scratch, such as
Jack Flanagan (New Hampshire politician). Guess what? When I cited WaPo and BostonGlobe in order to write neutral summaries from scratch all by myself I was doing work journalists get paid to do. Should we delete all cites to the NYT, since somebody was paid to write those NYT articles? Should we delete all cites to
Physical Review A, since the professors that did the research are getting paid? Money is not the root of all evil.
75.108.94.227 (
talk)
18:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
-
User:Green Cardamom what maligning would that be exactly? "...but admire Cunard's work"
[1] . Nobody has suggested indef. Straw man argument. An attempt at rational evaluation of the driving forces does not involve any drama. Transparency =/= biasing, rewrite =/= no COI here, discussion =/= disrespect. I haven't even mentioned Cunard's use of HTML that fails XML parsing and messes up my editor :)
Widefox;
talk
19:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- "This article has been rewritten despite awareness of previous undisclosed COI..." That phrasing suggests the wrong thing, under some interpretations of 'despite'. That said, the "admire Cunard's work" bit seems to point at a mis-phrasing mis-hap, rather than intent to malign. Agree that perma-tagging the mainspace article is a badge-of-shame behavior. We *already* put the badge-of-shame onto the article-talkpage, right? That's more than enough.
75.108.94.227 (
talk)
19:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- User:75.108.94.227 Perma-tagging is a straw man argument (see above). Repeating it despite being pointed out doesn't make it true, but indicates something else. Are you aware of WP:AGF? Second guessing motivations and behavior when the above is an attempt to reason the technically incorrect use of a tag (as we have no correct one for this) ...i.e. just clearly disclosing a massive sock/COI issue with this and other articles is not about anything other than that. Widefox; talk 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- "This article has been rewritten despite awareness of previous undisclosed COI..." That phrasing suggests the wrong thing, under some interpretations of 'despite'. That said, the "admire Cunard's work" bit seems to point at a mis-phrasing mis-hap, rather than intent to malign. Agree that perma-tagging the mainspace article is a badge-of-shame behavior. We *already* put the badge-of-shame onto the article-talkpage, right? That's more than enough.
75.108.94.227 (
talk)
19:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
-
User:Green Cardamom what maligning would that be exactly? "...but admire Cunard's work"
[1] . Nobody has suggested indef. Straw man argument. An attempt at rational evaluation of the driving forces does not involve any drama. Transparency =/= biasing, rewrite =/= no COI here, discussion =/= disrespect. I haven't even mentioned Cunard's use of HTML that fails XML parsing and messes up my editor :)
Widefox;
talk
19:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
-
User:DGG, methinks you have gone off the rails here. Consider
GE Ventures, which was created by an undisclosed paid editor (since disclosed methinks), and then re-done right by myself. If you want to help volunteers, am I included in that set? Because I see the stub-creation of
GE Ventures as Improving The Encyclopedia, no matter who did it. Along the same lines, your argument about the mechanic is also wrong -- which I've actually seen, in real life, at least two cases where a paid but incompetent garage-mechanic screwed up somebody's engine and then a volunteer buddy fixed the damage later in beneath the shade-tree gratis. Consider a case where I create an article from scratch, such as
Jack Flanagan (New Hampshire politician). Guess what? When I cited WaPo and BostonGlobe in order to write neutral summaries from scratch all by myself I was doing work journalists get paid to do. Should we delete all cites to the NYT, since somebody was paid to write those NYT articles? Should we delete all cites to
Physical Review A, since the professors that did the research are getting paid? Money is not the root of all evil.
75.108.94.227 (
talk)
18:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. It's unfortunate undisclosed paid editing has created division among volunteers. It wastes our energies in debates like this. I wish we had a larger consensus because it's a perennial problem. --
Green
C
12:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with doing it, provided you like doing work for which others are being paid. If a garage tried to fix your car, and did it incompetently, would you expect the guy who redoes it right to do it for free? Personally, I prefer to help the volunteers. We need more new volunteers, and they deserve all the help they can get.
DGG (
talk )
05:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- You should be cautious about maligning editors who are working in good faith to improve Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with editing an article created by a paid account. The COI tag doesn't indefinitely "hang over" an article, it's not a "badge of shame" per the template documentation. Rather the {{
connected contributor}} tag is used to document COI editors on the talk page. --
Green
C
03:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cannot bring myself to bangvote in favor of the BLP-article about the BLP-human infamous as the creator the iFart. But I will comment, that "He's probably notable" is not the strongest way to open an AfD nom. In fact, if that is your argument, then you should probably be over at the WT:GNG page, and not here, eh? Put new policy of salting contributions tainted by the sin of financial gain actually into the wiki-policies before you implement said hypothetical wiki-rule. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 18:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did it that way deliberately--we need to remove the apparently widespread impression that notability is the only reason for deletion. Promotionalism is in my view even more important. But you are right; I should have worded it a little more subtly. And, FWIW, we are stuck with the article on
iFart.
