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. I encourage all parties to continue discussing the content of the article on its respective talk page. In general, however, there seems to be a consensus that the subject itself is notable, which is the scope of an AFD. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

TSLAQ

TSLAQ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a biased (fails WP:NPOV) article that attempts to legitimize a non notable group of stock manipulators and, by doing so, the article itself is part of a securities fraud online manipulation strategy known as short and distort. The article creator and major contributor — QRep2020 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and appears to be closely tied to the subject of the article, TSLAQ. All edits to the article from several different editors that talk about this group’s controversies, including how this group has a history of spreading rumors and false information, are immediately reverted by the clearly biased article creator. Iamchinahand ( talk) 11:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Nothing stated above is true; there is no evidence that TSLAQ engages in short and distort, I'm not closely tied to the subject (I am not part of TSLAQ, I am researching it), and there have been plenty of edits that have been left or discussed at length before being kept on the entry. I haven't seen a single well-thought argument on this page as to why TSLAQ should be deleted, just flagrant assertions. QRep2020 ( talk) 15:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep There is no reason for this entry to be removed as the topic AND article as it was prior to the arguable vandalism conducted by Iamchinahand has been subject to much revision and discussion by myself, Phyronian ( talk • contribs), User:Licentiatus ( talk • contribs), and Schazjmd ( talk • contribs) at Talk:TSLAQ; in fact, if you look at Phyronian's profile, the user appears to be solely interested in making sure the entry's language is not overtly supportive or approving of TSLAQ. All of the sources used on the article come from third-party reliable publications that themselves refer to authoritative/ primary sources. Iamchinahand ( talk) has absolutely no proof besides articles which are emotively and not factually based that "securities fraud" is being conducted by anyone who has contributed to the article or the group that is the subject of the entry. Please remove this deletion request as I strongly urge the Wikipedia editors at large to keep and I ask that Iamchinahand ( talk) be investigated for behaving in a manner that has no place at Wikipedia. Thank you. QRep2020 ( talk) 21:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I did make my account to work on the TSLAQ article, as I believed there were important changes I wanted to implement on the article. I am not affiliated with TSLAQ, and I do not support the group's actions. Anyone can look at my edit history on the TSLAQ article and see that I have only wanted transparency on the actions of TSLAQ, many of which were opposed by QRep2020 for reasons I thought were illegitimate, again all documented in the talk section of the article. Phyronian ( talk) 17:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Phyronian: I now see your attempted edits to the article clearly and how they were all reverted by User:QRep2020. Please feel free to add your vote to this AfD as you seem to clearly understand the situation with this article. Iamchinahand ( talk) 06:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Clearly Iamchinahand ( talk) did not even bother to read the rather robust TSLAQ Talk page as the user removed contributions from numerous editors who discussed their updates at length. This call for deletion is really rather unsubstantiated and likely for biased reasons. I'd also like to add that this particular entry has been repeatedly vandalized in the past and that if one examines the article's update history what is happening now looks very similar to what has happened in the past. QRep2020 ( talk) 19:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Author of article claiming any other viewpoint is so-called "vandalism" furthers claim that this is a biased author and a poorly written article. The author reverts any edits, including edits from User:Tintdepotcom ( User:Tinting2020) and User:Cihwcihw, that include mention of the major controversies of this group. This is a malicious group that will do anything to hurt Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla) for financial gains under the false-cover that they are "anti-fraud". The article is written in a fashion that gives credibility to what many believe to be a very malicious group without any mention of the group's serious controversy. Anyone that reads the articles talk page can see that the subject of the article is a malicious group. It is also apparent that the author of the article goes to great lengths to try to appear to be neutral and unaffiliated with the group in his so-called "Statement of Neutrality and Non-involvement". This is very fishy. I don't believe this article is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Unless this article is rewritten to include more than the one completely biased viewpoint, it will be deleted. Iamchinahand ( talk) 04:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I urge the editors above to read WP:Introduction to deletion process and WP:Deletion is not cleanup, and