Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWikiBiz (third nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MyWikiBiz

MyWikiBiz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Deleted by first afd, second was no consensus. I speedied it as G4 yesterday, my bad, I didn't notice the second AfD. Sources: an article about paid editing of Wikipedia, which has a bit about Gregory Kohs (article deleted and endorsed), slightly less about MyWikiBiz, and some about Microsoft. Second source: a press release. Not independent. Third and fourth sources: the Wikipedia Signpost, completely inappropriate self-reference. Kohs is not notable, by consensus, he is, however, banned. Quite why his one-man company which is never known to have traded more than a tiny amount, would be considered notable, is beyond me. Navel gazing, I guess. List it in project space in a long term abuse page, I suppose, but the company itself, if it still exists as a separate entity (debatable) is not in any way notable other than internally. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a singular and solely internally referenced article about a non-notable individual and his non-notable company.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Criticism of Wikipedia#Criticism of the contributors. If every source on MyWikiBiz mentions Wikipedia in the headline it's clear just why this company is mentioned in the news. ~ trialsanderrors 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge would be a reasonable idea, but criticism of Wikipedia may not be the right merge target; this was more about how we react to conflict of interest. Kohs criticises Wikipedia, but fomr the basis of a fundamental misunderstanding of the project (and perhaps founded on a wish for it to be something it is not). Guy (Help!) 08:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think T&E was suggesting that it be merged there not as a source of criticism of Wikipedia, but a target of criticism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Kohs is/was a contributor to Wikipedia, so the target seems appropriate. No objection to creating an article Minor contorversies surrounding Wikipedia though. ~ trialsanderrors 09:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete CNN article would more fit an article about paid articles, where mywikibiz might be mentioned. This company not notable enough for its own article. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, and I think the nominator's behavior with regard to the subject says everything that needs to be said about this nomination. Everyking 08:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, so that's one citation from the International Journal of Because I Said So, and a personal attack. Not a terribly good argument for keeping. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for expressing your opinion about my opinion, Guy. It remains unchanged, however. Everyking 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy's not-terribly-diplomatic riposte aside, this is a really bad argument. "Keep, notable" is worth just about as much as "Delete, non-notable." If it's notable, where has it been noted and why haven't you added this crucial source to the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It wasn't constructed as an argument. The "crucial source" appears to already be in the article. Everyking 09:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Where specifically, please? What part of the descriptions of the included sources do you disagree with, and why do you feel they are sufficient for "multiple, independent, non-trivial" per WP:ATT and WP:RS? If you're going to assert something here, you need a better reason than Because I Say So With A Personal Diss. Barno 17:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:DENY. >Radiant< 08:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, a single AP article partly about this topic isn’t nearly enough (WP:V, WP:N etc.). —xyzzy_n 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I got an e-mail from Greg suggesting that I add [1] and [2] to the article as sources. Well, somebody did, but both articles focus on the matter of Wikipedia versus paid writers with COI and mention the subject of this article only as a matter of context and introduction. Greg is ‘sure their lawyers would love to hear them described as trivial’, so: both sources’ coverage with respect to the subject of the article is trivial in the sense of our definition of notability. Lawyers need love, too. (Well, some need Miniluv, but I digress…) —xyzzy_n 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There's only one third-party reliable source in the article. It looks like advertising. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. trumpeting anyone? Not seeing much in the way of notability of this issue either. A possible alternative could be a Wikipedia:MyWikiBiz article/essay that discusses the COI aspects of the article. (→Netscott) 10:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Just fails to come up to scratch on WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:N and others. This relist is procedure for procedure sake that we're making Guy do for no apparent reason. Sometimes I wonder if people here are getting unnatural pleasure from Wikipedia process, but I try not to think about it too hard and just get on with other things. Also, I like Radiant's WP:DENY, so I'll give that as a reason too. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 11:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. To get it out of the way, WP:DENY is an irrelevant argument, it refers to project pages and general mass hysteria over vandal activity. It is unrelated to what we put into Wikipedia. However, the fact that 1) this is a one-man company, and 2) a short-lived one (the blocks on the person behind it effectively stop its business model) and 3) not particularily famous, makes me feel that this is not a notable company at all. Even if a second source were found, I would still call this non-notable since anything related to the internet tends to inflate the number of sources, not due to notability, but due to easier access for journalists. (Is this a good place to note why I object to the WP:N "primary notability criterion"?) