Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Television Writers Vault


 * 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 16:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Television Writers Vault

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

According to WP:DEL-REASON, blatant spam and advertising is grounds for deletion. The Television Writers Vault and Scott Manville articles have both been tagged as "appears to be written like an advertisement" since their creation earlier this year. It's also clear that the creator of these articles is Scott Manville who is the owner of the Television Writers Vault. The creator of the 2 articles User talk:KiraCasts's only work here at Wikipedia was to create the "Scott Manville" article and the Television Writers Vault article. Both the Scott Manville and Television Writer's Vault articles have been tagged as "appearing to look like advertisements" since their creation. Kira Casts sole work here at Wikipedia was to create these two articles which are nothing more than advertisements. I suspect also that this user is User talk:Smanville and User:72.130.156.32. And I know this may be irrelevant to the deletion policy, but this company has been blasted up and down across the Web as a site to avoid for being a scam, such as here and here and here among slews of more negative reviews I've found on the company. Moreover, most of the sources on these articles use primary sources and sources that state nothing about the TV Writer's Vault and Scott Manville, such as this primary source at the TV Writer's Vault article used multiple times, this Syfy source at the TV Writer's Vault article which states nothing about the company , and this source that states nothing about the company. I wouldn't bother clicking on the primary source links in question though as the user is likely just trying to get more hits on his website through Wikipedia. AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC) AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has problems, for sure, but nothing that can't be corrected by normal editing. Creation or editing of an article about a notable topic by an SPA is not a reason for deletion. Instead, it is a reason for explaining our policies and guidelines to the less experienced editor. Current references #8 and #9 indicate notability to me. If reliable sources report negative things about this website, then add that information to the article to make it more neutral and balanced for our readers. Why not take the deletion energy and channel it as improvement energy?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 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) 00:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I see this as advertising; it is written in such as way as to promote the siter more than to inform about it. The combination of this with the article on the individual makes the intent clear, and I think it's time we stopped compromising our guidelines,  or rescuing articles in such cases. Borderline  notability + promotionalism  should = deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I get your point and it is a valid one in many ways, .    However, COI SPA editors can and do attempt to create articles about notable topics. Unless evidence of a payment to the WMF is furnished, I believe that "advertising" is the wrong term to use. We can say that previous editors of the article have tried to use it for "promotional" purposes, and we can correct those promotionalistic aspects by stripping everything that isn't referenced to reliable sources, and admonishing any editors with a COI. This takes no more work than a conscientious deletion debate. The result is a better encyclopedia, in my view. But I have respect and understanding for the contrary opinions, and certainly won't fight to keep this specific article.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just as much advertising if they pan on getting it free from the WMF as if they pay for it. Yes, it would be even worse if the WMF did accept pay.  Whether  there are RSs is irrelvant to promotionalism--any reasonably high quality  advertising or promotion will make sure that it isn't pure puffery.  The entire point of the COI provisions is to prevent our being an advertising medium for anyone.  When the company or product of person or whatever is notable, there may be some promotional effect, but this is unavoidable. When they are less notable, it's avoidable.
 * there is an alternative position: that WP should contain verifiable information, whether of not its purpose is to promote the commercial or other interests--that we turn ourselves into a high-grade advertising medium.  DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and reduce to a stub - and the Scott Manville article should probably become a redirect. The company has succeeded in placing a couple of shows on television; that is independently verified and should remain in the article. It has received some outside coverage, but rather weak - two tiny newspapers (refs 2 and 9), and an article in the San Diego Union Tribune (reference #8) that was not written by UT staff but rather submitted as a "special to the UT" - which may mean it's a PR piece rather than actual journalism. All the other references are self-referential. Nothing additional found in a search. The "negative reviews" are of no consequence; they are anonymous complaints at unmoderated websites. If the article is kept, I will undertake to stubify it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  07:06, 14 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.