DGG (
talk )
21:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- The question is what effect the rapid rewrite of an article in good faith by a volunteer immediately after/during promo cleanup does for the project. I don't have the answer, yet. Widefox; talk 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did it that way deliberately--we need to remove the apparently widespread impression that notability is the only reason for deletion. Promotionalism is in my view even more important. But you are right; I should have worded it a little more subtly. And, FWIW, we are stuck with the article on
iFart.
DGG (
talk )
21:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources provided by Cunard. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep this one, but delete all the other articles about him, The Next Internet Millionaire, Twitter Power, etc. It seems that this proliferation of articles all about the same marginally notable topic should be gathered into one article written by someone other than Cunard, who, no matter how independent he or she may be, still seems to have a tough time writing an NPOV article that complies with Wikipedia guidelines on promotionalism and reliability. See comments throughout. -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. Because the article has been rewritten by a non-COI editor, and all opinions expressed since then have been in favor of keeping the article, I must consider that the concerns about promotionalism and COI expressed in the first half of the discussion have been addressed, at least as concerns this article. Sandstein 08:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Joel Comm
- Joel Comm ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He's probably notable, but this is part of a promotional closed ring of articles written primarily by a SPA, with help from sockpuppets and known paid editors. When an article is contaminated to this extent, we need to remove it.
Borderline notability is not the only reason for deletion. Even for a notable article, having been written and maintained with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason--or even better. Variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. We're going to need drastic measures to deal with this, and removing the articles is a first step. The second will be figuring out ways to keep getting additional ones submitted. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Deletion is not cleanup and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Cunard ( talk) 01:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
- Strauss, Steve (2014-07-06).
"Ask an Expert: Celebrating entrepreneurs".
USA Today. Archived from
the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
The article notes:
One person who knows the answer is the great Joel Comm. I say great because it is an apt description of the pioneering Internet entrepreneur (he created his first website, WorldVillage, in 1995, one of the first 18,000 sites ever on the web). Over the past 20 years, Joel has created businesses and products that have dominated more than a few mediums:
• The Internet: In 1997, Yahoo! bought his site ClassicGames.com and turned it into one of the world first and largest multi-player gaming sites. In fact, Joel became an icon on the site, one I remember choosing back in the day
• Writing and publishing: with the New York Times bestseller The AdSense Code
• Social media, 80,000 followers and counting, and the world's best-selling book on Twitter for business, Twitter Power
• Mobile apps: Five years ago, Joel created one of the most infamous, and best-selling, apps in the iTunes Store, iFart.
- Johnson, Kimberly S. (2007-07-30).
"Who wants to be an internet millionaire?".
The Denver Post. Archived from
the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
The article notes:
A Loveland entrepreneur who has reportedly made millions with his online ventures is trying to do the same for others - with a reality-TV twist.
Joel Comm, who sold his first business to Yahoo Inc. in 1997, is the co-creator and host of "The Next Internet Millionaire," an "Apprentice"- type reality show being filmed in Loveland. The show will be aired exclusively online beginning Aug. 15.
Comm moved to Colorado this year and came up with the show idea with co-creator and Fort Collins resident Eric Holmlund.
"Reality TV is huge, and online video is gaining momentum," said Comm, 43. "My goal is to prove that Internet (video) is ready for prime time."
...
However, Comm, who wrote a book on using Google's ad server to maximize business, said that viewers not only will see a reality show but will learn how to use and apply some of his techniques to their own businesses.
"It seems like (Comm) is trying to be the Donald Trump of the Internet," [Richard] Ayoub said. "It's a way to showcase him as a leader in the Internet. It's a big PR stunt."
- Middleton, Diana (2007-06-23).
"The next Internet millionaire?: Local businesswoman in the running to win big through an online reality show".
The Florida Times-Union. Archived from
the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
The article notes:
Show creator Comm, an Internet marketer, claims to have all the tools to squeeze profitability from Internet ventures. He owns several domains ranging from online coupons to a personal blog. However, one of Comm's more notable Web sites, the family-friendly World Village, has seen rapidly declining traffic, with the number of global Internet users visiting the site dropping 37 percent within 3 months, according to Alexa, a Web tracking company.
