Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 22

Stax Inc. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reached out to administrator Ryan Postlewaithe several times over three weeks but have received no reply. The page was deleted based on "notability" but I can't see how it violates any of the stated guidelines.

Those guidelines state the following: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or worthy of notice. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

"A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. [The listing includes "Organizations & Companies.") The only other criterion stated is that it must have a reliable third-party source, and one of the posters acknowledges that Stax is listed in the Business Week standard company overview (we have plenty of others; FYI, the company website is www.stax.com). For the record, Stax has been in business for nearly 20 years, serves Fortune 500 companies, as well as 14 of the largest private equity firms in the world. When you boil down the guidelines, you qualify as "notable" as long as you're a company (which we are) and you're verifiable (which we are).

In the end, the deletion seems to be based on the individuals' personal view of what's notable (and, again, the guidelines specifically state "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." So what basis is left? If someone could point out any other specific guideline that was violate, we would be happy to fix it.

I appreciate your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks825 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 July 2013‎

• Endorse, evidently correct AfD closure. And Jks825, please don't keep creating new accounts here; I take it you are the same editor as the previous SmalleyJK (talk · contribs)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the deletion is evidently correct, would you mind telling me what guideline the page violates? jks825 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks825 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written in an overtly promotional tone, as if taken from the company's own public relations material (I assume that you and the other previous single-purpose accounts that wrote it actually work for the company, right?) More importantly, the article failed to demonstrate that the company had been the object of sustained, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable publications. But most importantly, it wasn't actually Ryanpostlethwaite's job to make this assessment, nor is it mine; his job and ours here is merely to judge whether the participants in the AfD had arrived at an informed consensus about it. They had. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The "
  WP:CORP basically boils down to a restatement of that these days.) I can't see the source or sources referenced in the article, but AllyD's statement in the AFD that they weren't significant coverage went unrebutted. The way forward here is to point us at additional in-depth third-party coverage. Bhny's already looked for some on your behalf and couldn't find any. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC) (via edit conflict)[reply
  ]
  • For the record, there were two sources cited in the article. One was this [1], which seems to be a self-authored company listing rather than a piece of substantial, independent editorial coverage; the other was [2], which is currently a 404 error. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wayback Machine archive of the second one. It doesn't look like much help either. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These last few comments were a lot more specific and helpful. They provide much clearer guidance on what needs to be fixed. Thank you. Jks825 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse by default: both AFDs were unanimous and there appears to be no breach of procedure. Nominator appears to be expressing disagreement and/or frustration with Wikipedia's notability/verifiability standards and while they're free to hold that opinion, mere dissention isn't going to restore the article. Since no evidence has been presented that the situation has significantly changed since the AFD (for example, by the company having a major and well-documented change in notability), I endorse the deletion by default. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion Even were the company notable, the article is so promotional that it would need to be started over. But I suggest you not do so unless you have several really good references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, but not press releases, or material derived from press releases. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ginifer King (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

Kayla Maisonet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Breanna Yde (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Curtis Harris (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

