Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This High School Has Closets


 * 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. TIL the word promowank. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This High School Has Closets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I nominated this for speedy deletion with a rationale as follows. This appears to be an advert. The two sources by "Rob Christofle" appear to be very much PR/astroturf pieces; the vancouver observer ref was uploaded by a user "desaderal" (see here and see also their vimeo account, where it is all ads for books by this publisher. Perhaps somebody could create a real article but this is a hijacked page in WP and should be nuked.

The speedy was declined with the rationale "decline, not promotionally written, I suggest WP:AFD)". User:Hut 8.5 - Wikipedia is based on independent reliable sources.  Content in Wikipedia based entirely on fake sources posted elsewhere by the publisher is advertising no matter how "neutral" the surface content appears. It has been advertising since the day it was created Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG, is a promowank. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write)  23:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did find one review (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19361653.2016.1256249) but this is not signficant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you review the wording of WP:CSD, which is what you wanted the page deleted under. The criterion explicitly says that neutrally written pages do not qualify. Now granted, this page may well be written in order to promote the book, but the actual text is pretty neutral. Failing the GNG and being based on dodgy sources are legitimate reasons for deletion but that deletion would have to be done through AfD or PROD, and not speedy deletion.  Hut 8.5  07:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In WP we define NPOV as accurately summarizing independent, reliable sources; a page about a product based on astroturfed refs placed by the company selling the product cannot be neutral, even if the surface is dull and doesn't say "buy a ginzu knife, get one free!". It is, rather, astroturf itself -- an advertisement that exists in order to raise the visibility of the product.  Paid editing companies repeat this in their marketing over and over - "you must have a WP article to gain visibility". This page fails G11.  Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2018 (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.