- )
This page was speedily deleted as promotional. The man is obviously notable. The article should be fixed instead of being wiped out along with its history. Here's one of many articles on the subject [1]. At the very least a deletion discussion at the appropriate venue should have taken place. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List on AfD: The article definitely had parts which were inappropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g. "Experience Timeline" and other resume-like sections), but it seems salvageable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The exact wording of G11 is as follows:- Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organisation, a point of view, etc. Please note carefully that neither notability nor fixability are defences against a G11. We have no procedural grounds to overturn, and DRV is mainly for overseeing the process. To restore this page on the basis that the subject's notable would to invent a rule that we do not currently have, which we could do but I think would require exceptional circumstances.
I would certainly agree with the deleting admin that the page is exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopaedic. The G11 does not preclude the creation of a non-promotional version of the article. All it means is that you can't have this version of the article. Therefore, even though I think Wikipedia probably should have a page called Charles Xiaolin Wang, I do not think we have any alternative but to endorse. In case this is unclear to some users, there would be no harm in explicitly saying that creation of a neutrally-worded version of the page is permitted.— S Marshall T/C 08:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC) [reply
- Lots of articles are promotional. The article wasn't exclusively promotional. Are we to delete every article that gets puffed up? Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to be vigilant about promotional content because Wikipedia's so attractive to people who want to write puff pieces. If we went about restoring puff material because it's fixable, then the result would be that anyone notable could put their puff piece at the top of google's search results for a crucial week or two when there's something particular they're trying to achieve. That's not okay and it's not what Wikipedia is for. Therefore our sysops are empowered to delete puff pieces on their own authority, even in cases where a non-promotional article with the same title could and should exist. If you want a Wikipedia article on this person, I suggest you write a neutral one.—S Marshall T/C 12:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article history, which has now been restored, shows the article existed for years and was edited by various editors. It should have gone to a proper deletion discussion. Speedy deletion deprives a proper review and eliminates any opportunity to fix an article. It also makes it impossible to see what was there. The history of articles and edits made is important to preserve especially for notable subjects. If promotion is a problem let's get rid of the promotion. Not sweep it under the rug. This article existed for years with problems and now another problem is be3ing created by eliminating all record of what was there and the history of edits. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That article history makes interesting reading. I've gone through the edits and as far as I can see, it was created as an advert, flagged by DGG as an advert, deleted as an advert under G11, re-created as an advert, a few formatting edits done, and then deleted as an advert again. In all that time there has never been a neutral version of the page. Not once. The outraged tone you're taking would be quite justifiable if we were dealing with a good faith attempt at an encyclopaedia article. This, however, was a puff piece that has never met or even attempted to meet our core policy on ]
- Endorse reads more like a resume than a fair number of actual resumes I've seen. I don't know if a decent article on this person is possible, but I do know this isn't acceptable in article space and don't feel that it would be a useful place to start one. As S Marshall correctly points out, Wikipedia needs to be vigilant about spam and promotion. Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn or Monster.com and is not an appropriate place to host resumes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow userfication, and list at AfD to see if it can be fixed enough for mainspace. See ]
- Is anyone actually willing to work on it if it's userfied though? And is keeping a copy of someone else's resume in userspace indefinitely genuinely in the best interests of the encyclopedia? Userfication can be a fine alternative to deletion when there's a clear path back to article space, but often it's just a lazy choice--the Wikipedia equivalent of tossing your trash in the neighbour's yard to avoid having to throw it out yourself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Usefication should be dependent on the user being experienced in content work and acknowledging the difficulties of meeting WP:BIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- weak endorse not what I'd have done but almost within the bounds of of speedy criteria. But yes, there easily could be a real article here. No objection to userfication in the hopes that the requester can fix it up. Hobit (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This is G11, plain and simple. If someone wants to write a neutral article from RS, feel free. -- Y not? 13:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, pretty clear G11. Not a comment on the notability, and no objection to userification if someone genuinely wants to take this on to strip out the promotional fluff. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
|
