Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trashy Bags


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Trashy Bags

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete Incubate.

Read this spammy article carefully; also see its history. It was first written, and is sometimes edited, by people associated with the Trashy Bags enterprise. It will forever attract spam from enterprise-associated editors like Prochaz.tom (t·c) and managing director Stuartgold (t·c). The enterprise should discuss its good works and its products for sale on its own site, not here.

Some claim that you can leave it in mainspace and that someone will rescue it. No. It's already been two years, and still nobody has. If you want to keep it, please move it to the Article Incubator. The article is far too spammy to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, and should not remain in mainspace while it awaits a savior. Plus, if you move it to the incubator, a savior is far more likely to arrive.

Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The business is notable, and the solution to the problem of COI editors working on on it is for uninvolved editors to also work on it.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Wikipedia's editors shouldn't have to spend their time fighting the Trashy Bags enterprise's team of COI editors. And in truth, Wikipedia's editors have spent their time on other tasks instead. That's why the article is still so spammy. Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There are many things that Wikipedia's editors shouldn't have to do in the abstract, but must do because of the quirks of human nature. Dealing with COI editors is among those things. But one thing that we NEVER ought to do is delete an article about a notable topic because some COI mosquitoes are buzzing about. In addition, I don't see evidence that you've discussed your concerns at all with the two editors you criticized here, either on the article talk page or their own talk pages. That's the first step. In addition, neither editor has touched the page in a year.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I just changed my vote, above, to "Incubate". Do you agree with the perspective I shared above? (That, after two years of no improvement, the page should be kicked out of mainspace. If fixed, it can return.) Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. While I agree with the nominator's concern over COI, the reality is that the notability of a subject is not affected by who is creating or editing its article. We have ways of dealing with advert-like language, puffery, undue weight, etc. And COI itself. This passes WP:ORG as far as I'm concerned. As a side note, conflict of interest issues are no different from poor spelling, grammar or crappy structure when determining when to bring an article to AFD - they shouldn't be factors at all. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I just changed my vote to "Incubate". Are you willing to? Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, incubation is an alternative to deletion. That's not the likely outcome here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I, too, oppose incubation. The topic is notable, and the article should stay in main space. If you think that the article is too spammy, Unforgettableid, then please feel free to despamify it.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  22:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am unfortunately too busy. Surely you too agree the article is too spammy? If so &mdash; do you have time to despamify it? :) Unforgettableid (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator has rightly pointed out that at least two people involved with the organisation have been heavily involved in editing the article (something I missed earlier), and also that the article is currently in a fairly lousy state. However, that doesn't change the fact that the organisation is unequivocally notable according to WP:GNG even based on the coverage in reliable sources already listed in the article. Does it deserve to be noted by these major independent reliable sources with such ease? Maybe not, but it has been so noted, it is notable, that's all there is to it. (Full disclosure - as part of my activities helping new editors, I either helped the unpaid COI guy upload the company logo, or I uploaded it for him. I might also have advised him on how to format refs, or something like that.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You agree that the article is in lousy condition. Did you consider voting like me (to incubate)? Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did consider that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep.


 * I toned parts of the article down somewhat, and added Template:Cleanup-spam and Template:Advert to other parts after looking at Spam which suggests rewriting. The sections about the MTV and soccer team publicity stunts can possibly be deleted. When I looked at a few old revisions, I didn't notice those tags. I may be missing something—were they ever there? The article might have received a quicker de-spamming if they were.




 * I looked at User_talk:Aptroost and there was one warning for spamming, more than two years ago. It appears that Aptroost last edited the article in July, and the edits since then don't appear spammy. I think the Trashy Bags promoters are less aggressive (at least on Wikipedia) than you imply. If they were, they could be dealt with through administrative actions such as the block list or article protection.


 * 24.24.214.15 (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2013 (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.