review WP:AFDFORMAT. I also encourage the editors above to read WP:THREAD and learn to format their talk page comments properly. Third, WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Schazjmd  (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Schazjmd: This article should be deleted because it fails WP:NPOV, a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. The article can not be "cleaned up" because the article's creator reverts any edits that would make the article meet these guidelines. Further, the article's creator claims "vandalism" with all attempted edits to make the article satisfy the NPOV guidelines. Iamchinahand ( talk) 15:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Iamchinahand, you're not making your case to me, I'm not the decider. I was trying to gently point out that this AFD is a mess. Schazjmd  (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Iamchinahand, if that is the case then the article creator needs to be addressed, rather than the article itself be deleted. We have plenty of mechanisms for dealing with such actions, which include blocking of editors and protection of articles, but not deletion of articles on notable subjects. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Firstly, I have yet to see any evidence or argument in the AfD discussion as to the article's perspective being non-neutral beyond saying it is "apparent" (as in either somehow the perspective taken in the article is self-evident or known via intuition). Secondly, the claim that TSLAQ should somehow not be intellectually represented because they are allegedly "malicious" and conduct "security fraud" is irrelevant for the very reason previously given though misconstrued: Wikipedia houses reference to individuals, groups, organizations, etc. of all types, manner, focus, etc. and takes no normative position as to how "bad" or "good" the referents behave or are by nature. Finally, for now, these claims have been waged before on the TSLAQ talk page and were answered and discharged; as the article has not changed substantially since said dialog, the initial claims continue to possess no merit. QRep2020 ( talk) 21:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• I'd also like to add that on Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup it reads: "If the subject of an article has been proven to pass notability guidelines, there is no need for a deletion discussion". Given the various third-party major news articles on the topic, the previous discussion on Talk: TSLAQ, and the fact that the article has been live for months now, one can conclude that it passes the notability guidelines. Therefore, there's no need for this or any deletion discussion. When can this discussion be closed at the earliest and is there anything that can be done to prevent it from happening again? QRep2020 ( talk) 03:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't know why my recent contribution was deleted. I simply stated my argument and provided a hyperlink to evidence of TSLAQ activity. Who is behind this deletion effort? Why don't they post specifications for what they would like to see done to the article? There is plenty of evidence. There is a phenomenon to be described. Is there some wikipedia rule that objects or situations have to be five or more years old to be described in Wikipedia? Who are you and what is nature of the problem? Just because you are more conversant with Wikipedia formatting, does not mean you should exercise dictatorial deletions. The age of fable ( talk) 14:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• I saw some specifications and suggestions in the notes on the History page for this AfD from moderators. QRep2020 ( talk) 15:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment WP:NOTADVOCACY clearly explains why this page should not exist in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. According to WP:N, a topic is presumed to merit an article only if it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. According to Wikipedia, " Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas..." and is not permitted under WP:NOT. The article is written in a non-neutral fashion with several cherry picked tidbits that attempt to give credibility to a group that some, if not many, people would say is a very malicious group of individuals. The way the article is currently written is comparable to writing an article about a "terrorist group" and positioning the group solely as “freedom fighters”. Both sides strongly believe their view of the group as being correct. The article creator may truly believe that the edits that he has been reverting from several different editors are inappropriate for the article. This is normal for advocates. The creator of the article's username is 'Q' (from TSLAQ), 'Rep' (short for representative), '2020'. The "Q" in TSLAQ stands for bankruptcy. Every single reference that the article uses talks about TSLAQ as a "group of short-sellers" (those who benefit from a stock price dropping); however, the first line of the article states that TSLAQ is simply a "group...who primarily organize...in order to share news, openly discuss matters concerning the company and its stock, and coordinate efforts" (no mention of short-sellers). Some other examples of non-neutrality in the article (1) group type labeled "fraud deterrence" (2) Under 'Hothi Allegations & Crowdfunding', Mr. Hothi's side of the story is written innocently and as if it is factual, while