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thinking about it again, Trialsanderrors' merge suggestion might be better. A singly sourced item on something which might have affected Wikipedia's integrity could be relevant there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others above, for lack of independent reliable sources. Also the constant self-referencing and a lack of notability outside the WP community. I wouldn't object to a merge as a second preference. Sarah 11:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with fire. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, abjectly fails WP:CORP. A one-line mention in Criticism of Wikipedia might be appropriate, but there's no need for either a merge or redirect. —Cryptic 12:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Due to my involvement in the investigation I'll limit my participation at this discussion, but I think the relevant standard ought to be WP:CORP. If this company had nothing to do with Wikipedia, would we keep this article? Durova^Charge! 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The only reason it's here in the first place is because it's self-referential. If this were about any other one-man company with negligible press coverage and negligible sales, it probably would have been shot on sight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge As trialanderrors said. I did say keep last time, but I misinterpreted that. His company is THISCLOSE to just creeping in as a stub. Personally, I could care less that Kohs is banned for purposes of the article itself. If it gets another 1-2 sources independently it would be fine but not there yet. - Denny 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Seems to meet WP:WEB [3] even though we hate it. --W.marsh 13:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:WEB applies to Internet phenomena such as blogs, not multiple Google returns that got generated as reprints of a single article in which this business was a subordinate topic. Durova^Charge! 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well this began as a website and that's what I think of it as, I don't really follow the drama related to this guy/company. Anyway WP:CORP is the same thing basically, multiple sources. And although a lot of the results are reprints of the same AP story, not all are. --W.marsh 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually this was a public relations business (not a website) that attempted to piggyback off Wikipedia's notability. The very slight amount of news coverage it received was all as a subordinate topic to stories about Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Nevertheless that's more an argument to merge/redirect than delete. --W.marsh 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I have made only comments at this discussion and have not voted, but if you agree merge/redirect is more appropriate than keep would you change your vote to reflect that? Durova^Charge! 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Well what people say is more important than the words they put bold formatting on, you've certainly implied an opinion. I said "keep or merge", as in, keep the content and a redirect to wherever it goes. Keeping the article outright would be okay in the meantime. The closer can read our comments and see what I think. --W.marsh 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm getting married in less than 24 hours, and when I have three completely unrelated editors not named Gregory Kohs pointing this out to me, I feel like I have to respond. Who gives a shit if we got it wrong numerous times in regards to the Gregory Kohs article, but we shouldn't get it wrong here too. W.marsh has offered a great resource, and here's another one, a German translation. Can we stop with the crap already? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and between the German article and the subordinate mention in Bergstein's piece simple arithmetic deduces that this business grossed $250 - $500 during its entire operative lifetime. WP:CORP. Durova^Charge! 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, Jeff, congrats on the matrimony thing (my mate Mike is getting spliced tomorrow). Don't worry about Kohs, though - we got it right. See? It's redlinked :o) Guy (Help!) 17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! (Hey, now this AFD has an actual purpose.) —xyzzy_n 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete lets face it, folks: given the size, revenue, and impact of this company, if this were ANYTHING other than Wikipedia-related it would be CSD-A7'd within 30 seconds of creation. We're supposed to avoid self-reference, so just the fact that we know about it (largely because it got its editors banned) doesn't mean it should get an article. Delete as hoplessly non-notable company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually I think it's about the opposite, personally. If a non-Wikipedia related company/group had a mainstream AP story written about it, we'd probably lean towards keeping it. Either fear of self referencing or an outright pro-Wiki bias is one thing that makes people want to delete this article. --W.marsh 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you W.marsh for being one of the few editors that does not have his head thoroughly entrenched up his ass. Oh let's see now, even though the subject of the article in question has been reported in the mainstream news, let's all vote to delete the article because god forbid it might sully Wikipedia's impeccable reputation. By the way, I was being sarcastic in my last sentence. I figured I'd have to point that out since most of you cretins are unable to grasp even the most rudimentary forms of wit. You are a miasmatic hirsute simian 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Uh this guy seems to be a single-purpose account and should probably be blocked. I'd do it myself but I'm not 100% familiar with this situation, plus I'm involved in the dispute at this point. --W.marsh 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Indef blocked as an attack account and probable sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz. Durova^Charge! 