- Michael Mangini (record producer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This article is about a Grammy Award winning producer. There are over 20 articles that should link to this deleted article but instead link to the wrong Mike Mangini who coincidentally was born in the same year and is also in the music industry.
Wikipedia articles that incorrectly link to the wrong Mangini include: 43rd Annual Grammy Awards, The Best of Joss Stone 2003–2009, Don't Cha Wanna Ride, Mind Body & Soul, Raymond Angry, Righteous Love and many more.
See: https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/mike-mangini
https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/michael-mangini 147.9.66.69 (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone please temp undelete this so we can see if G11 actually applied? This appears to be another JzG deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. This stinks, frankly: the article did have a promotional tone, it was written by someone who's been banned for undisclosed paid editing and it was edited by one of the subject's children (who showed up a day after it was created). Hut 8.5 04:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and then it was cleaned up by a well-respected editor in good standing, Beyond My Ken. Overturn G11 as I see nothing sufficient to trigger G11, let alone something that could not have been removed through regular editing. I'm afraid JzG's militant stance against paid editing has prompted multiple improper deletions, of which this is one. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn, optional reslist We do not at the moment have a firm policy about whether articles originally created by undisclosed paid editing should be deleted, regardless of what subsequent work by good faith editors has since gone into them. I can see very strong arguments for each view. The argument from deletion is to award rewarding the editors, but equally it discourages people who may not have realized their origin from improving articles . I am quite clear that it is not good policy to improve the articles: they should rather be immediately removed. But once they have been improved, it is a different matter. I think what to do at that point depends both on the importance of the article and the extent of improvement; Certainly we should want to do everything practical to discourage the undeclared paid editors, because their work leads to the destruction of a NPOV encyclopedia ; but it is not wise to destroy the encyclopedia in the process. However, in this case, the improvements, though certainly very good improvements, had not yet entirely removed the promotional nature of the article. My experience is that it is quite difficult to do that without either stubbifying or rewriting most of the sections. For example "Identifying a need to develop and nurture young artists, " and the repetition of the phrase " a multi-Platinum award-winning", and some unnecessary adjectives. But I say overturn in the end for two reasons: the deleting admin should have contacted BMK as a courtesy to an established editor, to give him a chance to improve further. Second, by the standards of articles on this subject, I'm not sure whether this really does count in its present form as entirely promotional , as further improvements were feasible, leaving the actual basic facts. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Overturn, with no prejudice against the deleting admin. The article is promotional, although not enough to meet G11 in my mind. I would really like a way to deal with undisclosed paid editing that did not result in articles like this surviving, but as a community we haven't come to a consensus on that yet, hence this speedy was not valid. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Overturn The standard for G5, to protect an AfD nomination created by a banned or block-evading editor, is that ONE GOOD EDIT prevents the G5. The issue of undisclosed paid editing is related. The case here is one with multiple good edits in the article. It is policy (see WP:Editing policy) to improve articles with problems. Unscintillating (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn G11 does not apply just because the article is a result of paid editing, it also needs to read like an advertisement. If the deleting admin feels paid editing alone should be sufficient for speedy deletion, they should propose a change to G11, not just apply it anyway. Regards SoWhy 12:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, painfully. I'm torn between two things I feel very strongly about. One is that paid promotional editing is anathema to the basic concept of wikipedia. Even if the article is subsequently cleaned up by a good wiki-citizen, as User:Jclemens describes, the damage is still done because of selection bias. We know that the encyclopedia is incomplete. Of the pool of acceptable subjects for which we don't yet have an article, if some subjects are willing to pay money to get into the encyclopedia, then we end up with a set of articles biased towards those who are willing, able, and knowledgeable enough, to pay to play. That's bad, and that's why I think paid promotional articles should be deleted, even if subsequently improved by other editors to the point where WP:G11 no longer applies.
- On the other hand, what I think should happen is not policy.
- On the third hand, policy here is as much a codification of what we do in practice as it is law handed down from on high, so maybe if we got more serious (effective, etc) about policing violations of our WP:COI and WP:PAID, post-cleanup deletions would indeed become policy, and that would be a good day.
- The second thing I feel strongly about is that admins need to be very conservative about how they apply WP:CSD, and that was not done here, so I must sadly opine to overturn the deletion. If you want to change policy, building consensus at WP:AFD is a good tool. Pushing the limits of WP:CSD is not. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
