Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucibel


 * 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   Procedural close. with no prejudice against future nominations Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  05:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucibel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Illegal content, per 16 C.F.R. § 255 of the US Code.

The FTC stated (in March 2013) that the Guides
 * "apply to “any advertising message . . . that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser . . . .” 9 The Guides refer to advertising without limiting the media in which it is disseminated.:9 16 C.F.R. § 255.0(b)."

So, this Wikipedia article is an advertisement. My reading of the Guides is that the FTC indicates that a paid editor would be considered an endorser and liable for any false statements she made on wikipedia. Furthermore, the seller is also liable for misrepresentations made through the endorsement. (See Examples 3 and 5 on page 4 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)

Most importantly, per § 255.5, (page 10): The paid position of the editor must be fully disclosed, because it might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), so such CoI disclosure in the article as long as it contains such advertising is a legal requirement, but there is no such disclosure - there is no disclosure of compensation. (See Examples 7, 8, and 9 on page 12 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.) Elvey (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - So, what is your rationale for nominating this article? Too promotional? I'm not seeing any evidence that the article creator is a paid editor, either. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  11:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The rationale is as stated, that this is undisclosed advertising. The reader does not know that this is an advertorial, commissioned by the subject. Translating this into Wikipedia-speak, I would suggest that even if the article is otherwise acceptable, it needs to be deleted under WP:IAR, which clearly applies to situations like this, in which improving Wikipedia requires ignoring our absurdly weak COI rules, which permit subjects to pay for people to create articles. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete based on this being a commissioned, paid article commissioned by the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that is a paid editor, because I don't see any evidence of that, nor do I see any discussion topics regarding any suspicion of this editor. --  &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  18:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It was discussed here and here and here, apart from the talk page post in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, where is the evidence that is a paid editor? --  &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural close - This AFD is apparently an attempt to force policy discussion, rather than discuss the suitability of the article for WP. If the article needs to be cleaned up, then do that. If the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines, then discuss that. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  18:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep In the previous AfDs I've seen related to paid editing, the tendency has been to consider the article on its own merits, rather than delete on the basis of who wrote it. (Assuming the author wasn't blocked or banned). In this case, it doesn't seem overly promotional, and appears to meet the GNG. The possibility that Elvey raises, that paid advocacy may be illegal under US law, is worth pursuing, but AfD isn't the place for it. I hope that the WMF's legal team is looking into the issue, and it would be very interesting to see an office action banning paid advocacy. If legal advice from the WMF suggests that the problem Elvey raises is valid, then I suspect AfD will be moot, and this would become a CSD concern. - Bilby (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2014 (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.