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep, unfortunatly per notablity, even though its wrong. Quatreryukami 15:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Practically unsourced, non-notable outside of Wikipedia internal culture, and nearly everything about this whole incident has already been endorsed for deletion by the community (Kohs is deleted and banned, the first AfD for this was delete followed by a no consensus). Burn it already. WP:N or WP:A or whichever one it all got merged into is the primary criterion and this fails. Ryanjunk 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the arguments provided by Denny in the previous discussion. How are people coming to the conclusion that this is unsourced when there is a direct link to the Associated Press article? Burntsauce 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • People are coming to the conclusion that this is unsourced because the only fact in the article that is corroborated by the Associated Press article are (two of) the pricing tiers. As for Denny's argument in the previous afd, I can only assume that he copy/pasted the links out of a Google News search without actually reading them, since they're all identical reprints of the same article. —Cryptic 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That is a fair response, although I still feel that the subject is notable enough to remain. Some of the other comments are too grounded in WP:IDONTLIKEIT line of thought and vice-versa. Burntsauce 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If Jimbo found it notable enough to comment on it, might as well stay.. // Gargaj 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Deskana (ya rly) 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It has one Associated Press article that's been reprinted many places. That's not nothing, but neither is it the "multiple works" required by Wikipedia:Notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep multiple reprinted associated press article is way more than many of the buisnesses we've got articles for get... and of course every business we've got an article on was covered in USA Today and Fox News... and been covered by news agencies in Spain, Germany, and Japan (yes I know they're the AP article). Here's one link no one else mentioned above... The Chronicle For Higher Education... Why do we have to pound our reasoning through your thick skulls people?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also included as subject matter in a curriculum on CyberLaw at Harvard. Public speeches by Jimbo  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A good number of them, certainly inthe hundreds, are in the Wall Street Journal all the time. This one isn't, obviously, because it only traded for a few months if that and made next to no money. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Uhm check the facts dude... Greg is still running the business ... its now called Centiare. And what does the fact it made next to no money matter? Lots of starting businesses dont make money at first *cough*Amazon.com*cough*.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There's a difference between "making tons of revenue but no profit" as Amazon and "making less revenue than a weekend job at Burger King". Additionally, unless I'm missing something in looking at the site, but Centiare seems to be a completely different business. Ryanjunk 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• unambiguously serious keep WP:CORP is easily met. self-reference is necessary as wikipedia itself is a main subject. wikipedia will look even worse if an article about its own questionable practices is deleted. why do people have such a vendetta against this germane and serious article when so many rap albums and pokemon characters are documented? i explicitly fear that "delete" opinions given here reflect people scared that further publicity of this well-known iffy decisionmaking episode will reflect negatively on the project. on the contrary, transparency and a willingness to acknowledge what happened is the only viable solution. Aaronbrick 18:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you feel that there are numerous rap album and/or pokemon articles that need to be deleted, please be bold! Ryanjunk 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless improved To satisfy WP:N, there has to be multiple third party stories on it. We have 1. Unless article improved by end of AfD, delete it. Self-referential, to boot. SirFozzie 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • with all due respect, are you blind? Aaronbrick 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and quit navel-gazing. --Ali'i 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Where are you people every time Wikinfo gets nominated for AfD? heh. --W.marsh 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • E kala mai ia'u. I'll be there next time. ;-) --Ali'i 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have recently received an e-mail from Mr. Kohs concerning my comment in this AFD. He wishes me to add two additional