Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OVerus


 * 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 deleted (A7, no assertion of notability) Nonadmin close  Sheffield Steel talkstalk 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OVerus

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

I get only four hits. asenine t/c 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it is non-notable.

asenine t/c 09:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Reason for deletion is unclear. Where does "I get only four hits" fall in the Wikipedia "reasons for deletion" guidelines?
 * OVerus ~ The Christian Business Emblem is the trademark of a registered United States business, and an emerging Christian presence in both national and international markets. Forthwith, an immediate AfD nomination is a bit extreme.
 * Wikiquette - WP editors must have courtesy for other productive editors and give them more than 30 seconds after creating an article before attempting to delete one of their newest articles; thanks. Kmiklas (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Keith Miklas" is the registered owner of overus.org Seems like a reasonably clear case of spam to me. Jpmonroe (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kmiklas (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (ref. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmiklas (talk • contribs) 03:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as an advertisement for a non-notable business. Boldly marked as a speedy. B figura  (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: no indication of notability.  gets 7 google results.  Trademark search does not show any such registration.  The company's own web page shows that precisely one product uses the mark.  ...  disco spinster   talk  02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G11 -Drdisque (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete; no claim of notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, spam.  Corvus cornix  talk  03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * HangOn: Folks it's after midnight and I'm really tired I'll be back in the morning. Plz hang I'm only about 20% complete (maybe) I haven't even uploaded my images or references yet. "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete."
 * Comment; your problem is not incompleteness. It's that it appears actively non-notable; a trademark that hasn't been formally registered, for a program invented this year that has one product lined up that's not itself notable. You don't need images; you need an article in the Wall Street Journal or the like that proves that someone has taken note of this. I'd speedy it; if you had that, you'd have shown us. If it's not speeded, I suggest you skip the images and go straight to showing us why this notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep It appears to be blatant spam for sure, but it has only been up for a couple of hours. Give it 48 hours and tag it again. If it weren't so new, I'd support the speedy delete. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If an article is spam, then it does not deserve 48 hours, or 24 hours. There is no assertion of notability. No evidence of any third party coverage. The article is written like a press release or an advert. This is a PR campaign masquerading as an article. No, it doesn't deserve any extra time. It's not tagged speedy anyway, so why the "speedy keep" endorsement? The nomination isn't in violation of standard procedures. DarkAudit (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm with Jeremy; nominating an article for deletion ninety seconds after creation is obnoxious and borderline process abuse. No bloody kidding it lacks an assertion of notability, or doesn't read like the way an article should; the author hasn't had the time yet to do it up properly.  Honestly, are there prizes being awarded by the Wikimedia Foundation for being the one to AfD the most articles in a given week?    RGTraynor  15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Articles are deleted all the time within moments of their creation.  This is not the OU symbol we are talking about here.  Secondly, you have not actually given a reason for keeping the article other than "it was just posted" — and you have done so in a quite uncivil manner.  ...  disco spinster   talk  15:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: And obviously blatant attack articles or obscenity-riddled nonsense rightfully should be deleted as soon as possible. Which of these is this?    RGTraynor  15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Reply It wasn't tagged speedy when I got here, and it still reads like spam 14 hours later. It's in AfD now, which is supposed to run for five days. That's plenty of time. So what's the problem? DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already stated it. No one will compel you to agree with me, but "nominating an article for deletion ninety seconds after creation is obnoxious and borderline process abuse" seems clear enough to me.    RGTraynor  15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My first reaction to that is, "then what's the use of the New Page Patrol?" but I'll save that debate for another time. It's lunchtime on the US East Coast, and it still looks like PR spam to me. The most glaring example is the entire "Benefits" section. Totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of the New Page Patrol is to vette new articles, of course, and take appropriate action. I don't believe appropriate action encompasses filing for AfD within moments of creation, period, ever, and if you want more evidence as to the limitations of the approach, take a look at this Afd of the nom's, also made today: Articles_for_deletion/Tan_Crone.  There's nothing about the NPP preventing them from giving new articles a couple days before doing so.  Of course, that's a debate more properly made elsewhere.    RGTraynor  16:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this one's a little more obvious. If I'd found this article in the condition it was in (and still is many hours later), I may not have instantly speedied, but I would still look at it as spam. One minute later, twelve hours later, it's still as spammy then as it is now. Spam is spam. It doesn't deserve to live. Author has had adequate time to show that it is not. DarkAudit (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per discospinster. And furthermore endorse nominator's filing of this AfD. WP:BITE means we explain nicely to newbies what they are doing wrong and then correct their errors as we find them, instead of screaming acronyms and banning them. It does NOT mean that we give self-promoters free reign for N days/hours/seconds while they try avoid learning that yes, conflict of interest isn't good and yes, encyclopedias aren't for advertising. cab (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang On Boldly marked - Please allow time for full presentation of accomplishments. "Alternatives to deletion" are in progress; specifically, editing and addition of references. The OVerus mark is the first "Kosher for Christians" mark and deserves an opportunity. 24.187.99.138 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — 24.187.99.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Kosher is Jewish dietary law. This is not at all like that. There is no similar doctrine in most Christian faiths. Gain the opportunity elsewhere. Wikipedia is for after you've become notable. It's not the place to try to gain notability. DarkAudit (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, a great number of businesses already use the Ichthys fish symbol to identify themselves as Christian businesses. This company is simply trying to capitalize on that by charging a fee for their own symbol. — Travis talk  14:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - After several searches, both web and news sources, and perusing the organization’s website, I can see no way that this article can be brought up to Wikipedia standards. If there are independent, verifiable, reliable sources out there, I can’t find them. — Travis talk  17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang On Boldly marked - Work continues on this entry. The OVerus Organization awaits advice from its patent and trademark attorney. Legal permission for several strong references are in progress. Edits are pending. Kmiklas (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would that be necessary? Any direct documentation would have to be licensed under the GFDL, and links to references need to be third party. Self-published references are frowned upon per sourcing guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete even with a minimal article, it seems clear that this project is not yet notable. DGG (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kmiklas (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: Thank you all for your input, it has been very helpful in the editing process. As the world's first Christian business emblem and certification process, OVerus is a valuable addition to Wikipedia. The four tags currently assigned to the page are advertisement, conflict of interest, notability, and unreferenced. The article will be edited within seventy-two hours to address these four assertions individually.
 * Current Issues:
 * I. Advertisement: (WIP)
 * '''a. Partial Update: Kmiklas (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * II. Conflict of Interest: (edit pending)
 * III Notability: (edit pending)
 * IV. Unreferenced: (edit pending)
 * Relevant Wikipedia Guidelines:
 * Editing, "Alternatives to Deletion: Editing: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion)
 * Good Articles, "please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion)
 * Five Day Minimum,"When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than five days" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Overview)
 * Comment You had better move faster than that. It's been two days already, and there is still no assertion of notability in the article, much less any sign of reliable, verifiable, and independent coverage, or even any coverage whatsoever. Mere existence is not enough to justify a Wikipedia entry. Your claim of having to contact your lawyers before work could continue on the article is dubious at best. There is no reason that this would be necessary. DarkAudit (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: None whatsoever, This isn't a matter of trade or service marking. It's a matter of reliable sources, and either they exist or they do not. Whether this outfit's been written up in a magazine or a newspaper has nothing to do with attorneys, and proper sourcing takes much less fuss than racking up billable hours.   RGTraynor  17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Rachel's Vineyard: http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/support/support.htm 2. Adopt Need: http://www.adoptneed.com/ Kmiklas (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Progress Boldly marked - Edit 1 against "Advertising" claim is in progress. A partial edit has been posted to show good faith. "I. Advertisement" above has also been updated to reflect this change. Kmiklas (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this is not true progress. You have still not answered the core question: "is it notable?" You have yet to show us that it is, or that anyone else independent of you thinks that it is. You also have not answered another key question. Why do you deem it necessary to consult with your attorneys regarding the content of this article? DarkAudit (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Boldly marked - Please reference the following sites regarding notability for OVerus:
 * Reply: I really strongly urge you to review WP:RS for an understanding of what Wikipedia considers valid sources. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."    RGTraynor  01:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Retagged A7 Speedy Author has refused to answer the questions presented to him when given more than adequate time to do so. Still no assertion of notability at all, which is grounds for an A7 CSD. Author has refused to explain why he saw the need to consult with attorneys before editing the article. That defies explanation, and makes the assumption of good faith difficult to maintain. DarkAudit (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Again, thank you for your comments and suggestions. In closing this discussion, please clarify a few points:

1. For the record, the trademark attorney was consulted based on this comment by Prosfilaes, "for a trademark that hasn't been formally registered." Registration is in progress and we sought to provide specific information in the article. 2. Why was the article deleted so fast when according to Wikipedia policy articles receive a minimum of five days, and editing was clearly in progress? 3. Am I correct in understanding that the two referenced sites did not meet notability guidelines per WP:RS 4. Most importantly, what needs to be accomplished before OVerus can be included in Wikipedia? Prosfilaes stated, "you need an article in the Wall Street Journal or the like that proves that someone has taken note of this." Is that the bottom line? Media attention? 5. Is there a Wikipedia forum to have articles evaluated before they are posted? Kmiklas (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 6. Where can I obtain copies of my articles? I posted two, one for "OVerus" and another for "The OVerus Organization." 7. Everyone's comments were very helpful. I've actually heard a similar message from newspapers that I've contacted. They've told me that "there's not a story yet." This effort has given me a very clear direction. Thank you for your patience this was my first try at an article. Kmiklas (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I tagged it, but I'm not the one who pulled the trigger. The closing admin should come by to explain why they concurred with the tag. Media attention is definitely key to establishing notability, but my concern was that the article didn't even assert notability. It only has to go a little bit past "Hey, it's notable!" to avert a speedy deletion. A claim will get you that past that hurdle, but once a claim is made, you need to back it up with proper sourcing. DarkAudit (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps this can be closed, and remaining questions can be discussed on the authors talk page? (Given that the deletion has occured?) I'm trying to answer his questions there now. Best, -- B figura (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A couple more things:
 * I'll reply to your talk page to keep it all in one place. Best, -- B figura (talk) 06:01, 10 April 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.