Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BEEInfoSTRIP


 * 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   delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

BEEInfoSTRIP

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Spam for a public monitoring tool. The author, Warren Louw has confirmed to me by e-mail that he works for BEEInfoSTRIP. &mdash; RHaworth 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article lacks any assertion of notability or evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. Note that I have redirected "BEEInfoSTRIP™", which was a duplicate that had been PRODed, to "BEEInfoSTRIP". - htonl (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article defines the BEEInfoSTRIP and informs South Africans and the world of a system that advances BEE. This can only be to the advantage of the masses. You will agree that independent reliable sources are non existent as we are the creators of the BEEInfoSTRIP. There is no other system like this. It was developed for the South African economic climate. The SA Government is the only entity that is able to enforce such a system. Thank you for redirecting "BEEInfoSTRIP™" to "BEEInfoSTRIP", I did not know how to do this. - wlouw (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Independent reliable sources are non existent" is exactly the problem. If the BEEInfoSTRIP becomes widely used by the government or business, then there will be articles written about it in the business press, and things like that. That would demonstrate notability. In a Google search for "BEEInfoSTRIP", all the results were either (a) the BEEInfoSTRIP website itself, (b) social networking pages set up for the product, (c) results from Wikipedia itself or Wikipedia mirrors, (d) comments promoting the product on the Accountancy SA website. None of these demonstrate any attention having been paid to the product by anyone independent. - htonl (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2011 UTC)
 * comment Would this be notable - "Press" The South African Broadcasting Corporation radio station SAfm interviewed the BEEInfoSTRIP information officer - Mr Lester September on Monday 6 Dec 2010 @ 10:05am (45min Audio Clip is available from the radio station or on the BEEInfoSTRIP website) "notable?" wlouw (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It'd be a start, I suppose. One interview on its own doesn't reach the level of coverage required by the notability policy, though. - htonl (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Could you provide a link to the audio clip on the website? I looked but couldn't find it. - htonl (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * PS SAfm telephoned the BEEInfoSTRIP for the interview which means the news or interest of the BEEInfoSTRIP is spreading without any awareness campaigns, the BEEInfoSTRIP received 13000+ views and of recent listing on facebook a following and acceptance of +-700 people as per facebook groups, friends and "likes". If you will take the time to go to the internet pages note the profile of people, Black Management Forum, political parties, business people, people from TV news stations (ETV News Anchor: Robyn Smith) and others, National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson, Jay Naidoo and the list continues. The SAfm interview can be found on the Introduction page. Right-hand column, 2nd entry from the top under heading "News Events" wlouw (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * comment I noticed the word "spam" above. I should mention that the BEEInfoSTRIP is not dependent on advertising as it cannot be purchased by individuals. The entry requested on the wiki site is for awarness and definition. Information is power and South Africans need to be empowered. Wikipedia has positioned itself as an information provider and this is where South Africans go when searching. wlouw (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment If I may suggest in the event of indecisiveness, as a notable resource, htonl (talk) based in South Africa should contact the office of the DTI and speak to Minister Dr Davies or the Chief BEE director Nomonde Mesatywa who is directly responsible for our brief and ask for their stance on the BEEInfoSTRIP. I am sure this will be the final deciding factor on credibility / notability. wlouw (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparent COI as well, with Wlouw using the term "Our brief".  Corvus cornix  talk  21:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment Corvus cornix  talk  can you please elaborate on your perception of conflict of interest (COI)? wlouw (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I do not presume to speak for Corvus, our conflict of interest policy states that: "[If] you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing; then you are very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased)." Your language above, for example "we are the creators of the BEEInfoSTRIP", suggests that you are directly involved with the product. - htonl (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment I understand your point on neutrality and I agree is important - Kindly refer me to the neutral independant group that writes wiki pages for profitable companies such as Barclays, Standard Bank , Pick 'n Pay , Wal-Mart Stores, Inc , etc. wlouw (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're asking for here. On any article you can click on the "History" link at the top of the page and see who has edited that article. On all the articles you mention, as with most Wikipedia articles, there are many different people involved in the writing of the page. - htonl (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case I can assume that these companies or similar hire people to write about it or companies employ staff to write about it or people who love the companies write about it. I would be able to view the history tag and not know which of the people listed was neutral or not. wlouw (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * comment One element of The BEEInfoSTRIP, it targets people who "front" i.e. Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) fraud. There are 3 groups of people to take opinion from for notability - 1.People who "front" 2.People who don't 3.People with no affiliation (just don't care). Who wants to see the BEEInfoSTRIP on Wikipedia? wlouw (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment. This would appear to be a notable piece of legislation and program established by the South African government.  This would appear to be an, ahem, private initiative relating to that program; it apparently prints related information on a checkout receipt.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment - Keep - You have correctly identified its subset being legislation; however, Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment is a scoring and accreditation system. The BEEInfoSTRIP is independent from this therefore cannot be influenced / biased. The BEEInfoSTRIP is independent to be able to report independently. It cannot be redirected. It stands alone as an audit. It cannot be seen to favour one political party over the other. Please qualify the "delete" you suggest as alternative - There are many wiki pages that can be cited as "private initiative". wlouw (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete (no prejudice to merge/redirect) Article written by a person with a probable COI. Article reads as out right promotional copy in some places, uses the trademark sign heavily, etc. indicating to me it was written as an advertisement. