User talk:GroovyGuzi/EUROCALL article debate

Speedy deletion nomination of EUROCALL
A tag has been placed on EUROCALL, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of EUROCALL and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of EUROCALL
An article that you have been involved in editing, EUROCALL, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Although it  may  have other shortcomings, your article is clearly  not blatant advertising, and to  label it  as such,  in  my  opinion,  is an unfortunate error in  choice of Wikipedia tags. After reading your user page, however, there may  be a case of COI, and that  may have  been an underlying  motive for the AfD (although that  was not  the case in  the AfD of my  CALICO article). Wkipedia certainly needs some controls, but in my own experience, aside from  the obvious spam, crank, and nonsense articles,  at  least 50% of the AfDs are wrongly  or too  hastily issued, especially  where there is ample provision  for other, much  milder warnings before implementing such  dramatic measures. Blanchard has, however, admitted that he may  have been to hasty, and I  am sure that  his tagging  was in  good faith. There are however, clear cut examples where some editors  will remain  intransigent and refuse to  admit  their error. For us lowly authors, it  is not  always clear who  are the accredited Admins and one of the problems is that  anyone can can hang an AfD on an article, many  of them  do  this in the hope that  they  this will  earn them  Admin  status. I am not  an Admin, but I do my  own  fair share of tagging  articles, but I  do  so  with  the utmost  caution. The bottom line is, that if among  them  they  reach  a consensus for deletion, there is little to  be gained by  arguing. Don't be discouraged, turn the other cheek, and try again  another day. Been there, done that. Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I suppose one cannot expect Wikipedia editors to be au fait with a wide range of professional associations and their significance - and we cannot compete with Michael Jackson. GroovyGuzi (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, editors do not often admit their mistakes. I have been brutally edited on occasions and, as an editor and reviewer who has worked for several international publishers such as Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Taylor & Francis, Peter Lang, I may have been a bit hard at times. I think Wikipedia is right in maintaining editorial standards, but here the editors are being a bit rigid. I have written entries for two encyclopedias (one published by Elsevier and one by Routledge) that have not been subjected to such harsh and, dare I say, naive editing. GroovyGuzi (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that more than one year on both the EUROCALL and the CALICO articles have been retained. GroovyGuzi (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Debate archived, 30 November 2010 GroovyGuzi (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)