Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrintingForLess


 * 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 delete. This is a difficult one, especially since it comes on the heels of the Sarah Stierch disaster which polarized the community with respect to paid advocacy. If we try to analyze the arguments with a cool head, there is consensus that the article in the current form is not appropriate, but the company is likely notable. Therefore, keeps argue that the article can be saved by editing it, and deleted argue that it has no place in the mainspace. Numerically, we have slightly more deletes (which is tricky to count anyway since there are some dissenting and weak opinions). The only way I see to find smth like a common ground is to delete the article without prejudice against userfication at the first request (please contact me if you are not admin and want it to be userfied).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

PrintingForLess

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think they are probably notable; not all the refs are substantial, but some seem to be. However, this article is so promotional that the only practical thing to do is to delete it and let someone without COI start over. I note the emphasis on how the founder happened to think of the idea -- in this case ,while fly fishing --complete with a WP link to the river he was fishing in. I note the pervasive puffwords, "unique", the discussion of how they train their staff, the undocumented (and I think undocumentable) claims of what they could do that traditional printing could not. The reason for not stubbifying it is to get this sort of material out of the article history.  DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Company notable, article needs a rewrite. That's not an AfD issue.  Keep Neonchameleon (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  07:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Neonchameleon, this is a salvageable project.LM2000 (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Requesting delay of 1-2 days. I just became aware of it through a user talk page I watchlist.  I plan on looking at it over the next 24 hours.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I ask for deletion rather than cleaning ,because of the need to giving strong discouragement to rings of paid editors; this was a typical project of one such ring, written in their standard form. According to their usual contracts, if we reject such articles, they don't get paid. If the article is worth writing   which is possible,   someone else can write it from scratch later. Personally, I think we need more articles on notable businesses, but we should set the priorities for writing the articles according to   their relative notability, and this one is not very notable.     If  we were to salvage it, it would mean eliminating       most of section 1, all of sections 4, 5, and 6,     and removing the promotional adjectives & similar writing from the remaining parts. leaving less than    1/4     of the article. Were this written by a good faith editor, I would have done it myself rather than come here adjust  DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Although you did not name names, it's pretty obvious that you are talking about the creator of this page. Granted, that editor has no edits that I as a non-admin can see beyond this article, but that alone doesn't warrant practically accusing him of paid editing.  I saw no indication that this editor has ever been blocked, brought up at ANI, been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, etc. etc.  It would be helpful if you provided a list of other articles which were written in this "standard form" so we could judge for ourselves.  It's too bad that these edits are probably too old for an SPI/checkuser to do any good.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Withholding judgment because the claim that the editor was acting in bad faith seems to be the crux of the matter, and I can't distinguish a bad-faith editor from a good-faith one in such situations without additional evidence. I completely agree with DGG that the current article needs to be re-written, but to delete the existing article only for the purpose of denying someone a paycheck who may not even have done this for a paycheck is overkill without additional evidence.  I recommend keeping this AFD open until 1 week after the nominator supplies the evidence, provided he do so within a reasonable time (2-3 days).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not have the tools (such as legal discovery proceedings) to confirm paid editing where it is not disclosed, so the only thing that can be done is to guess based on the edits themselves, knowing we will sometimes get it wrong and never know for sure. Editors like user:DGG who are experienced in these cases can do a pretty good job detecting it, however I find a "ring of paid editors" unlikely. PRSA's study shows only 1-2% of companies hire a paid editing firm, while the majority use their PR firm or internal staff. I don't think you are actually preventing them from getting a paycheck, just making their clients (who are paying for general PR services) a little unhappy that the Wikipedia project (which probably has no dedicated resources or funds) was not as successful.


 * Further, it looks like the article was submitted to AfC, which is proper behavior for user:Kmhagler, who I think we can safely assume works at PrintingForLess or its PR agency. The problem is that the article was accepted, when if I was in user:Hahc21's shoes, I would have declined for promo and asked them to clean it up before it's ready for article-space.


 * At this point, I have already cleaned up the article to reasonably acceptable standards, however I would have also supported deletion if nobody felt like putting in the time for cleanup. But I think the deletion rationale should be that the article violates WP:NOT and that a blank slate is a better starting point than the article, rather than the COI angle. We would want to remove PROMO anywhere, regardless of the author. What I think is needed is a policy about co. articles that attacks both promotion and unsourced contentious material with the same fervor as copyvio and other such problems, which would encourage higher standards of neutrality based on the content itself and not who authored it.  CorporateM (Talk) 15:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, I did not remember I was the one who accepted this util I checked the history (though it was almost a year and a half ago). My bad. — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 18:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Move to WP:Articles for Creation. That should satisfy all. Otherwise, delete per WP:Not. And not after some delay or postponement, either. Dloh cierekim  15:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * furthermore It's been relisted twice already, for Crissake. I Dloh cierekim  15:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PS- I wish someone would pay me to do this. Alas, y'all couldn't afford me. Dloh  cierekim  15:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Moving to AFC after all of this time would be a WP:BOLD use of WP:IAR, and I wouldn't recommend it as it might start a precedent. In general, returning pages to AFD is only done in the first few days after acceptance.  While I still haven't made up my mind of delete vs. keep, I would prefer delete over "return to AFD" due to the article's age.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, my. A reviewer sent it out with these issues? Dloh  cierekim  22:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Per WP:NOT and IAR. The question here comes down to what hurts the encyclopedia more: deleting this article and causing someone else to spend time writing it in the future (a slight inconvinence), or keeping this article and thereby sanctioning using this great encyclopedia as an advertisement/PR site. When posed like this, the answer becomes obvious: This article should not be allowed to stay here. If it is, it will only allow the further corruption of our purpose. And if we allow special interests to take over our mission here, we'll be no different than the politicians that allowed governments worldwide to be corrupted the same way. Money should not be allowed to influence our system here, period. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 22:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a very compelling argument for a total and immediate rewrite, leaving none of the existing text beyond bare facts. As an argument for deletion similar to WP:DENY, it has its merits but not nearly as compelling.  Basically, the only "good" choices seem to be: Rewrite it now and keep the edit history, rewrite it now and delete the edit history, or delete the article and rewrite it whenever someone gets around to it.  The other choice, "don't rewrite immediately, don't delete" is not a good option IMHO. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:09, 11 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.