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 22:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I addressed the COI above with Htonl. As per the Trademark definition, the trademark simply indicates the source and originality. Many wiki pages represent trademark inventions and products e.g. Barbie (lists of trademarks are available on the net). Wiki is full of examples. Please let me know of the part that sounds / reads promotional in your opinion so that it can be written more factual as the intent is. wlouw (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All I saw above was that you said other people might have a COI. You did not address the concerns that you are somehow involved with the subject. As for trademarks, see Manual of Style: Trademarks. (Especially the part where you do not use the trademark sign unless there is good reason.) OSbornarfcontributionatoration 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment He that is without any hesitation and confirm there are no other wiki pages on Wikipedia with COI, be the first to delete the BEEInfoSTRIP on Wikipedia for COI sake. Trademark denotes - its source / origin - its local -Proudly South African. wlouw (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The status of other pages on WP is not relevant here. (See WP:OTHERSTUFF.) Could you please expand on what you're saying about trademarks above? I don't quite understand. Thanks, OSbornarfcontributionatoration 20:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you admins for being mindful of a fair approach. Note 1 WP:OTHERSTUFF - refers "...similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist...", also states "...an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement...". Note 2 The BEEInfoSTRIP is unique to its application - cannot be compared as BEE in the SA Economy is a South African Government initiative. Note 3 If the trademark was seen as promotional - some info on Trademarks: “Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time.” wlouw (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning what a trademark is, but the use of the trademark in the article. The manual of style says to not use the trademark symbol in the article without very good reason. See an article like Microsoft or Deutsche Bank, the article does not use the trademark symbol in conjunction with the name. As I understand it, only if this article were written by the company itself (or if it were advertising/etc) would it need to use the trademark symbol. (Unless of course you work for or on behalf of the article's subject, in which case you really shouldn't be doing that, COI and all.) OSbornarfcontribs. 00:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * comment Please see Microsoft and Microsoft Info box (RHS) slogan in Wikipedia. See “R” in a circle next to Microsoft name – (trademark).  Note 1 Microsoft refers to a company AND products so does Deutsche Bank e.g. Deutsche Bank shares. The identities of their names are within their legal entity registrations and can be found in the form of (Pty) Ltd or AG, etc. The BEEInfoSTRIP falls within the legal frame of trademark rights (origin, source, use).  Note 2 unlike the commercial names you cited, the BEEInfoSTRIP in all its documentation does not promote the sale of or anything to do with retail of the BEEInfoSTRIP. Note 3 The wiki pages cited for Microsoft etc have references, links, with sub-links to direct public commercial intent (Microsoft website, COI and all), but to quote you “The status of other pages on WP is not relevant here.” wlouw (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (resetting indentation). The ® is present in the logo because that image was obtained from the Microsoft website. You will not find "®" or "™" anywhere in the text of the article. Anyway, the trademark issue is not really important.
 * The CoI problem is not that an article links to the company it is describing; of course the Microsoft article links to microsoft.com; it would be ridiculous if it didn't. A CoI problem with that article would be if, for example, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs were making major edits to the article. Can you not see the difference? - htonl (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Accidentally removed htonl's comment for a few seconds there, sorry.) Please understand that promotion is not just trying to overtly sell someone something. OSbornarfcontribs. 02:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * comment Keep in mind that all source information your see and hear about Microsoft was generated by Microsoft. Do you agree that factual information of Microsoft and their products e.g. Microsoft_Windows_XP on Wikipedia (assumed written by people who love Microsoft) has its primary source for credibility and for authentication sake directly from Microsoft where applicable? If said information did not, the entire wiki page would be in question. Accuracy of information and the factual nature thereof almost suggests that MS could have very well written the wiki pages themselves (who knows). It is required to have accurate information published about the BEEInfoSTRIP and should be irrespective of the person as long as there is maturity and discretion of intent, one of which is not to abuse the Wikipedia for commercial purpose but as part of a tool to empower a nation. Have you recognized ill-intent with regard to the BEEInfoSTRIP? Please let me know where; for immediate amendment. wlouw (talk) 0:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "All source information" about Microsoft was not generated by Microsoft; have you looked at the list of references in that article? It cites 91 different sources, of which only ten or so are from Microsoft. In any case, I'm not going to discuss Microsoft or any other articles any further; as OSborn has pointed out, even if other editors are breaking the rules, it does not excuse your doing so. It is entirely clear, from the language that you have used above, that you have a direct commercial interest in the BEEInfoSTRIP, and therefore that you are violating the conflict of interest policy. Asking for specific instances of ill-intent is disingenous, given that the entire article is written as a blatant advertisement.
 * Nonetheless, a conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion, and therefore this whole argument is a distraction. The reason for deletion remains that the article lacks any evidence of notability, and the one radio interview you have pointed out is not sufficient to establish it. I will not discuss any further anything not relevant to the deletion discussion. - htonl (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2011 (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.