• This is a technical foul on FPaS's part, but I can't bring myself to endorse overturning the deletions. This was clearly a misuse of the soft redirect function, and if I was going to take any action as a result of this it would be to clarify policy that soft redirects are not intended to be used to link to external websites such as IMDB and that any such soft redirect is not protected by the exclusion in A3.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously I disagree and think it is a valid use of the soft redirect function as currently documented. Until policy is clarified prohibiting this use and the article at WP:Soft redirect changed to reflect that change in policy, this issue is still open to the ongoing discussions at RfD and should not be truncated by an inappropriate speedy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e-c)Clarification of policy would require a lengthy discussion and a community consensus at the talk page of said policy. As policy stands the deletion was in clear and unequivocal violation. Soft redirects CAN be to non-mediawiki sites. Whether the specific case of IMDB is allowed is for the community to decide during a discussion not for one or a small handful of people to decide on their own.Camelbinky (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR, it is a matter of someone didn't bother doing any research on soft redirects or know how to use A3. If you don't read the policies and you don't know what the criteria for a deletion is, should you really be deleting?Camelbinky (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - I think it is 100% Grade-A bullshit that the Wikipedia was ever used to redirect traffic to off-wiki sites for non-notable porn starlets, we're not a referral service for the adult industry. Whatever endorse/support is needed to make sure that this stays gone and any other cases are cleaned up, I do so. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am always wary of getting into arguments with admins but I agree with every word Tarc said here. I do apologize for taking the discussion to the Village Pump. I have now been informed that it was the wrong place for this discussion. I am not sure if deletion under A3 is appropriate but I agree with the end result. -- TOW  talk  01:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then a discussion should be started at the relevant policy page. That's all I've been asking for is for existing policy to be used unless changed first. I have no problem with the outcome, they did deserve to be deleted, but only after discussion at the relevant noticeboard and not through deletion and especially not through the deletion criteria that was cited. There was a violation of forum shopping and then a violation of speedy deletion policy and a violation of soft redirect policy.Camelbinky (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been looking to find out what our rule on this actually is. It seems to come under a content guideline at
  WP:ELMAYBE point #4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." If this really is the best guideline available then I see two arguable positions.

  On the one hand we could say: An RFD is necessary. That Village Pump discussion does not constitute a consensus in favour of deletion and no speedy deletion criterion that applies. DRV's role is to see that we follow the process correctly and this is not within any process we recognise.

  The counterargument to this is: If there's nothing but a link to offsite user-submitted content, then there's no encyclopaedia article to consider. Wikipedia's rules to protect article-writers from random speedy deletion can only be invoked when there's some attempt at an article to protect.