Comm sells online know-how
Comm has written several books detailing how to utilize "search engine optimization," a method to make search engines rank your site above others - and he's aggressive about nabbing buyers for his online video tutorials and e-books. In order to view the show's audition videos, viewers must sign in with a name and e-mail address. Then, they see a splash page touting Comm's books for "a short-cut to online wealth."
- Stafford, Jim (2003-12-20).
"Consumers overcoming online fears".
The Oklahoman. Archived from
the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
The article notes:
Edmond resident Joel Comm operates an online business that attempts to match bargain hunters with retailers offering discounts. DealofDay.com lists hundreds of discounts at any one time, providing consumers with special codes that generate the discounts.
Retailers pay Comm a percentage of each sale that began with a link on his site. Dealofday.com has been linking users to discounted merchandise since 1999. Dealofday and its sister site, Worldvillage.com, are part of an active community operated by Comm that has 130,000 registered users who share shopping secrets with each other.
"Sometimes the members are the best resource for deals," Comm said, although he has on occasion been asked by a retailer to remove a discount code that is meant only for "family and friends."
Comm offers several holiday shopping suggestions for online bargain hunters that include looking for the opportunity to use discounts online that are clipped from printed ads found in a newspapers or magazines.
- Kincaid, Jason (2010-06-01).
"Former App Store King iFart Gets Blocked From The iPad".
TechCrunch. Archived from
the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
The article notes:
Joel Comm, CEO of iFart’s developer InfoMedia, says that it took a month of waiting before he got ahold of an Apple representative, who told Comm that he’d have to add quite a lot of functionality to the application to have it approved for the iPad — sound boards, even well-known ones, don’t cut it.
Comm has been through this before. When the App Store first launched Apple was routinely blocking applications like iFart and Pull My Finger, until it finally opened the floodgates to these ‘joke’ applications in December 2008. This time though, the application isn’t being blocked on the grounds of profanity or crudeness. Rather, it’s a lack of functionality, which is harder to change. The only consolation is that Comm can add a landscape mode to the existing iPhone app, but it wouldn’t be a native HD version.
- Elliott, Christopher (2009-02-10).
"Changing travel one tweet at a time".
CNN.
Tribune Media Services. Archived from
the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
The article calls Comm a "social media expert".
-
"What Can You Learn From A Digital Superstar?".
Radio Ink. 2015-05-20. Archived from
the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
The article notes:
Joel Comm started out in radio. It was during a time when computers were coming on strong and the Web was still known as the "World Wide Web." And it didn't take Comm long to figure out he could probably make a lot more money with new and emerging media than he could spinning records and reading the weather. Plus, he was getting frustrated with the sameness of radio and the slide away from creative announcing.
Comm left radio, and, after a productive career as a mobile DJ, headed to the Internet and created a website in the early '90s, soon becoming a pioneer in generating digital revenue. And when he learned how using Google AdSense could generate serious income from a website populated with strong content, he was making hundreds of dollars every day. Comm is a keynote speaker at Radio Ink's Convergence Conference May 27 and 28 in San Jose. He's also on the cover of the current issue of Radio Ink magazine. Here's a portion of our interview with Joel and part of what you'll miss if you are not in San Jose next week.
Joel Comm knew how to generate income so well he wrote a book about it that became a New York Times best-seller. He's now authored a dozen books, including The AdSense Code, Click Here to Order: Stories From the World’s Most Successful Entrepreneurs, KaChing: How to Run an Online Business That Pays and Pays, and Twitter Power 2.0. He has also written over 40 e-books, appeared in the New York Times and on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, and on CNN.com, Fox News, and many other outlets. Joel Comm went from having only 87 cents in his bank account to creating multiple successful businesses. We asked Comm how radio can improve its position in the digital world.
- Strauss, Steve (2014-07-06).
"Ask an Expert: Celebrating entrepreneurs".
