Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EthicalWiki


 * 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 Userfied - provided sources discuss EthicalWiki is no depth at all - only the content of some report they released. Wily D 08:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

EthicalWiki

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP. EthicalWiki is not the subject of any of the articles referenced. The only reliable sources (1,2,4 and 5) are about a survey that the owner of EthicalWiki made about paid editing of wikipedia and this is the subject of all of the sources, with EthicalWiki being mentioned in passing. The other sources are mostly primary sources (written by the owner) or unreliable, e.g. The Signpost and The Examiner. O'Dwyer's blog might just be reliable, but as with 1,2,4 and 5, neither of the sources are about EthicalWiki. (Some discussion has already occurred at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know regarding the article). SmartSE (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Cheers! --Woz2 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * EthicalWiki is notable on the strength of the PRWeek write up. PRWeek is a reliable source in this topic area.
 * There's nothing wrong with having supplementary non-independent sources per WP:3PARTY (Non-independent sources may be used to source content from articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified), provided they aren't used to establish notability.
 * The article was reviewed by several editors and made it to DYK.


 * As I said above, the PR Week article is not about EthicalWiki, but about paid editing of wikipedia. Therefore it cannot establish the notability of the company. Should we have an article about every company that has ever commissioned a survey that's been mentioned by the media?
 * Yes, but notability hasn't been established. I was pointing out that none of the sources are suitable.
 * That doesn't mean that it should be kept. SmartSE (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:CORP. This would never have made it this far if it had not interested us because of its link to Wikipedia itself. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on the second sentence? I'm not getting it. Specifically, when you say "this far" do you mean DYK or AfD? And are you suggesting that the notability criterion is somehow modulated if the topic of the article is a controversial one like paid editing of wikipedia versus non-controversial? Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hey guys. If this gets deleted, can you just move it back to King4057/Ethicalwiki. This is where my signature links to. Thanks. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep referenced, neutral and good to know what this is about. Because it has a connect to Wikipedia there is heightened interest in this here, and so there should be a bias to keep it.  If not as an article it could go toa Wikipedia: page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Referenced, yes, but this doesn't mean it is notable. That it is connected to Wikipedia should have no influence on how we treat it. Look at it another way - would we keep an article about a company that specialises in using Twitter for PR if a survey that they published was mentioned in a few media sources? Moving it back to King4057's userspace seems like the best idea to me. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Graeme. Meets wiki guidelines. CE it if you like though. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, It clearly meets the GNG, and is well sourced.  TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 23:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how it "clearly meets the GNG"? I've explained why I don't think it does, so you need to explain which sources provide the significant coverage required. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm having to comment here as the proposer hatted the discussion on DYK, forcing all discussion to come here. This is an attempt to get a company who specialises in PR on Wikipedia, onto the front page of the project. Yes it meets the criteria, it's been very well crafted. However this is absolutely NOT what we want on the front page. Just because an article meets the DYK criteria it does not mean we have to run it. This sets us up for being manipulated, as we are here. The article itself was written by someone with a connection to the company, who will no doubt use his success at getting his promo onto the front page to attract further clients. This is the kind of thing IAR is for. It can stay as an article but it absolutely does not belong on the front page. Secretlondon (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment--so we delete all articles on businesses such as General Motors or just those for which someone paid for or what? There are gobs of articles written by people "with a connection"--Girl Scout leaders who write GS articles, people in the military that write military articles etc. Your approach is too far reaching and without clear bounds. Pumpkin Sky  talk  00:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I hatted the discussion there just to prevent fragmentation. I'm sorry if coming here was a hardship. You have to understand this is a one bit issue: Either a) EthicalWiki is notable or b) it is not. Let's not get into the shooter on the grassy knoll stuff. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No something can be notable enough for an article but not something we want on the front page. You stopped us having that discussion. Secretlondon (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't easily check the timing, but I was under the impression that Smart said he wouldn't AfD it until it was off the main page. When I hatted it (18:49 July 22, 2012 UTC ) just after Smart AfD's it I assumed it was off the main page, making the discussion there a WP:STICK. I apologize if I hatted it prematurely. BYW, does anyone have a way of checking what time its DYK ended? Just curious. Woz2 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As best as I can make out, the article had been off the main page for almost two hours when Smart AfD'd it and I hatted and WP:STICK'd the DYK thread. Woz2 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would just like to politely ask for more AGF. I was not involved in the DYK nomination and certainly didn't embark on a plan to use it for promotion. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, also I'd like to remind folks that even Jimbo's very strict so-called "bright-line" position allows a) COI editors to offer contribution outside of main space b) neutral editors to move (or not move) such contributions into main space. But again, this AfD is a one bit issue about notability not COI. Woz2 (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Two comments. (1) When you have a COI regarding a subject, you're always welcome to write an article on that subject and submit it through AFC, as was done here.  (2) AFD is not just a forum on notability; if we believe that a page be too far gone to save, we delete it, even if it be on a notable subject.  Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no COI issues here. 1) Read the nomination. 2) AfC is one possible route for article creation but not the only one. 3) The creation route adhered to even the strict "brightline" position of Jimbo w.r.t. COI edits. 4) "Too far gone to save" is equal to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Woz2 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The article has not improved in its sourcing significantly since I declined it at AFC. The big problem here is that:
 * 1) The few reliable sources, such as PR Week, talk about EthicalWiki only in passing or as one example among many. It is not the subject of significant coverage in these sources.
 * 2) The majority of sources – 10 out of the 15 cited! – are from self-published sources, especially blogs, press releases, self-publishing sites like examiner.com or the like. These might be okay if used sparingly, but do not meet the requirements of general notability nor WP:CORP.
 * As you can see, this article appears to be shipshape at first glance, but on careful examination is not sufficiently well-sourced to be considered notable. As for the apparent COI: I don't think we should be discussing that, since firstly, it's completely obvious, and second, the user has gone out of their way to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Let's AGF and focus on the content. Steven Walling &bull; talk   04:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The 10 out of 15 argument doesn't seem relevant to me. If five establish notability, the 10 can't subtract from it. I agree the 10 don't add extra notability either. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral here out of necessity, but I'll note that Steven already rebutted your post with his first bullet point. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ed, noted. You are absolutely correct that the nub of this issue is whether or not the outside citations indicate notability. That is where the difference of opinion between the keepers and the deleters here lays (for the most part at least). The COI, the controversial nature of the topic, and the additional self-published sources are red herrings, IMHO. Woz2 (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh! One more thing... the opening phrase of the PR Week article is "According to a study by EthicalWiki,..." and most of the article is centered around that work. I believe that that is significant coverage. Woz2 (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed - we should concentrate on the sources. I deliberately avoided mentioning the potential COI issues in my nomination. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Woz: that does not meet the definition of significant coverage. Significant would mean that the article is actually about EthicalWiki, rather than simply uses it as a source about a broader topic. Steven Walling &bull; talk   03:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I deleted that examiner.com cite from the article and the sentence it supported. I find that particular site problematic, and don't want this article tainted by it. The sentence in question wasn't of much interest to the general reader anyway. hth. Woz2 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note Canvassing is occurring. Hipocrite (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Diffs? SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Complete set Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EthicalWiki Woz2 (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * . Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP - the alleged "sources" hardly address this company at all, vs. talking about Wikipedia and some "survey". Appears to be merely a well-played advertising vehicle for a non-notable tiny consultancy. Hipocrite (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase "well played advertising vehicle" is an accusation of bad faith and I strongly object to it. I'm completely disinterested in EthicalWiki. I created and DYK'd the article because it's related to a topic (COI editing) that interests me and I believe our readers too. I recently volunteered one of my Saturday's to talk about this topic and found that people were very interested in it. Woz2 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's an accusation that you got played, not that you were the player. The topic you talked about was one tiny consultancy, or Paid editing of wikipedia? Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC) ( clarification underscored ) Woz2 (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't get played. I came across King's draft, thought it notable, and decided on my very own to create and DYK it. I'm 54 years old and not naive. Woz2 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree about various levels of naivety. Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a thinly veiled insult and I don't appreciate it. Woz2 (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we stay on topic? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy. Fails GNG and CORP. Only reliable sources which detail subject are responding to the "85%" study released by subject. As mentor to page creator, I told User:King4057 back in June this wasn't ready, that sourcing was thin yet, and with the obvious COI issues involved David had a responsibility to nail down IRS before taking this to mainspace. I agree pretty much with the AFC reviewer's opinion and his statements above. In addition, I tend to agree with User:Hipocrite; I feel EthicalWiki's study was a "well-played advertising vehicle." Without coverage of that study, we have zero IRS. No lack of AGF on my part; remember, I've been mentoring this nice fellow, and he's been playing it straight with all of us. I told him so at the time: "Most of your sources are those who have commented on your released study.". I'm disappointed David decided to advance allow advancement of this page to mainspace before acquiring better sourcing; specifically sourcing directly detailing; however, in typical King4057 common sense fashion, David has agreed to take the page back to his userspace for further development if consensus holds this is not ready. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As clarification, David did not appear to attempt to advance this page on his own. He gave Woz2 the freedom to be bold.  In the end I have to agree with you. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  13:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite right; I struck through and corrected my copy above. BusterD (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I submitted it to AfC originally, accepted the feedback I got, but decided to use it in my signature, seeing that many COIs use (org) instead of my much more long-winded disclosure. When Woz came by I pointed him to the AfC feedback and suggested he do whatever he wants. When he moved it to article-space AND submitted for DYK, I saw this kind of controversy coming from a mile away. Now I see that SmartSE and Woz are both soliciting for participants in the AfD discussion with very POV invitations that encourage them to take their respective sides and I imagine editors are fuming behind their keyboards.


 * If there was some way I could sing kumbaya, remind people of AGF, civility and canvassing and return us to a routine AfD I would. As long as I have something to point people to that explains my approach and position, it's not really that important to me whether it's in article-space or not.


 * In any case, the crux of this conversation is really if PRWeek, Ragans, etc. count towards notability, even though they are on a study I published rather than on EthicalWiki specifically. What might be best is if Woz and Smart compromised on the best way to use those three sources that are clearly reliable in other articles and userfy this article. For example, just those three could be added to COI editing on Wikipedia. Woz could learn more about COI by improving that article (also with updates from CIPR) and Smart will no longer contest notability.


 * From my perspective, I probably won't do too much PR for EthicalWiki, as much as for the approach to treating Wikipedia with the same autonomy and respect as a news organization that isn't openly editable, satisfying its content needs and the value of an ethical approach to Wikipedia. This is a message I would think most Wikipedians would generally share and appreciate my efforts to sway the PR field in that direction. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor comment With hindsight, my notifications were a mistake, as discussed earlier today here. One of the users I notified (Ryan, DYK commenter) voted against keeping, one voted keep (Pumpkin, DYK promoter). The other two (Silver (COOP founder) and Poeticbent, DYK reviewer) haven't responded as yet. Woz2 (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy per BusterD. The page served as background on King/a declaration of any Conflict of Interest he might have.  It is currently not ready for the mainspace and should go back to that purpose. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  13:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not a deletionist. I gave it the green-light at a DYK nomination page, because the article was new, written in good English, supported by multiple external sources, long, truthful and not flagged with any dispute warnings in spite of its AFC history apparently. If you can make it work, please do so. Poeticbent talk 19:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, BTW the broken history was my mistake... Long story... Woz2 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: failing WP:CORP and written like an advertisement. Toddst1 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy: The Ragans and PRWeek sources are nice and put the article on the borderline of notability, in my opinion. But I do feel that another source or two from a news article (subject area-specific news sources are fine) discussing the Wiki or a report it's put out or something like that would be better before having this in mainspace. It's just a bit too borderline at the moment. And no need to throw around canvassing accusations. I'm one person who it's proper to notify, in my relation to the subject and, as you can see, I am taking this AfD seriously and probably voting in a way that surprises many of you. Silver  seren C 03:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Promotional in intent, started by the proprietor. Fails GNG and the special criteria for Corporations. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This AfD resulted in causing Woz2 to retire, after thousands of edits and several GA articles. Please join me in asking Woz to come back and letting him know his contributions are appreciated. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 09:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete; the sourcing is very weak - no in depth coverage of this company in independent sources. It all consists of trivial mentions. --Errant (chat!) 21:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I also just spotted, and deleted, a clear copyright violation. If this article isn't deleted it needs revdel'ing from r504829341 backwards. --Errant (chat!) 21:34, 29 July 2012 (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.