Tesla's side is written as 'allegations' (3) The article talks about Tesla being the most shorted stock, while legitimately referenced edits to include how investors that shorted Tesla stock lost $5 billion in a two-day period were reverted. This following article explains more about one view of this group's activities that are not included in the article - https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/06/jim-cramer-explains-how-short-sellers-manipulate-stocks-like-tesla-tsla/ I also urge editors interested in this subject to search Twitter and Reddit for "TSLAQ" to see for yourselves what this group is really doing. The TSLAQ article does not belong on Wikipedia. Iamchinahand ( talk) 11:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• The solution to every problem is not article deletion. This article has plenty of problems, but the way to fix them is by editing the article, with, as I said above, the admin tools of blocking and protection being available if editors don't follow policy and talk-page consensus. Phil Bridger ( talk) 11:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply

How does one go about properly writing/editing a Wikipedia article about an anonymous online disinformation organization that has convinced some (including some in the media) that it is legitimate? Is there a Wikipedia page that explains best practices? Iamchinahand ( talk) 12:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply

In the same way that we go about writing any Wikipedia article: by basing it on what is written about the subject in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger ( talk) 12:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply

That would be great if it was that simple, but disinformation aimed at the media causes unknowing media to write about it as if it is the truth (see Short and distort). This disinformation reported by media then becomes an "independent reliable source" that can easily be manipulated on Wikipedia. In fact, one of the authors that the TSLAQ article references, Linette Lopez from Business Insider, allegedly lost her job because of low quality reporting on Tesla. Again, we are talking about an anonymous online group. For normal topics, I agree that we just need independent reliable sources. This article does not belong on Wikipedia. Iamchinahand ( talk) 13:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The media, outlets like CNBC, LATimes.com, Wired, Bloomberg.com, is spreading disinformation? Seriously? Assuming that is the case - which it isn't by a long-shot - what exactly is the "disinformation" that these world-renowned publications are spreading? Also, where does it state that online anonymous groups are not allowed to be featured on Wikipedia? QAnon details an anonymous online group and I don't see that page getting tormented. QRep2020 ( talk) 18:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Iamchinahand, with your added text, you still seem to have difficulty grasping the idea of commenting on the content rather than on contributors. It's also odd that you copied your interpretation of the editor's name from User talk:Tinting2020#December 2019. Schazjmd  (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  It also seems that, where you are not commenting on contributors, you are providing reasons to change the content of the article rather than to delete it. Phil Bridger ( talk) 15:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  When it comes to deleting an article for failing WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NPOV, I believe it is important to show that the creator and primary contributor of the article is in fact advocating. Regarding the the interpretation of the editor's name - I wanted to make sure that other editors and administrators are aware of something that is obvious to me and certainly makes the author seem to be tied to and an advocate of the subject of the article. After reading the interpretation as it was written out by User:Tinting2020, I believe it makes sense to include the interpretation in this AfD to show the obvious connection for those that missed it. I do not believe the article can be fixed; however, if administrators decide not to delete it, I will attempt (again) to fix it. My guess is that it will continue to be a battleground if left on Wikipedia. Iamchinahand ( talk) 15:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Of course you're welcome to propose edits to the article, but why not follow everyone's advice and discuss the proposed changes first in Talk: TSLAQ? Simply making questionable updates to the article for an admittedly contentious topic without bringing them up first is what lead me to revert them and I stand by that action. Also, I won't even touch how something can be obvious but not true, i.e. the origins of my Wikipedia name which has been explained elsewhere. QRep2020 ( talk) 16:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Removing all advocacy (non-neutral content) and some clean up, the article would look like this $TSLAQ Article Draft Sandbox. If any of the changes are not obvious, I can go one by one and explain why any content was changed or removed if needed (I won't now because this AfD is already long and a mess). Iamchinahand ( talk) 11:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Please do go one by one, because none of this is obvious and there is plenty of disagreement. Why you are posting this on the AfD, and still not the