USA Today. Archived from
the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
- My argument was not lack of notability. My argument was being part of a promotional campaign. We are not obliged to keep every article that passes the GNG. - Rather , we e can and should delete whatever we think should not be in WP
DGG (
talk )
01:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is your personal opinion that Wikipedia should exclude an article on a notable topic that does not meet a speedy deletion criterion at
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I decided whether articles should be kept by following
Wikipedia:Notability, which says:
Since this topic meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and is not excluded under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I believe it should be kept.A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
- It is your personal opinion that Wikipedia should exclude an article on a notable topic that does not meet a speedy deletion criterion at
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I decided whether articles should be kept by following
Wikipedia:Notability, which says:
- My argument was not lack of notability. My argument was being part of a promotional campaign. We are not obliged to keep every article that passes the GNG. - Rather , we e can and should delete whatever we think should not be in WP
DGG (
talk )
01:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it is my personal opinion that WP should not keep articles that are part of a promotional campaign. The policy is WP:Deletion policy, section 1, pt 14. " Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" . Some of the cases are defined by WP:NOT. Other cases exist also, if the community agrees on any specific instance. The consensus will decide. To make things clearer and more consistent than individual decisions, I shall be proposing additions to NOT. Anyone who does not realize my motivation why should examine the edit history, and then read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody and realize that it is just one of the many cases being investigated. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- This article is unrelated to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody. It is not listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles. Cunard ( talk) 05:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
-
Cunard that's not a good argument... Do you have evidence for that claim? Not being listing on the latter is no logical argument.
Widefox;
talk
13:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I never said it was connected; my point was that the multiple cases of this sort, of which this is only one representative, give the reason for being particularly concerned about promotionalism.
DGG (
talk )
14:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- At least one account overlaps Orangemoody on one article. Don't know more details at this point. Widefox; talk 17:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I never said it was connected; my point was that the multiple cases of this sort, of which this is only one representative, give the reason for being particularly concerned about promotionalism.
DGG (
talk )
14:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
-
Cunard that's not a good argument... Do you have evidence for that claim? Not being listing on the latter is no logical argument.
Widefox;
talk
13:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Purely promotional and obviously so due the the subject's professional activity. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cautious Delete yes delete per Kudpung, DGG. This is about what WP is not for the future. A web of self-promoting articles and editors is NOT. But to be clear - no prejudice. Widefox; talk 13:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am currently working on rewriting
Joel Comm.
Cunard (
talk)
17:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- As you know, this may be deleted at any time, and G11 has been floated at ANI for all articles by one of these editors. As said, I believe this BOGOF editing is detrimental to the project. Widefox; talk 18:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
ProvisionalKeep If a member of the community chooses to write a NPOV article about someone who is otherwise notable, I don't believe a prior paid editing version should prevent us from having a well article on the topic. Keep providing Cunard completes the rewrite (already see enough sourcing for notability). -- Green C 20:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Green Cardamom ( talk · contribs), I have rewritten the article. Would you take a look and see if it satisfies your concerns? Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 22:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cunard, good work. I left a notice on the article talk page that Joel Comm has been recommending ResultSource to his clients. ResultSource manipulates best-seller lists for a fee through bulk-buying and other methods. Given the paid editing at Wikipedia, and now ResultSource, I harbor doubts that his books were really best-sellers and hope future editors might be able to provide additional information that we can use to fill in the article. That of course would not be possible if the article were deleted. -- Green C 23:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have rewritten the article. Cunard ( talk) 22:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep He passes WP:GNG. period.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I left a !vote on The Next Internet Millionaire but will abstain here. What I find disturbing is this comment "We are not obliged to keep every article that passes the GNG. - Rather , we e can and should delete whatever we think should not be in WP." If that's the case, then why the f**k are we discussing the article in a deletion discussion? -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 20:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
-
WP:NOTE is a Guideline not a red line policy; if there is a consensus notable articles can be deleted. But by tradition NOTE has strong support in the community and thus AfD is usually about NOTE, but technically doesn't have to be. --
Green
C
21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Uh... no. WP:N is absolutely a policy, per the language at WP:V, and I quoth: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The wiki-culture in 2005 was that, if something obviously nonsensical was uncited, it was okay to put citation needed after the sentence. The wiki-culture as of 2010 was that, if something borderline was uncited, just go ahead and delete it, because that's not rudeness personified, that's WP:BRD aka a friendly invitation to have a friendly conversation on the talkpage. The wiki-culture as of 2015 is, which we are living in right this very second I'll point out, that EVERYTHING is gonna be challenged, so WP:N and WP:PROVEIT are de facto mandatory wiki-policies, albeit not yet de jure, and anybody who doesn't follow the letter of the wiki-laws is guilty until proven innocent of being an evil wiki-criminal, block first and ask questions later.
