User talk:Thparkth/Archives/2015/December

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Semiconductor, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Resistance and Insulator. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank-you very much, I shall wear it with pride. Thparkth (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy Deletion template on ArcaBoard
Hi Thparkth,

I see you removed the speedy deletion template that I placed on ArcaBoard. Looking at your profile and rationale for such deletions, I must say that while I think I may still disagree with you on this issue, you seem a reasonable fellow, and certainly a more prolific Wikipedian than myself. So with that in mind, I'm curious if you agree that the page should be deleted per WP:SELFPROMOTION, just not speedily (i.e. not without discussion and consensus)? Or do you think the subject could meet notability requirement based on the few bits of tech coverage it has received? Speedy deletion seemed the most reasonable course to me because of the specific editor in question, who appears to work for the company that produces the ArcaBoard. So whether or not the article's contents justify calling it self-promotion, it is literally a case of that, or at the very least a WP:COI problem. Thoughts? Juansmith (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the note. It's nice to have some human contact now and again, isn't it? I'll be happy to give my opinion on the questions you have asked. Bear in mind that I am not an administrator, just another asshole with an opinion, and I am frequently wrong.
 * I am absolutely certain that the user in question is in a conflict-of-interest situation and needs to tread very, very carefully. You probably noticed that I left them a talk page message to that effect, which they did acknowledge.
 * In my opinion, the fact that an editor is in a COI situation is primarily an editor conduct concern rather than an article concern. A well-sourced, neutrally-written article about a notable topic is an asset to the project, even if originally created by a COI editor. On the other hand, it is possible for an unconnected editor to write a gushingly promotional article which should be deleted. (Of course it would be fair to say that not everyone agrees with me on this, but I think the majority do).
 * In the case of the article we are discussing, I feel that it is adequately sourced, reasonably notable, and really not written in a very promotional way. Mostly the article just states what the product is and does, with a bunch of technical specifications. There isn't any of the grandiose marketing fluff that is seen so often when doing new pages patrol.
 * So in terms of whether I agree that the page should be deleted per WP:SELFPROMOTION, the short answer is "no", and that's because (as far as I recall anyway) nothing in the whole COI guideline defines a situation where articles should be deleted. Put simply, WP:COI is not about article deletion, it is about editor conduct. If an article is a problem, it is dealt with through the usual processes for dealing with problem articles.
 * If you feel that the COI situation around the article's creation justifies deleting it, then that certainly is a valid opinion (albeit one that I don't share in this case), and obviously AfD would be the place to take it. Because there aren't really any other major problems with the article other than the creator's COI, I would be surprised if there was a consensus to delete it. But I am often surprised at how AfDs go, so who knows :)
 * Thparkth (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)