Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Moreschi/If

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as blatant advertising per WP:CSD#G11. —Angr 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Improper closure overturned per WP:DP as established at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 28. Consensus below is to keep the user subpage. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Moreschi/If

A borderline case, but I believe this falls foul of WP:UP#NOT - "Advertising or promotion of a business or non-Wikipedia-related organization (such as purely commercial sites or referral links)", since it advertises the commercial company Veropedia Inc. FWIW, User:Moreschi has also put a prominent link in his signature to that page. -Halo (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Did you dicuss this with Moreschi first? Seraphim Whipp 11:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Nope, sorry if that's bad etiquette. I do have a feeling that it would have ended up here either way though. -Halo (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you should have discussed it first and given him a chance to address your concerns. Seraphim Whipp 12:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep barring a more convincing explanation of why this is a primarily commercial entity. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Define primarily a commercial entity, which is a fairly loose definition. Their article describes itself as "for-profit" and the site has prominent advertisements on every page from Amazon, making money from mirroring Wikipedia articles. Where do you wish the line to be drawn? -Halo (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
      • An entity whose primary goal is generating profit, rather than one which places a similar or greater emphasis on goals which are compatible with those of Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see my comment here. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not petty at all. As an analogy, based on your "How many people do we know who won't contribute to Wikipedia because they fear their good work can get so easily trashed?", what if someone started advertising Everything2 on Wikipedia, pointing out that it has no vandal problems etc. Or people from Citizendium were doing something similar? How about a large company setting up a Wikipedia fork? I'm sure it wouldn't be appreciated by the community. What makes what you're doing different? On top of that, it isn't made clear that Veropedia is commercial and not part of the Wikimedia or Wikipedia projects (particularly considering you're an admin), which is worrying. I don't like the idea of a company, least of all one ran by an admin, poaching users from Wikipedia, a charity, for their own interests. I wasn't aware you didn't have a vested commercial interest, but it doesn't make a huge amount of difference. -Halo (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I don't know the exact relationship between WP and VP, but VP is clearly a sister free-content project, broadly speaking. WP "advertises" for those all the time (by inter-wiki linking) -- and it isn't really advertising, because no one anticipates making money from anything. Promoting VP is good, and consistent the core values of the project. Xoloz (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The exact relationship is that Veropedia is a for-profit company ran by a user of Wikipedia which mirrors Wikipedia articles. The difference between a relevant link in an article and someone putting prominent links in their userspace encouraging users to contribute to a commercial site is quite clear, in my opinion. -Halo (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Though perhaps I should, I really don't care much what kind of Wiki-site it is. We generally allow a certain amount of latitude for such things in userspace. That said, I'd like to respectfully request that the user remove it from their signature, since that might be at least weakly construed as spamming... - jc37 16:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am also of the mind that latitude should be given for userspace and was on the fence with this one because I have no experience of this issue, not until reading up on various related debates. I completely agree with Moreschi's reasoning (linked above). Seraphim Whipp 16:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't see a big problem here. I'm not yet voting 'Keep' because I'd like some changes made: (a) User:Moreschi/If should describe Moreschi's own role in Veropedia, (b) User:Moreschi/If should encourage potential contributors to go and look at WP's article Veropedia, which gives a balanced account, (c) mention that Veropedia is a profit-making concern, (d) the actual web site http://www.veropedia.com should state who is responsible for the site (a corporation? a trust? a sole owner?), and that it is profit-making. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd also like it made clear that Veropedia has no association with Mediawiki, or the Wikipedia project. -Halo (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I basically agree with EdJohnston's suggested changes, but if User:Moreschi/If stayed in its present form I wouldn't be upset. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does this page help the writing of a free-content and good quality encyclopaedia? Yes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This doesn't harm the encyclopedia one bit, and the only objections seem to boil down to the fact that Veropedia is an advertising-funded entity, which is a purely ideological objection and nothing to do with the goal of writing a decent encyclopedia. (I apologise for my incivility, but I'm tired (having spent the last 48 hours in a muddy field on Salisbury Plain), frustrated, and can't be bothered with this.) WaltonOne 19:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC) comment edited post facto to remove incivility WaltonOne 20:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • May I propose that if you know you're not being civil, you yourself get away from your computer rather than starting mudslinging contests with petty insults? -19:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, I've edited my comment above, and I apologise. But my rationale still stands. WaltonOne 20:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesn't seem to be hurting anything. What is the harm is detailing a small booster of a related project? It doesn't hurt WP's content, and as long as this VP site is compliant with GFDL, what harm there? • Lawrence Cohen 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep Nominator's deletion rationale invalid as this is a Wiki-related site, and I believe it to be in line with Wikiphilosophy. Skomorokh incite 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertisement of a for-profit company is not acceptable. Atropos (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep advertisement of a for-profit company which enhances the encyclopedia is acceptable. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep this is relevant to the encyclopedia. Being supported by advertising doe not make it commercial in any meaningful sense. Even if it were, Odd that we should be proposing to delete someone's sincere attempt to improve WP. this project is supporting WP, and is fully compatible with it, using content legitimately according to the GFDL license-- it is not "poaching users." Or are we going to start behaving like the worst sort of commercial competitors ourself? We should support our worthy non-exploitative projects aiming in the same direction. DGG (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- Seems to be pretty good advice to me. Dureo (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- It's in userspace, and doesn't break any of our guidelines. However, the advert for this in MediaWiki:Watchlist-details should be removed, as it gives a false impression that this is an official contest put on by the foundation. Lurker (said · done) 17:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per all the above excellent comments. Oh, and while we're at it, hit the nominator with a stick. Hard. Nick (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    Aww, how about just a trout? : ) - jc37 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I personally would be happy if this were just removed from Moreschi's sig. In the user's userspace is one thing, but signing every comment with it is just ad spam. Atropos (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The Veropedia project may be a for-profit entity, but if it helps create a stable, well-referenced free encyclopedia, then I'm all for making note of it in User space. --Eastlaw (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, with reservations. The real problem here is the promotional signature Moreschi is using, not the existence of this subpage by itself. WP:IU prohibits "promotional" usernames, and while this may be within the letter of the law (which doesn't address signatures), it's definitely against the spirit of it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:28, 27 November 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.