- Don't kid yourself GreenC -- wiki-notability is a bright red hardline policy, enforced whenever anybody feels like enforcing it, and more and more people would rather enforce guidelines as policy, and make up whole new policies out of whole new cloth, than go back to a more friendly wiki-culture. There is an ever-stronger push to re-write the meaning of wiki-reliable, so that sources that are WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be deleted, and to rewrite wiki-notability, so that articles which are WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be deleted. Wikipedia is in trouble, and these are but symptoms of that larger trouble. But pretending that WP:42 is 'just a guideline' definitely cannot be sustained. Not only is it the wiki-law in practice, plenty of people treat it as speed-limit-law, which is to say, they only enforce it when they feel like it. Terrible for wikipedia to have inconsistently enforced wiki-laws, and a wiki-culture that sees inconsistent enforcement as "okay" and perfectly "fair" ... because enforcing the letter of the wiki-law is 'more fun' than doing the hard work. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 19:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
-
WP:NOTE is a Guideline not a red line policy; if there is a consensus notable articles can be deleted. But by tradition NOTE has strong support in the community and thus AfD is usually about NOTE, but technically doesn't have to be. --
Green
C
21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- COI Comment User:Green Cardamom User:Cunard User:DGG This article has been rewritten despite awareness of previous undisclosed COI / promo and/or paid editor activity. The COI tag is used here (at least during the AfD) to indicate not that the previous COI issue are obviously still present in the text (although a double-check would be useful), but that ultimately the COI issue may hang-over possibly only in its continued existence (per our guideline that COI editors should wait for it to be created. It does not say but if you have a COI, someone will come along and save it anyway). The process of a volunteer knowingly saving a paid editor created article is a phenomenon I'm calling BOGOF. (note I have no knowledge if the creator of this article was paid, just that the account's SPA activity indicates a COI and there are also disclosed paid editors - one of which is blocked). Editors should be aware that notability alone is no guarantee that it will be kept. I remain neutral as to whether BOGOF is damaging in the long-run - it needs more analysis. I do think this phenomenon needs clear transparency, hence the tag. I will write this as an essay to help. Widefox; talk 01:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- You should be cautious about maligning editors who are working in good faith to improve Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with editing an article created by a paid account. The COI tag doesn't indefinitely "hang over" an article, it's not a "badge of shame" per the template documentation. Rather the {{
connected contributor}} tag is used to document COI editors on the talk page. --
Green
C
03:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with doing it, provided you like doing work for which others are being paid. If a garage tried to fix your car, and did it incompetently, would you expect the guy who redoes it right to do it for free? Personally, I prefer to help the volunteers. We need more new volunteers, and they deserve all the help they can get.
DGG (
talk )
05:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. It's unfortunate undisclosed paid editing has created division among volunteers. It wastes our energies in debates like this. I wish we had a larger consensus because it's a perennial problem. --
Green
C
12:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
-
User:DGG, methinks you have gone off the rails here. Consider
GE Ventures, which was created by an undisclosed paid editor (since disclosed methinks), and then re-done right by myself. If you want to help volunteers, am I included in that set? Because I see the stub-creation of
GE Ventures as Improving The Encyclopedia, no matter who did it. Along the same lines, your argument about the mechanic is also wrong -- which I've actually seen, in real life, at least two cases where a paid but incompetent garage-mechanic screwed up somebody's engine and then a volunteer buddy fixed the damage later in beneath the shade-tree gratis. Consider a case where I create an article from scratch, such as
Jack Flanagan (New Hampshire politician). Guess what? When I cited WaPo and BostonGlobe in order to write neutral summaries from scratch all by myself I was doing work journalists get paid to do. Should we delete all cites to the NYT, since somebody was paid to write those NYT articles? Should we delete all cites to
Physical Review A, since the professors that did the research are getting paid? Money is not the root of all evil.
75.108.94.227 (
talk)
18:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
-
User:Green Cardamom what maligning would that be exactly? "...but admire Cunard's work"
[1] . Nobody has suggested indef. Straw man argument. An attempt at rational evaluation of the driving forces does not involve any drama. Transparency =/= biasing, rewrite =/= no COI here, discussion =/= disrespect. I haven't even mentioned Cunard's use of HTML that fails XML parsing and messes up my editor :)
Widefox;
talk
19:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- "This article has been rewritten despite awareness of previous undisclosed COI..." That phrasing suggests the wrong thing, under some interpretations of 'despite'. That said, the "admire Cunard's work" bit seems to point at a mis-phrasing mis-hap, rather than intent to malign. Agree that perma-tagging the mainspace article is a badge-of-shame behavior. We *already* put the badge-of-shame onto the article-talkpage, right? That's more than enough.