  The fact is that Ginifer King is an actress known for her appearance as a nameless bit part in a 2009 Rom-com movie that flopped like a stunned flatfish. She may very well have massive talent and star quality but if so, no reliable source has ever noticed, which means we shouldn't have an article, which means we've got to the right result here even if the process was a bit rough.—S Marshall T/C 01:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• This deletion review is done under critia #2 of this forum "if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed,". This is not the proper place to debate those particular redirects and it is extremely hard to have that debate with the content being debated deleted. These are actors in a new Nickelodeon kids TV series, not porn stars but you can't know that with the content under debate gone. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A sysop will be along to {{
  tempundelete}} the disputed content shortly. In all the circumstances, this is the correct venue to discuss what to do now.—S Marshall T/C 01:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion It wouldn't make a difference if they were porn stars. This was simply an attempt to introduce IMDB links into an article via the circuitous route, and the end-result of deletion is correct. Soft redirects are meant to guide users to sister-sites of the WMF, not to get around the sensible guidelines of
  WP:ELNO. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted (endorse own deletion). Just because our policy texts don't spell out each and every bad idea how a feature could potentially be abused doesn't mean it's not an abuse of the feature. The A3 exemption for "soft redirects" was added to CSD after
  WP:CSD#A3 covers, and was always meant to cover: articles "consisting only of external links" – just because you dress up that external link in a fancy template that was never meant for that use doesn't change the fact that this is what it is. – In the present case, the proposed links are for BLP subjects and point to an external site that is known to be thoroughly unreliable and which in these cases contains unverified and overtly promotional material that would be extremely inappropriate for Wikipedia itself. The soft redirect template makes it appear to the reader as if the link target was somehow associated with us and endorsed by us. Doing this is one of the worst ideas I've seen on Wikipedia in a while. While I have no doubt Geraldo Perez proposed these uses in good faith, following his interpretation of A3 would mean that we would open ourselves up to linkspam systematically – any spammer could create an "article" page with a link to his favorite company website or blog, write "this is a soft redirect" above it and then pretend we can't legitimately speedy it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted - While the deletion does violate the letter of
  A3 it follows the intent of it. One of the intents of A3 is to allow the speedy deletion of articles that only contain external links. All of these pages only contain a link to an external website. The original author of these pages, acknowledges in their first edit summary on each page that these are non-notable actors. These pages do not improve the english Wikipedia at all. GB fan 11:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted per Future Perfect. I'm shocked to see there is even a controversy over this, or anyone thinking it's acceptable to maintain pages in article space that do nothing but give links to IMDB or any other site completely unrelated to Wikipedia. I would have speedied them myself under A3 if I had seen them, and I'm finding the complaints about process not being followed are irrelevant and doing nothing to address the underlying issue of why in the world these kinds of external link-only pages should be tolerated. "Nothing says I can't do it" is wikilawyering, not a substantive argument that it improves the encyclopedia (even if we pretend that
  WP:NOTLINK has no relevance). I see these listed here at least were all created by one editor within the past couple days, so without any indication that this has been widespread practice for a long time that editor should have the burden of explaining why these belong here and how they could possibly be limited reasonably. postdlf (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted. Perhaps there was a technical foul in the details of how the bureaucratic rules are defined. But per
  WP:BEANS we shouldn't need to identify every possible undesirable type of edit. older ≠ wiser 18:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted / Endorse deletion using speedy deletion to get rid of totally unacceptable articlespace content is a perfectly valid IAR case. I find the nominator's attitude that simply because the rules don't specifically forbid something means it's allowed particularly odious. Wikipedia's policies are never intended to be an exhaustive list of all possible bad ideas, and editors are expected to act with common sense. Wikipedia's rules don't specifically say not to take a nude jog through the lion habitat at the zoo either, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please understand, everyone who has commented above encouraging the speedy delete. Speedy delete is not allowed for ANY soft redirect. You will need to change the policy, it is not a matter of this type of article is not specifically "illegal", it is that you can not speedily delete them at all, ever, for any reason. Since discussions are not voting, and it is based on the merits of comments based on existing policy, technically any admin closing this could ignore all keep deletes that encourage speedy delete. Please read up on wp:soft redirects, which is also in compliance with the policy on speedy deletion which also says you can not speedy delete ANY redirect, hard or soft.Camelbinky (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any action is allowed that clearly benefits the encyclopedia. Per the
    WP:BEANS). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Even if we treat this legalistically, however,
      WP:CSD#A3 expressly provides for the deletion of articles consisting only of external links. Soft redirects are noted as an exception, but if these are considered valid soft redirects, then what remains as "articles consisting only of external links"? It would be silly if a one-link page could not be speedy deleted for consisting only of external links, but a two-link page could be. It would also be silly if the difference between being speedy deletable or not were simply whether the one-link page used {{soft redirect}}. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• I've opened a related discussion at
  WT:CSD#CSD A3.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Completely in line with policy, if not its somewhat flawed wording. I think anybody who was around for the discussions that resulted in A3 in the first place, and the exception later carved into it for {{wi}}, would be just as aghast as I am at this twisting of it. What's next - we have to send {{infobox person|Jaimie Doe is the bestest guy evers!}} to AFD because infoboxes aren't speedyable either? If it makes you feel better, call it an R2. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion And Kudos to Future Perfect for taking decisive action, sorry it didn't work out. As for the initiator of this discussion,

Plip!

• Endorse- Absolutely no problem with this invocation of
  WP:IAR, as editors need to be able to deal decisively with this kind of silliness without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops. Reyk _YO! 23:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Anyone with
  WP:EL experience knows that these pages should all be deleted, and whether or not an admin completed all the correct paperwork beforehand is not relevant. Policies do not list every bad idea, so it does not matter that no rule prohibits creating a page at Wikipedia simply to promote an external website. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

