Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 September 5
2009 September 7 >

6 September 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
40billion.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. There are several other peer-to-peer lending companies that are less noteworthy and have been able to post articles on Wikipedia. Peer-to-peer lending is a hot topic right now especially because the US economy is in a recession and small businesses account for over 90% of US businesses. It is unfair that other peer-to-peer lending companies have been able to post articles on Wikipedia but not 40billion.com! Who is making this decision? Colinmcnab (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion but without prejudice to re-creation. The article has been speedily deleted twice in the last few days because the article did not establish notability for the company/web site. Upon review of the deleted article, it seems that the article was sourced mainly to blog posts rather than to mainstream media. If a new article could be written by reference to reliable, independent sources, it might be accepted. As to who is making the decision to delete the article, it was deleted by two different administrators and deletion had been suggested before that by two different non-administrator editors, so it has not been just one person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he didn't. And there's a clear COI. See Cornelius Colin McNab. Tim Song (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse deletion with prejudice to recreation. There are articles about other P2P lenders because they are notable and have significant coverage. This doesn't and doesn't even make a claim to notability. The author misunderstands (and I am being charitable here) that the other articles are written by Wikipedians not posted by the companies that are about. The author is the owner of the site the article is about. He has also written a self-promotional autobiography, Cornelius Colin McNab, which I have put up for deletion. 40billion.com has been deleted twice by two different people and then protected to prevent recreation. Rather than pursue his case here he has chosen to recreate it as 40BILLION.COM which yet another person has put up for deletion. I think we have a disruptive editor who is only interested in self promotion. At least three different people have looked at this and decided, quote independently, that it should be deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) And he's recreated the article again at 40BILLION.COM to avoid the salt 10 minutes after opening the DRV. I suggest that we speedily close this, since obviously he has no faith in us and prefers to game the system instead. Besides, I think there's no error in A7'ing the article. So endorse on merits. Tim Song (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from first deleting admin Looking at this again, I would still delete it. As far as I can see, the only thing differentiating this company from the legions of non-notable others is their claim to a new business strategy – I'm sorry, but to me that is not a claim to significance in WP:A7 terms. I have no objection to recreation or userfication if editors think this is salvagable. 11:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion Per all above.--SKATER Speak. 11:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse this deletion, because it appears to have been correct.

    However, I would question the burgeoning meme that DRV is entitled to consider the good faith of nominators. Such arguments constitute an appeal to motive, and hence a logical fallacy. Questions of standing should not arise here, and DRV should be about content rather than conduct. Other places are more appropriate to address conduct issues.

    In short, DRV must focus on the merits of the case.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In law, a court might refuse to consider a case because of the status of the person bringing it. Wikipedia isn't law, and I think the status of the person bringing the case is not material.

    Essentially what I'm saying is, a bad-faith nominator can still make a valid point. About this specific case, I'm saying that I endorse the deletion because the deletion was correct, and not because I disapprove of the nominator.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Got it. I'm not quite sure "standing" is the right word for it. Since we don't own articles, every Wikipedia user has standing to challenge the deletion. We routinely speedy keep bad-faith AfD nominations unless there's a good-faith outstanding delete !vote per WP:SK; I see no reason why this should not apply here. And I did review the merits in my !vote, as you might have noted. Tim Song (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tariq Nasheed (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

To: Administrators of Wikipedia

I am writing this comment as a result of a deleted article that I do not understand and consider your action to be quite questionable.

Before I reveal my concerns I would like to advise you that in the past, I had considered WIKIPEDIA to be the best webstie on the entire internet. In the past I had been the greatest defender against your critics who stated that your information was incorrect and not reliable. I have defended your position against your critics as being totally useless for assistance in the Education circles and not useful for students as an accurate reference on any subjects in the universe.

I had also been very proud of the fact that your creator was from my home state of ALABAMA. However as of today I am very dissappointed I would like to know why your staff selected the article on Tariq Nasheed for deletion. This man has been a best selling author and is currently in the main stream of BLACK CULTURE in america. He has been on several major network television talk shows and conducted several lectures at many major universities.

Please explain to me WHY some uninformed editor(s) decided to delete this biographical article on this best selling author. As I analyse your staff decision to delete this article. I feel the need to join the ranks of you critics, who feel that Wikipedia is a bunch of CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please advise me on your bias logic. [email redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.7.182 (talk • contribs)

Permit recreation since there are some adequate sources. The close was under the circumstances reasonable, and I'm surprised it took over 3 years to get it to AfD. The article as submitted had no usable sources. They were only the unreliable external links macklessons.com, theartofmackin.com, theartofgolddigging.com, macklessonsradio.com, myspace.com/tariq_nasheed, tariqelite.com What the AfD with very little participation did not seem to notice is there were 3 published books, including one by a reputable publisher:[1], Play or be played : what every female should know about men, dating, and relationships by simon and Schuster. They are in relatively few libraries, but they are not the sort of books libraries are eager to buy. Checking, I see (to my considerable surprise) there are actually usable sources available, probably enough to show notability: [2], including Newsweek;, the NY paper Newsday, Jet, and the Toronto Star. apparently nobody thought to look for references in the 3 years, or at the AfD. Shows why we need to require WP:BEFORE, even for what look like unlikely articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy endorse. When users come to DRV spewing complaints and casting aspersions against editors, I have no time for them. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion due to unanimous support for deletion in the AfD, but without prejudice to re-creation per DGG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse per Stifle. This is one venue that does not need more drama. And endorse on the merits of the close because there's no other way to close that AfD. It's not salted, so I don't see why it's necessary for us to decide whether recreation should be permitted - it is, by default. Tim Song (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, First, Per Deletion policy, I think we must be only concerned about the article and the notability of the subject, not the behavior of the editor. (unless it indicates a bad faith nomination or creation, not just COI). As drama and misbehavior goes, this isn't enough for me to take it very seriously--a disappointed author may well express himself badly, and we should make allowances and not get too upset about it. Second, we usually do decide when we confirm a deletion whether to permit recreation, if only as advice to the editor, and we sometimes do salt on the basis of a discussion at Deletion Review, even if it had not been salted previously. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Crap" and "bias" may be better than "rapist" and "racist", but still impermissible. Perhaps he's entitled to the correct result - which is to endorse because there's no other way to close that AfD - but I don't think he's entitled to have this DRV open for the full 7 days just to permit him to make additional attacks and waste everyone's time. As to salting, IMO answering hypothetical questions like this is unnecessary. If for some special reason someone thinks salting is necessary, xe can always raise it here and then we can discuss it. If unsalting is requested, provide a userspace draft and it can be discussed here, too. But discussing keeping something unsalted when no one's requested salting? That's too much, IMHO. Tim Song (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but permit recreation per DGG. It's unfortunate that very few participated in the AFD, but what other conclusion could have been reached if there was no opposition to the article's deletion? I find it difficult, in my opinion, for someone to refer to Wikipedia as "crap" when you are more than able to also participate in the discussion or make any improvements to the article yourself (which embodies the open nature of this or any other wiki). MuZemike 01:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - nothing out of process here. Eusebeus (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What DGG said. Articles are judged on their content, not on things the authors did not put in there. DGG makes a good case for a re-created article but equally it's clear that nothing was done wrong here. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 12 September 2009 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_September_6&oldid=1142604911"