User:DGG/arguments for AfD

(arguments for deletion)


 * I did not mention the GNG requirement for sourcing in my nomination for deletion. There are many other reasons for deletion, and the ones I suggested are based on the principle, also in WP:GNG, that passing the GNG does not guarantee an article. Among the reasons why there might not be an article is that the material is best covered in a more comprehensive article. We generally do follow that rule, and the  practice at WP for the last 10+ years I have been here, is that we do not usually make articles for individual research institutes within universities unless they are famous. One of the reasons for this is that we generally do not have sources which provide material which is not also on their own web sites, and anyone interested in the institute knows perfectly well how to find it.
 * But the most important reason, as I said, is that the article was entirely promotional. It had no sources except from the school itself, all subpages of its own web site; the fact that others exist but that they did not use them indicates their purpose: it was to reprint a summary of their website on Wikipedia. That is advertising. Articles that are entirely advertising should be deleted, unless they are important enough for someone to rescue. The only way we can tell in a discussion if someone will rescue them is if they are improved during the discussion. In the 12 days this article has been at AfD nobody has improved it. The conclusion of these syllogisms is thus that the article should not remain in Wikipedia.  Nor should it remain in Draft. It might get improved there, but it is pure advertising, and we do not do that in draft space either (and we unfortunately know that relatively few articles do get improved there). So I challenge anyone who thinks there are sources for a NPOV article: write one. (I've followed my own rule, and improved many articles in this manner when they are in my field and sufficiently important. When I first came here I thought I could do it very often, but if I do it properly rather than minimally I only have time for one or two a week.)  )from  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Social Equity Institute) 19:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * an apparent violation of the tou; such articles should never be kept--its the same aa articles written by sockpupetts. The assumptions is thatthey are a/written by sockpupetts, even if we have not yet found them, b/ are promotional and intended to be promotional, because that's what the companies pay for, and will use only unreliable references, because if there would good ones, some volunteer editor would have written an article. It's not a formal rule, but out view on these can reasonably depend considerably on the line of business--bitcoin companies, online gambling houses, press agencies, advertising firms, self-help gurus, life coaches, professional public speakers--all of these ruly only on hype and there is almsot always nothing substantial. On these topics by feeling is non-notable unless very clearly shown otherwise by unimpeachable sources. (On tthe other hand, I think its rational to look more favorably on companies that actually produce something. In this case, the reputable sources are entirely those talking about the industry in general, not the company, and all that is left is anouncmeents and within-industry journals catering to a particularly dubious industry. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC) (from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veem_