John, in case you didn't see it the first time- no one is saying this has anything to do with rules about making the article, so I don't know where you and many others are saying that rules don't prohibit the making of this page. The problem is that the !rules explicitly say you can not speedy delete soft redirects for any reason. Change the damn rule. Everyone here is saying the rule should be ignored per IAR, but put your money where your mouth is and change the damn rule if you think IAR should be invoked in every case. IAR should be used for minimal exceptions, rules should be changed when IAR is being invoked too much.Camelbinky (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above responds to this argument. It makes A3 internally unworkable if these are viewed as "soft redirects". And it should be clear by now that the community never contemplated that link pages such as these would qualify, so the exemption at A3 can't reasonably apply here. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Right outcome, wrong criterion. I have a very strong view that IAR speedy deletion is never appropriate and even though I stand by that this is the most testing case I've come across. These pages break the spirit of A3, as they are exactly the sort of thing that criterion was written with the intention of covering. They do not meet the letter of the criterion though as redirects are not subject to A criteria. Redirects and soft redirects are covered by the R criteria, so the nominator is incorrect to say that soft redirects can never be speedily deleted. Indeed by my reading these pages arguably fall under criterion G3 as they were deliberately created to bypass Wikipedia's policies, but that is only arguable and not strong enough to count. However there is no doubt in my mind that these pages should have been speedy-deleted as G11 as they serve exclusively to promote the subjects' pages at IMDB. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, given that there is good faith disagreement that the speedy deletion criterion applies, by definition it does not apply. Therefore Overturn. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Easily meets the A3 criteria: "Articles consisting solely of external links." Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except A3 explicit excludes soft redirects, so they do not meet the A3 criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any soft redirects. I see an external link to IMDb masquerading as a soft redirect. If this is acceptable, please let me know because I'd like to add a "soft redirect" to my very non-notable software firm's homepage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At present we do not have any definition of what constitutes a valid soft redirect target and what does not. There is presently a discussion at

G11 if I felt that was appropriate or nominate it for deletion at RfD (which is where policy says soft redirects should be nominated). Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn and then 1) start a real discussion which can be SNOW closed in a day or less, based on the opinions here, and 2) start a real discussion about what A3 should say. IAR speedies should never be allowed to stand if even one good-faith editor, which Camelbinky certainly is, disputes that speedy applied in that case. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Camelbinky is not not a Wikipedian. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. It mirrors consensus and prevents mass creation of off-wikipedia soft redirects. Some time ago we removed links to IMDB from infoboxes. I don't want them to see them coming back as soft redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I don't personally think these pages qualify as soft redirects, which Template:Soft redirect defines as "short pages inviting readers to visit another page on a different Wikimedia project". Although they had a soft redirect template on them, they were pages consisting solely of external links. Even if these pages do qualify as soft redirects it isn't appropriate for us to have soft redirects to non-WMF sites, and so the pages should be kept deleted regardless. Hut 8.5 20:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the policy discussion at
  WP:CSD has quickly concluded that A3 is indeed intended to treat links like these as deletable, and the wording of the criterion has been clarified accordingly [4]. Can we now close this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion, our rules are to be
  trout at the very least, and disruptive editing sanctions if any more false articles are created. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You should also have scare quotes around "rules" in this instance. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being new to the discussion it seems User:Seraphimblade perhaps hasn't been following the many places this was discussed in which the editor who created this soft-redirect article did mean well and created it and only two others as a way of gauging Community reaction to whether they were O.K. or not, and while he/she believed they should be O.K. he/she was willing to abide by Community decisions and just wanted their "day in court" in a discussion instead of a speedy deletion. But I guess Seraphimblade would rather make accusations and threats than to read the ENTIRE discussion and all relevant information, or even use just a bit of good faith. Seraphimblade's entire !vote could have done without the scare quotes or accusations, which in my mind make it irrelevant to the closing admin's decision (if it actually came to that, a snow close seems more likely). Editor's !voting need to remember it isn't a popularity contest, not all !votes and comments need to counted, it is the strength of your argument based on existing policy that matters.Camelbinky (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll second that. While these pages clearly don't belong on Wikipedia and I endorse the deletions, there is no evidence whatsoever that these pages were created to be "disruptive". Shame on you Seriphimblade; you've been here long enough that you shouldn't need a blue link to find "AGF". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shame on you for misspelling my username. But that aside, I've certainly been here a while, long enough to know speaking frankly is a service, not a disservice. The existence of A3 should be more than enough to clearly communicate "We don't want pages that are just external links". If someone hadn't known about that, and had said "Didn't know that wasn't allowed, won't do it again", that's the end of the story. Bringing it to DRV, however, indicates they think it's somehow acceptable if the link is stuck into a template. I'm being quite clear that it's not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]