Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2017 June 20
2017 June 22 >

21 June 2017

  • Draft:Lely (Company) – No consensus (defaults to keeping deleted). Digging deeper, there's a few different points discussed here.
  1. Was the article promotional? Pretty good consensus that it was.
  2. Was it so hopelessly promotional that WP:G11 applied? Unclear, but probably within admin's discretion.
  3. Do we apply the same standards to draft space as we do to main space? Again, unclear. There is some feeling that we should allow more leeway in draft space, because the whole point of drafts is to provide a way for editors to collaborate on improving them. Other people feel we need to be just as strict about promotional matierial, no matter where it appears.
  4. Was WP:COI editing a problem? There's no doubt there was COI here, but our policies only (strongly) discourage COI editing. As long as it is disclosed (which it was in this case), there's no absolute ban, and it's not a WP:CSD.
  5. Could there be a future article on this topic? I don't see anybody arguing that this company should never be written about in the encyclopedia. But, if somebody wanted to create a new article, they would need to find the sources to meet WP:N and write it in a less promotional style.

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Addendum: this discussion has been brought to my attention, which I was previously unaware of. While I suppose one could wiki-lawyer to death the details of the implementation timing relative to my original close, the concept seems sound. So, I'm modifying my close to strike,defaults to keeping deleted, and instead I'll restore this and list it at XfD ( discussion here). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Lely (Company) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Page was in Draft, still actively work in progress. I worked according to Wikipedia's guidelines and regulations, and have no intention of breaking them. As explained to admin, I was drafting a page about a notable company which I can further explain. This is an internationally active company which already has Wikipedia pages in other languages. Attempt to reason with the respective admin failed, unfortunately, I have not heard back since. I feel disappointed and slightly offended. I do not see any reason why this company does not deserve a page on English Wikipedia, nor do I understand why any chance to draft such a page should be nipped in the bud. Dvanleerdam ( talk) 14:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • The page was deleted under WP:CSD#G11, which means that it was promoting the subject. I can see why the deleting admin came to this conclusion: despite being only 53 words long it described the company as a "leading" manufacturer and gave a series of impressive statistics about how big the company was. This is considered a serious problem even with drafts, as a promotional draft still acts to promote the company even though it's only a draft. Given your user page (which says you're a contractor who works with this company) I suggest you read our guidelines on conflict of interest. Hut 8.5 18:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'd have speedied this if it were in mainspace, though I'd have thought it was borderline. In draftspace, it wasn't so promotional that it needed to be tagged within two minutes of creation and deleted within half an hour. — Cryptic 18:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and Restore to draft space. Those statistics, while possibly serving a promotional purpose, are presumably objective facts, and "leading" while a judgement, is the kind of judgement often included in valid company articles (although it should be sourced, as should the stats). Had I seen this tagged for G11 in mainspace, I would have declined the speedy and warned the tagger, and I am surprised at Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for tagging this in draft space, where somewhat more leeway should be given. I am even more suprised at Jimfbleak for doing the dewletion. There does seem to be a COI here, but that is not a reason to delete, speedy or otherwise. G11 is for blatent promotionalism, requiring a total rewrite, which in my view this was not even close to. That said, Dvanleerdam, deletion for promotional content never reflects on the validity of the subject, merely on how it is being described. A more objective version should always handle a proper G11 deletion. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Lely (company) war speedied from mainspace in 2011 for the same reason.
    User:Dvanleerdam, the guideline covering the usual decision process for whether this company will ever be suitable for inclusion is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), beginning with the statement: "... has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Wikipedia is not a directory of all companies, or of all big companies, successful companies, good companies, or any other variation of selection, except for companies that are already the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Before starting an article on any company, be sure to have multiple such sources, each all of (1) contains significant coverage; (2) source is reliable; (3) source, author, published are independent of the company; (4) the coverage is secondary source coverage, meaning it is commentary, comparisons, analysis, etc, and is not just repeating facts. A yet better way to get started is to find coverage of the company in existing articles, and improve content making mention in those articles. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and restore to draft While I appreciate the vigor with which some admins go after promotional material, draft space is the one spot where we should have borderline cases (NOINDEX'ed, obviously) in the process of refining promotional copy and making it encyclopedic. Do we actually need to change CSD to say G11 doesn't apply to draft? We seem to be overturning a lot of these. Jclemens ( talk) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse. G11 applies to drafts just as much as to any namespace. We do not want any part of Wikipedia to contain advertising. Such content can be stored offsite if really needed. While I wouldn't have deleted this text, as it doesn't strike me as blatantly promotional, the deletion was, I think, within the deleting admin's discretion because there are certainly ways in which the text can be read as promotional.  Sandstein  07:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_June_21&oldid=1067845347"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2017 June 20
2017 June 22 >

