Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:53, 25 February 2009

Save the Netbooks

Save the Netbooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is about a blog, run by the creator of this article, that just started less than a week ago, to campaign for a particular position. Major COI problems, no real notability for the website (as compared to the topic in general, which probably belongs under netbook only), and the sources used for the article fail reliable sources (a bunch of blogs, pres release by the site) and do not establish notability. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for people to campaign on their own behalf. Maybe if this site sticks around for a while and makes a real difference somewhere and gets mainteam news coverage for it separate from the topic as covered on netbook, then it can have it's own article. Right now it's just someone abusing Misplaced Pages as a press release for his cause. DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, it does seem like an obvious attempt to use WP as a propaganda tool and a clear case of COI. If that's sufficient grounds for deletion, then so be it. Letdorf (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

Letdorf to clarify? You agree with deletion or you agree with samj that he is not in violation?

Sorry, I'm indicating agreement with DreamGuy. Letdorf (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

Comment: Letdorf is one of the two (british) editors who have been vigorously defending this (british) company and whose recent edits outed me personally, then 2 minutes later discredited both article and author by affixing the COI cleanup template. Their haste to contribute to this discussion is likely due to this unrelated dispute, but in any case their reasoning is not "sufficient grounds for deletion". Also, prior to the blocking of User:842U the only commentary permitted in the netbook article on the subject was unjustified claims of genericide. -- samj _in 17:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I can't really get excited about this trademark controversy either way, but I don't like WP being used as a soapbox. I also like to see WP articles report the facts of the matter in as objective a way as possible, as, of course, they should. These are my only interests in this and other related articles. There was no "outing" involved, as you freely admitted your COI on the talk page. Letdorf (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

• Keep or Merge Delete (from author) As I said to the brits and socks on the talk page:

1. The site clearly meets WP:WEB (see here, here and here). There's some more for good measure, here, here in japanese, here in spanish, again in turkish, one from the philippines, even some negative press. Even so, the register, ars technica, techdirt and jkontherun are all non-trivial and independent so any two of them should suffice for WP:WEB.
2. The article itself is unbiased, the subject need not be. Nobody has identified areas where the article fails to have a NPOV, least of all influenced by COI.

Remember, COI is no justification for deletion. -- samj _in 16:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh, just realised that the article was brutally savaged by DreamGuy before listing it - even I'd vote against it now. -- samj _in 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unless a lot of modification is made. I have meda no secret for my dislike of this article's subject matter. The author has gone as far as to claim I'm doing something wrong by requesting edits, accusing me of sock puppetism, rather than naivity and inexperiance with Misplaced Pages. Reasoning with him seems to boil down to this general template: "I'm right, you're wrong, there is no discussion to be had - thank you SamJ". However, samj will claim that I'm a sock puppet and that I'm also biased. I deny both charges. This needs to be decided by someone with a completely objective position. Memsom (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum if we want to be more exact with the problems this article has to overcome:

• Slander_and_libel defamation "the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image."

• The author is a strong Partisan of the movement. He is responsible for the manifesto against the subject, with an aim to defame/cause damage to their legal right to defend a trademark they have held for around 10 years.

• All attempts to call for moderation have been quickly quashed by the author.

• Most edits from people external to this article have been removed quickly. The only way I have menaged to pus a less biased agenda is through expressing my concerns and getting the author to make changes. These have been painful to extract and have often been less that was requested.

Memsom (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Memsom is the other of the two (british) editors who have been vigorously defending this (british) company, both here and outside, openly admitting to having a conflict of interest. -- samj _in 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - The COI issues here are too large to overlook. If history shows that this was a notable campaign, restore later.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment COI is not, never has been and (with any luck) never will be a valid reason for an AfD vote. The purpose of these debates is to establish whether there is enough verifiable evidence of notability to satisfy WP:WEB and as you can see from the many examples above there clearly is. -- samj _in 17:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• 'Delete' - Clear COI interest, also as a current civil legal dispute any posting would need to be clearly NPOV - this isn't eg links that went the 1998 grant of trademark evidence were deleted. Also, the main author and defensive editor doesn't want to take points about the law, which in an article about a tm dispute might be helpful. Also, I didn't think being British prevented you commenting on an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.27.50 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment It does when the subject is a british company, in much the same way as it would be were the subject an olympic athlete. It's not really all that surprising then that your edit comes from a british university. -- samj _in 17:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. A users opinions count the same no matter what country they are from. Their comments would count the same even whether they are from the UK, US, Japan, Sudan, or anywhere else. Samj, you might try backing off from spreading false info just to save this advertisement for your campaign. TJ Spyke 18:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"This IP address, 131.111.27.50, is registered to University of Cambridge and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution." -- samj _in 18:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that (I checked the WHOIS). My comment was that their opinion would mean the same even if it was from a US or Australian editor (or any other country). Being from the UK doesn't change anything. If the user was from the company that owns the trademark, that would be different. TJ Spyke 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Clear COI (and the articles creater/campaign organizer keeps removing the COI tag). The article also appears to be blatant advertisement to try and get people to support the campaing (which IS grounds for deletion), the majority of the page just states the goals of the campaign. A brief mention in the Netbook article is sufficiant. TJ Spyke 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Again COI has no place in these debates (except perhaps to justify some problem with the content) and the COI tag is a cleanup tag, not a tool to permanently brand content you don't like. You misread the intentions of the article but we perhaps didn't do enough to assert notability. In any case it's good to see someone outside of the UK contributing to the debate. -- samj _in 18:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no third-party reliable sources I can see. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Web or Internet)
• AfD debates