Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brats Without Borders, Inc.


 * 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   speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Brats Without Borders, Inc.

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A very light rewrite of copyrighted material from ; this, as well as the companion page on Donna Musil, were created by User:Wikibratupdates. WP:COI? Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's either a copyvio or a combination of conflict of interest and belief that Wikipedia is one's private webhost. Either way it has no place on Wikipedia Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 22:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — I have a hunch the author is the copyright holder of the web material, but the fact remains that this is not your own web host. MuZemike  ( talk ) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Our organization (Brats Without Borders, Inc.) and materials ("BRATS: Our Journey Home") have been cited on other wiki pages incorrectly, or not cited at all, when they should be cited. We were trying to correct these discrepancies. We thought this was the correct way to do that. There is incorrect information on the "military brat" page, as well. Please let us know the correct steps to take. Yes, the information is similar to the website - because it's correct. Would you rather have incorrect information in Wikipedia? The copyright holder of the website and the film are the nonprofit organization, Brats Without Borders, which helps military children and other "third-culture kids." We're not sure what point you're trying to make removing this information. ??? - wikibratupdates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibratupdates (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note — reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard. MuZemike  ( talk ) 02:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Speedy delete (G11) — after looking at the edits made to Donna Musil and Military brat (U.S. subculture), I think this is plain, unfettered spamming of Wikipedia. MuZemike  ( talk ) 02:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under G11 per MuZemike. Given the claims made in the article, it needs to be validated by neutral sources, instead of someone with a direct commercial interest. Notability of this particular company is unestablished, anyway. TheFeds 03:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do all the validation you like. Please do. The company is an educational non-profit - not a commercial interest - and has been in existence since 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.5.129 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No one claimed the company was commercial. It doesn't have to be in order for the article to be promotional. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G11) Unsalvagable spam. Themfromspace (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Your words are harsh! --68.161.185.186 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How is referring to an article as spam considered biting the newcomers, especially when the author has already made other related edits to other articles? MuZemike  ( talk ) 16:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Was the "unsalvagable" part necessary, though? It's already been noted that it was probably spam, and this isn't a vote. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Being unsalvagable is what makes the article a candidate for speedy deletion. If the article contained spam in only a section or two that could be removed but if nothing in the article could be saved as encyclopedic than it qualifies for speedy deletion. Themfromspace (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Spamming is looked upon negatively in online culture, and the editor probably did not believe that her edits were "unsalvagable spam". Failing to assume good faith on the part of a new editor falls under biting the newcomers. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's assuming good faith and there's calling a spade a spade. I won't sugar coat the truth with a smile on my face when an article clearly shouldn't be on here. Themfromspace (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2008 (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.