75.108.94.227 (
talk)
19:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- User:75.108.94.227 Perma-tagging is a straw man argument (see above). Repeating it despite being pointed out doesn't make it true, but indicates something else. Are you aware of WP:AGF? Second guessing motivations and behavior when the above is an attempt to reason the technically incorrect use of a tag (as we have no correct one for this) ...i.e. just clearly disclosing a massive sock/COI issue with this and other articles is not about anything other than that. Widefox; talk 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- "This article has been rewritten despite awareness of previous undisclosed COI..." That phrasing suggests the wrong thing, under some interpretations of 'despite'. That said, the "admire Cunard's work" bit seems to point at a mis-phrasing mis-hap, rather than intent to malign. Agree that perma-tagging the mainspace article is a badge-of-shame behavior. We *already* put the badge-of-shame onto the article-talkpage, right? That's more than enough.
75.108.94.227 (
talk)
19:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
-
User:Green Cardamom what maligning would that be exactly? "...but admire Cunard's work"
[1] . Nobody has suggested indef. Straw man argument. An attempt at rational evaluation of the driving forces does not involve any drama. Transparency =/= biasing, rewrite =/= no COI here, discussion =/= disrespect. I haven't even mentioned Cunard's use of HTML that fails XML parsing and messes up my editor :)
Widefox;
talk
19:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
-
User:DGG, methinks you have gone off the rails here. Consider
GE Ventures, which was created by an undisclosed paid editor (since disclosed methinks), and then re-done right by myself. If you want to help volunteers, am I included in that set? Because I see the stub-creation of
GE Ventures as Improving The Encyclopedia, no matter who did it. Along the same lines, your argument about the mechanic is also wrong -- which I've actually seen, in real life, at least two cases where a paid but incompetent garage-mechanic screwed up somebody's engine and then a volunteer buddy fixed the damage later in beneath the shade-tree gratis. Consider a case where I create an article from scratch, such as
Jack Flanagan (New Hampshire politician). Guess what? When I cited WaPo and BostonGlobe in order to write neutral summaries from scratch all by myself I was doing work journalists get paid to do. Should we delete all cites to the NYT, since somebody was paid to write those NYT articles? Should we delete all cites to
Physical Review A, since the professors that did the research are getting paid? Money is not the root of all evil.
75.108.94.227 (
talk)
18:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. It's unfortunate undisclosed paid editing has created division among volunteers. It wastes our energies in debates like this. I wish we had a larger consensus because it's a perennial problem. --
Green
C
12:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with doing it, provided you like doing work for which others are being paid. If a garage tried to fix your car, and did it incompetently, would you expect the guy who redoes it right to do it for free? Personally, I prefer to help the volunteers. We need more new volunteers, and they deserve all the help they can get.
DGG (
talk )
05:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- You should be cautious about maligning editors who are working in good faith to improve Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with editing an article created by a paid account. The COI tag doesn't indefinitely "hang over" an article, it's not a "badge of shame" per the template documentation. Rather the {{
connected contributor}} tag is used to document COI editors on the talk page. --
Green
C
03:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cannot bring myself to bangvote in favor of the BLP-article about the BLP-human infamous as the creator the iFart. But I will comment, that "He's probably notable" is not the strongest way to open an AfD nom. In fact, if that is your argument, then you should probably be over at the WT:GNG page, and not here, eh? Put new policy of salting contributions tainted by the sin of financial gain actually into the wiki-policies before you implement said hypothetical wiki-rule. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 18:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did it that way deliberately--we need to remove the apparently widespread impression that notability is the only reason for deletion. Promotionalism is in my view even more important. But you are right; I should have worded it a little more subtly. And, FWIW, we are stuck with the article on
iFart.
DGG (
talk )
21:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- The question is what effect the rapid rewrite of an article in good faith by a volunteer immediately after/during promo cleanup does for the project. I don't have the answer, yet. Widefox; talk 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did it that way deliberately--we need to remove the apparently widespread impression that notability is the only reason for deletion. Promotionalism is in my view even more important. But you are right; I should have worded it a little more subtly. And, FWIW, we are stuck with the article on
iFart.
DGG (
talk )
21:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources provided by Cunard. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep this one, but delete all the other articles about him, The Next Internet Millionaire, Twitter Power, etc. It seems that this proliferation of articles all about the same marginally notable topic should be gathered into one article written by someone other than Cunard, who, no matter how independent he or she may be, still seems to have a tough time writing an NPOV article that complies with Wikipedia guidelines on promotionalism and reliability. See comments throughout. -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.