Talk page, is beyond me. QRep2020 ( talk) 14:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• It's been a week I believe and even the initial writer of this AfD appears to not want to delete TSLAQ. Can you discharge it please, admins? Thanks. QRep2020 ( talk) 00:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  The article should be deleted and a new neutral article properly named $TSLAQ should added. Please see detailed change explanations here $TSLAQ Article Change Explanations Iamchinahand ( talk) 03:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  That doesn't make any sense in the slightest. Why would the hashtag that a group uses get an article in place of one for the group itself? What are you really trying to accomplish here? QRep2020 ( talk) 15:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  The "group" is (some, not all of) Tesla stock short sellers. They are using a cashtag (hashtag) $TSLAQ. I am trying to remove advocacy from Wikipedia. Iamchinahand ( talk) 16:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  You have this backwards: The group has a subset of short-sellers, yes, but there are members of TSLAQ that don't short the stock. The quotation from Ed Niedermeyer at the beginning of the existing article relates this. And there are likely members of TSLAQ who don't use the hashtag. What is more useful to readers of Wikipedia, knowing there is some hashtag being used on Twitter or that there is a group behind its use that extends beyond Twitter? Also, why did you put your reasons for your proposed changes to the text used on TSLAQ in a section on your Sandbox? How am I or anyone else supposed to respond to what you're suggesting in focused, easy to comprehend fashion? I think you need to spend more time understanding how Wikipedia operates before you go around carving up existing articles or trying to replace them with articles about derivative works. QRep2020 ( talk) 17:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of neutrally written articles based on independent reliable sources. Ed Niedermeyer is not an independent reliable source. Besides the fact that his e-book that was referenced was published by a small unkownn boutique publisher, I also found this from a Google search on his name - https://www.tesla.com/blog/grain-of-salt, explaining how Ed Niedermeyer fabricated damaging news about Tesla and he previously ran a blog called "Tesla Death Watch". Every acceptable reference for this article refers to a hashtag/cashtag $TSLAQ that a group of short sellers use. I do not believe the article should be on Wikipedia at all, but other editors one editor above said suggested that it is better to try to salvage it so I proposed a neutral replacement. Iamchinahand ( talk) 17:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  You didn't answer my questions at all, but so be it. I propose you go ahead and make your arguments on Talk:TSLAQ instead of here, which is what the other editors have repeatedly suggested time and again. Also, as for BenBella Books, kindly refer to BenBella_Books. And good luck convincing people that what Tesla's website says about someone who has voiced criticism of the company is indicative of itself being an "independent reliable source". QRep2020 ( talk) 19:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  There is no need for me to convince Wikipedia editors that Tesla's website is an independent reliable source since I am not using it as a source for a Wikipedia article. Iamchinahand ( talk) 02:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Using it as an argument against something else not being an independent reliable source kinda requires it be an independent reliable source, no? QRep2020 ( talk) 04:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I request editors with a knowledge and understanding of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NPOV to review this AfD and provide thoughts. I added this AfD because I do not believe the article can be salvaged; however, at the request suggestion of the editor above, User:Phil Bridger, I created a replacement article removing all non-neutrality and conjecture, and basing it purely on the text in referenced sources. You can find the replacement article as well as detailed change explanations here $TSLAQ Article Draft Sandbox. Schazjmd and Phil Bridger, What are your thoughts? Iamchinahand ( talk) 02:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  I remind editors that the customary week for voting has already passed and that the available options/ recommendations for an AfD are Delete, Keep, Merge, Redirect, and Userfy/Draftify. I don't see 'Replace' in that list. QRep2020 ( talk) 04:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• DELETE

non notable fake company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsla1337 ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• TSLAQ isn't a company and there's no argument or reasoning included, so I imagine the vote from "Tsla1337" won't be counted towards the consensus judgment? QRep2020 ( talk) 18:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep and take improvement discussions to the article Talk page. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in Bloomberg, Markets Insider, Wired, CNBC, LA Times, The Verge, Business Insider, Australian Financial Review, and Vanity Fair. Schazjmd  (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2020 (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.