21 June 2017

  • Draft:Lely (Company) – No consensus (defaults to keeping deleted). Digging deeper, there's a few different points discussed here.
  1. Was the article promotional? Pretty good consensus that it was.
  2. Was it so hopelessly promotional that WP:G11 applied? Unclear, but probably within admin's discretion.
  3. Do we apply the same standards to draft space as we do to main space? Again, unclear. There is some feeling that we should allow more leeway in draft space, because the whole point of drafts is to provide a way for editors to collaborate on improving them. Other people feel we need to be just as strict about promotional matierial, no matter where it appears.
  4. Was WP:COI editing a problem? There's no doubt there was COI here, but our policies only (strongly) discourage COI editing. As long as it is disclosed (which it was in this case), there's no absolute ban, and it's not a WP:CSD.
  5. Could there be a future article on this topic? I don't see anybody arguing that this company should never be written about in the encyclopedia. But, if somebody wanted to create a new article, they would need to find the sources to meet WP:N and write it in a less promotional style.

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Addendum: this discussion has been brought to my attention, which I was previously unaware of. While I suppose one could wiki-lawyer to death the details of the implementation timing relative to my original close, the concept seems sound. So, I'm modifying my close to strike,defaults to keeping deleted, and instead I'll restore this and list it at XfD ( discussion here). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Lely (Company) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Page was in Draft, still actively work in progress. I worked according to Wikipedia's guidelines and regulations, and have no intention of breaking them. As explained to admin, I was drafting a page about a notable company which I can further explain. This is an internationally active company which already has Wikipedia pages in other languages. Attempt to reason with the respective admin failed, unfortunately, I have not heard back since. I feel disappointed and slightly offended. I do not see any reason why this company does not deserve a page on English Wikipedia, nor do I understand why any chance to draft such a page should be nipped in the bud. Dvanleerdam ( talk) 14:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • The page was deleted under WP:CSD#G11, which means that it was promoting the subject. I can see why the deleting admin came to this conclusion: despite being only 53 words long it described the company as a "leading" manufacturer and gave a series of impressive statistics about how big the company was. This is considered a serious problem even with drafts, as a promotional draft still acts to promote the company even though it's only a draft. Given your user page (which says you're a contractor who works with this company) I suggest you read our guidelines on conflict of interest. Hut 8.5 18:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'd have speedied this if it were in mainspace, though I'd have thought it was borderline. In draftspace, it wasn't so promotional that it needed to be tagged within two minutes of creation and deleted within half an hour. — Cryptic 18:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and Restore to draft space. Those statistics, while possibly serving a promotional purpose, are presumably objective facts, and "leading" while a judgement, is the kind of judgement often included in valid company articles (although it should be sourced, as should the stats). Had I seen this tagged for G11 in mainspace, I would have declined the speedy and warned the tagger, and I am surprised at Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for tagging this in draft space, where somewhat more leeway should be given. I am even more suprised at Jimfbleak for doing the dewletion. There does seem to be a COI here, but that is not a reason to delete, speedy or otherwise. G11 is for blatent promotionalism, requiring a total rewrite, which in my view this was not even close to. That said, Dvanleerdam, deletion for promotional content never reflects on the validity of the subject, merely on how it is being described. A more objective version should always handle a proper G11 deletion. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Lely (company) war speedied from mainspace in 2011 for the same reason.
    User:Dvanleerdam, the guideline covering the usual decision process for whether this company will ever be suitable for inclusion is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), beginning with the statement: "... has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Wikipedia is not a directory of all companies, or of all big companies, successful companies, good companies, or any other variation of selection, except for companies that are already the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Before starting an article on any company, be sure to have multiple such sources, each all of (1) contains significant coverage; (2) source is reliable; (3) source, author, published are independent of the company; (4) the coverage is secondary source coverage, meaning it is commentary, comparisons, analysis, etc, and is not just repeating facts. A yet better way to get started is to find coverage of the company in existing articles, and improve content making mention in those articles. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and restore to draft While I appreciate the vigor with which some admins go after promotional material, draft space is the one spot where we should have borderline cases (NOINDEX'ed, obviously) in the process of refining promotional copy and making it encyclopedic. Do we actually need to change CSD to say G11 doesn't apply to draft? We seem to be overturning a lot of these. Jclemens ( talk) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse. G11 applies to drafts just as much as to any namespace. We do not want any part of Wikipedia to contain advertising. Such content can be stored offsite if really needed. While I wouldn't have deleted this text, as it doesn't strike me as blatantly promotional, the deletion was, I think, within the deleting admin's discretion because there are certainly ways in which the text can be read as promotional.  Sandstein  07:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_June_21&oldid=1067845347"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE