Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucibel (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. No reasons based in Wikipedia policy given for deletion. If you want to change the deletion policy to include articles made by undisclosed paid editors, the venue is that way. Sam Walton (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Lucibel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#paid-contrib-disclosure and the reasons for original AFD, in the light of subsequent changes to and clarifications of WMF and community stances on Paid Advocacy Editing (PAE). Elvey(t•c) 00:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  02:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 08:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets general notability from the multiple references I've found. I don't see the logic of killing off the article – the author might be censured but don't 'punish' the article if it contains useful material. Libby norman (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What if the content of the article is illegal? The evidence that this is largely the product of undisclosed paid editing is pretty strong, as is the evidence that undisclosed paid promotional content violates FTC regulations.  The dots my not form a solid line, but they're closely spaced.  Where is the line drawn that this (arguably) hasn't passed?  At what point is it appropriate to remove such content? --Elvey(t•c) 21:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Illegal is a strong word – I do appreciate your concerns, but I would still try to separate the article from its author as it's the article that is up for deletion. If we start to make judgements based on authorship of articles it adds another layer of complexity that could make us lose focus on whether the article stands. In this case, I think it has enough existing or potential references to indicate notability. Libby norman (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You and VMS Mosaic are arguing with a straw man; please stop! No one here (but you, in creating your straw man) has claimed that Lucibel is not notable.  Non-notability is not the only valid reason to delete an article.  Illegal content is another valid reason for deleting content.  If you dispute any of that, what part(s) do you dispute?  --Elvey(t•c) 21:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You say you appreciate my concerns. Well then, show it - directly address my concerns by answering my question:  What if the content of the article is unlawful?  Deletion doesn't mean it can't be recreated; I don't think the article should be salted.    --Elvey(t•c) 21:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Libby norman ? --Elvey(User talk:Elvey•c) 01:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Libby Norman was tucked up in bed with a cocoa as it was quite late in this neck of the woods Elvey. Sorry I missed your 1 December responses to my post of 26 November. I think I understand your point Elvey but still believe this is a Keep as you've provided no grounds for deletion that I see as falling under grounds for deletion as it currently stands. If, as it appears to me, you are suggesting an extension of the deletion policy to include articles by authors who have been paid to write the material, then this is not the forum to debate that. It would be better taken to the relevant board so the debate can be widened and a consensus can be reached. I don't understand the straw man argument you have introduced – it doesn't seem to be an accurate representation of my intentions or those of VMS Mosaic in responding to an AfD proposal by providing keep or delete opinions referencing current guidelines. Do hope that helps clarify. Libby norman (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came off as impatient. I believe your reply does clarify: What you're saying,  Libby norman, is that, if the content of the article is unlawful, we should not delete it anyway.  (Either that, or you didn't answer my question, or I'm missing something.)   --Elvey(t•c) 02:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is you refuse to say what is unlawful about the article. Being created by a bad editor does not make the article unlawful. We need to know exactly why you believe the contents of the article to be unlawful? Which exact law(s) and/or Wiki policies is the contents of the article breaking? Please be specific as to the exact sections of the law(s) and why those sections apply to this article. Simply repeating over and over that something is unlawful does not make it so. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Elvey and no worries I'm sorry I missed your earlier responses. I would word it somewhat differently and say that my reasoning is that if we have concerns about an editor they should be discussed independently from concerns about an article because in an AfD debate, as far as I am aware, the focus remains on the merits or otherwise of the article. I linked to the grounds for deletion guidelines above so don't need to repeat those here. I note that you previously raised this issue in January 2014 and the final result was a keep. Editor Uncle Milty put it very well: This AFD is apparently an attempt to force policy discussion, rather than discuss the suitability of the article for WP. It appears the same debate has been started again about the same article and, while it may have some merits, this is not the place to set a precedent as we do not have existing guidelines or evidence of consensus from across Wikipedia that would give us grounds under the vague and un-Wiki like terms unlwawful and illegal you used as justification for a deletion – all this as noted succinctly above by VMS Mosaic. I know Wiki has no rules, but a deletion made by a few random editors who happened upon a debate and based their decision on vague terminology outside current guidelines would be likely to attract quite justifiable criticism as undemocratic and unsupportive of Wikipedia's core goals and philosophies. I would be happy to contribute to a separate debate on the relevant board if you decide to move your proposal forward. Libby norman (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)




 * Seems like there's enough info to close. The reasons for deletion haven't been challenged, and the two arguments for keeping it are the same straw man. --Elvey(t•c) 21:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The nominator quite clearly agrees that the article is notable. He has not shown any part of the article to be illegal/unlawful (e.g. a copyright violation). The policy he cites is an editor policy, not an article policy. The cited FTC regulations are also aimed at the editor (the article would only be evidence of what the editor did). Work has been done on the article to fix any neutral point of view issues. This probably should be a Procedural close just like the first AfD, especially given that the nominator has given no valid deletion reason. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Undisclosed Paid Advocacy Editing (UPAE) is a fireable offense. We delete content containing copyright violations, even when we haven't received DMCA takedown notices, as we should.  I welcome your attempt to prove that it's illegal to merely view or unknowingly host articles with copyright violations.  It's wrong to knowingly host them, so we should avoid doing that.  Likewise, it's wrong to knowingly host content in violation of the FTC regs, which have the force of law.  So we should avoid doing that too.  I suppose we could create a specific policy page that says that the product of UPAE, like the product of a copyright violation, should be removed.  What efforts have there been to do so since the Terms of Use were changed to bar UPAE?  I don't recall any. --Elvey(t•c) 02:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you will point out the particular specific material which violates copyright, I will assist in removing it. Note the logo is fair use. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You, VMS Mosaic are AGAIN arguing with a straw man; for the love of chocolate, please stop! No one here (but you, in creating your SECOND straw man) has claimed that Lucibel violates copyright.  --Elvey(t•c) 01:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not my fault your comments are all but incomprehensible, but let me try again. If you will specify exactly which particular parts of the article violate exactly which part of which particular FTC regulation, I will assist in removing that particular material. I have looked at every link you have given, and none of them have anything whatsoever to do with the disposition of the contents of this article. At the risk of repeating myself, every single one of them specifically apply to the editor(s).  Please point out exactly what sentences in the links you gave which you believe say anything about the edited article. Also, please stop with the unWP:AGF strawman BS particulary given that I'm not the one throwing up nothing but strawmen. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Article passes the GNG. As the new Terms or Use weren't specifically grandfathered, I don't see them applying to articles created before they came into force. If we were to grandfather the policy I suspect we'd need a broader discussion. - Bilby (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is worth discussion - indeed, the ToU weren't specifically grandfathered. IIRC, at commons, at least, unless there's a grandfather clause or a sunrise clause, policies apply to already uploaded content and already completed edits, not just new ones.  But that's only a vague recollection, and of commons.  --Elvey(t•c) 01:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I realised that I worded this very badly. I guess the point I wanted to make was that we haven't made teh ToU retrospective - edits made prior to the change in the ToU dont need to comply with the new ToU, but edits made after do. This article was made before the ToU was updated, so I can't see how we can apply the new policy to an article created before it came into effect. - Bilby (talk) 10:22, 6 December 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.