references to the article, but I will not release them yet, as I would be acting as a proxy for a banned user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, basically navel gazing. Nobody outside of Wikipedia ever heard of this company, there are no reliable sources. Corvus cornix 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, there are three reliable sources given in the article: the Associated Press, Chronicle of Higher Education, and Die Welt. Everyking 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above -Doc^g 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete from article space & merge as a subpage of WP:COI ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I think this is very much a case of COI -- it's COI of the editors on WP against a serious attempt to undermine the basis of WP. I share this COI--I think that the commercial writing of articles is a disgrace, and engaging in it appropriate for a community ban. But it's real, it's sourced, and it's notable. The prevention against such inherent COI is to recognize it and keep the articles that the COI would encourage us to delete. If we want to give ammunition to the enemies of WP, then deleting this article would be a good way to do it. It almost matches the attempt to deny the N of the Essjay controversy. .DGG 01:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Erm, to speak only for myself I was among the first to call for Essjay's resignation when the scandal broke and have never opposed having an article about that scandal. That was real news. Please research more carefully before leveling such a serious allegation. Durova^Charge! 02:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My sincere apology, for I certainly did not direct it at any particular person, but at the general course of the discussion.. It was a suggestion that just as we in the end recognized the need for the article about him, we should realize it about this,for the principle was similar. DGG 05:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No apology needed. When the Essjay article first appeared my opinion on the deletion discussion went from neutral, but strongly endorse letting the discussion run its course to this has become international news in dozens of separate outlets - if Essjay were unrelated to Wikipedia we'd have an unambiguous keep. This time I'm an involved party - or at least Mr. Kohs insists I am - because I stepped forward and investigated when his sockpuppet demanded an investigation. My take on this page is that he's a public relations professional who's had more than half a year to astroturf this story and doesn't have much to show for it, but I'll restrict my participation at this discussion to comments. Durova^Charge! 01:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources, self-referential, and there is a major conflict of interest involved. --Coredesat 04:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll list them again: there are three reliable sources in the article, from the Associated Press, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and Die Welt. It is plainly wrong to say there are no reliable sources, and I am concerned that as people claim this repeatedly in justifying their opinions, others are taking their word for it and not actually looking at the article. Everyking 05:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, still delete for the other two reasons. --Coredesat 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • FWIW, the Chronicle of Higher Education appears to be a news aggregation blog, which takes news stories from various sources, writes a summary, and links to the original article. In this case ([4]), the Associated Press story is explicitly credited and linked to, and much or all of the summary is based on it. I'm not sure it would be fair to call this an independent report. - David Oberst 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Chronicle of Higher Education -- like most magazines , it has a blog section as well, but the lead-off topics in "The Wired Campus" are from its staff writers, and have the authority of the newsmagazine. I would say that its use of an AP story as the base for an article authenticates the AP story yet further, and certainly adds to its visibility. DGG 04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Even if you don't count that one, there's still two, a far cry from the none that some people are claiming. Everyking 06:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, NN navel gazing. Not everything what splashes through media is notable. Pavel Vozenilek 06:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and at best merge somewhere. Definitely not notable enough for an article of its own, but they could be discussed somewhere briefly. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And more rambling while I'm at it: Basically, this company got famous by going the "let's do something novel and controversial that involves Wikipedia" route. Boom! Wikipedia reacted! The press was all over the case! And since the press was interested, it is by definition notable by Wikipedia standards! This is again yet another case of stuff that involves Wikipedia that somehow got an article and we could write an article based on the sources - but it's really not interesting in the great scheme of things so we shouldn't have an article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. This had no lasting significance to anything. Rossami (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Worthless article on worthless subject, propped up by really desperate grasping at straws as excuses for reliable sources. This is worth all the wikidrama and breast-beating to keep why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is not notable on an objective level. JuJube 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)