Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bergen School of Architecture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bergen School of Architecture
Article is part of the Marco Casagrande astroturfing campaign. The school may or may not be notable, but the article was created for the express purpose of spam. DarkAudit 03:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The school is notable, even if the article was created for dubious purposes. There is an article about the school in the Norwegian-language Wiki. The school is a real one, and I think that most architecture schools are notable enough to be worth writing about. --Eastmain 03:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Puppetry confirmed Because of the spam and conflict of interest issues, it's best to burn this one and start over. DarkAudit 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep it's the subject that has to be notable, not the author of the article. WP has more to gain from getting spammy articles about notable things and rewriting them, than from keeping them out and losing the coverage. At least that's what I think. I know there's more than one opinion about this. DGG 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The notability of the school has been established. The status of its creator is irrelevant to this article, which stands on its own. Any issues with its creator should be dealt with elsewhere. It's amazing that you "know" that "the article was created for the express purpose of spam". Care to guess how many fingers I'm holding up? Alansohn 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I "know" because I checked the edit history of the people involved in this incident and the articles they created. There were at least a dozen articles speedy deleted as spam relating to the people listed in the above link. The sockpuppetry has been confirmed by admins, and the users involved have been blocked. This is not an isolated article. This was a concerted effort to abuse Wikipedia to promote one architect and his firm. They went so far as to insert a spam link into Ross Martin because the name of one of the persons who had another article (since deleted) was Marty Ross. I was informed of all these shenanigans by another user. I conversed with multiple admins both here and on IRC during the process. At best, this article is riddled with conflict of interest. Nothing submitted by the original author of the article can be taken as reliable. DarkAudit 05:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- And actually the status of the author is relevant here, because they have been blocked indefinitely for their behavior. Said behavior was the creation of this article.
As a contribution from a banned user, it may be eligible for a G5 speedy. DarkAudit 06:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)- Or not. The G5 tag says the contribution has to be after the user was banned. The creation of this article was part of the behavior that got the author banned. DarkAudit 06:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I applaud your holy war against the individual or individuals who have edited this article. But, the article stands on its own and establishes its notability. I understand the urge to throw out the bathwater and the baby too, but this article should be recreated immediately if its is deleted for any reason other than a consensus of non-notability. Deal with the article as an article. I am. Alansohn 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- The current version of the article is too riddled with conflict of interest to be trustworthy. There's really nothing reliable that can be left except that the school exists. DarkAudit 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm having a great deal of trouble finding the spam that has been cleverly hidden inside this article. If you still feel that the article is "too riddled" with WP:COI issues, they can be addressed quite easily by clicking on the "edit this page" tab and taking appropriate action. Your nomination admits that the "school may or may not be notable", which is a rather clear (if tacit) acknowledgment that you don't have issues with notability, per se. If the article were deleted and recreated as is by a different individual, would you still insist it be deleted, or is your exclusive issue related to the circumstances of its creation, rather than its content? Alansohn 15:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Notability was never an issue. The article was created as a willful abuse of Wikipedia by people associated with Marco Casagrande to promote him and his firm. The notable alumni were all associated with Casagrande Labs, which had it's article deleted as spam. The alumni also had their articles deleted as self-promotion and spam. Every mention of other people involved with the school were not to promote the school, but to promote Casagrande. The unspammed article would be just:
- Notability was never an issue. The article was created as a willful abuse of Wikipedia by people associated with Marco Casagrande to promote him and his firm. The notable alumni were all associated with Casagrande Labs, which had it's article deleted as spam. The alumni also had their articles deleted as self-promotion and spam. Every mention of other people involved with the school were not to promote the school, but to promote Casagrande. The unspammed article would be just:
-
- I'm having a great deal of trouble finding the spam that has been cleverly hidden inside this article. If you still feel that the article is "too riddled" with WP:COI issues, they can be addressed quite easily by clicking on the "edit this page" tab and taking appropriate action. Your nomination admits that the "school may or may not be notable", which is a rather clear (if tacit) acknowledgment that you don't have issues with notability, per se. If the article were deleted and recreated as is by a different individual, would you still insist it be deleted, or is your exclusive issue related to the circumstances of its creation, rather than its content? Alansohn 15:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- The current version of the article is too riddled with conflict of interest to be trustworthy. There's really nothing reliable that can be left except that the school exists. DarkAudit 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I applaud your holy war against the individual or individuals who have edited this article. But, the article stands on its own and establishes its notability. I understand the urge to throw out the bathwater and the baby too, but this article should be recreated immediately if its is deleted for any reason other than a consensus of non-notability. Deal with the article as an article. I am. Alansohn 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or not. The G5 tag says the contribution has to be after the user was banned. The creation of this article was part of the behavior that got the author banned. DarkAudit 06:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- And actually the status of the author is relevant here, because they have been blocked indefinitely for their behavior. Said behavior was the creation of this article.
- I "know" because I checked the edit history of the people involved in this incident and the articles they created. There were at least a dozen articles speedy deleted as spam relating to the people listed in the above link. The sockpuppetry has been confirmed by admins, and the users involved have been blocked. This is not an isolated article. This was a concerted effort to abuse Wikipedia to promote one architect and his firm. They went so far as to insert a spam link into Ross Martin because the name of one of the persons who had another article (since deleted) was Marty Ross. I was informed of all these shenanigans by another user. I conversed with multiple admins both here and on IRC during the process. At best, this article is riddled with conflict of interest. Nothing submitted by the original author of the article can be taken as reliable. DarkAudit 05:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
"Bergen School of Architecture BAS (in the Norwegian language: Bergen Arkitekt Skole) is a private Norwegian architecture university located in Bergen. BAS offers international masters degree education in architecture and urban planning.
It receives financial support from the Norwegian government."
With the outside links. DarkAudit 15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Now that you have edited the article to your satisfaction, and with the addition of an English language source, is tehre any reason not to withdraw your nomination. Alansohn 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Despamification complete (I was going to say something witty about keeping the astroturfers away here, but now I've got writer's block). It's in a keepable form now, but keep an eye out for another spam attempt. DarkAudit 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - looking at a sample from history, I wonder whether the recent despamification has not gone too far, by removing details of the School's history. The articel appears always to have been brief and should be tagged as a stub. Peterkingiron 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
