Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shell providers: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:28, 5 January 2010

List of shell providers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this wp:pointy article was created after sources were requested for this unsourced list in shell account. instead of providing a single source when requested, User: hm2k simply cut and pasted the unsourced content from shell account into this new article, as if creating an unsourced article would relieve the burden of providing sources in another article. sources still have not been found. this article should be deleted because there are no third party, reliable sources for this arbitrary list of providers which have not shown notability for being shell providers. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

instead of providing sources, hm2k provides incivility and personal attacks [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] Theserialcomma (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ADHOM. --Hm2k (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As agreeing inclusion criteria in the lead (as per WP:LSC) is being actively resisted then there seems little to stop this article being on ongoing magnet for non-notable account providers and their websites.—Ash (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe it should be deleted, why have added content since?[4] --Hm2k (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adding a viewpoint one way or the other in an AfD does not preclude collaborating on the article, this also applies to the nominator.—Ash (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, in principle, however your viewpoint and your edits are contradicting. Are you trying to prove a point? If so, what? --Hm2k (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hm2k, someone can improve an article and still believe that it doesn't meet the requirements of wikipedia. please stop being disruptive. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I am more than aware of the capabilities of an editor, however it is a futile and contradicting act, unless you actually believe the article will be and/or should be kept. --Hm2k (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As you have yet to withdraw your accusation that I'm a troll (see diff), why don't you stick to the guidelines of m:troll instead of trying to engage me in discussion? You can't hand out insults and then expect quizzing the same editors about their motivations to be taken seriously.—Ash (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You're avoiding the question. What point are you trying to prove?--Hm2k (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Does this mean you are withdrawing your accusation? If someone is insulting me, I don't really want to give them further opportunities to insult me.—Ash (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If you intend on trolling then I will treat you so, otherwise, good faith is assumed. --Hm2k (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems odd that not too long ago you were thanking me for my independent opinion (see User_talk:Ash/2009#3O:_Shell_account) and now you are not prepared to assume good faith and withdraw your previous accusation. To save time, just don't bother trying to engage me in discussion in future for any reason.—Ash (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It started when you attempted to troll me. You were helpful prior to that. Nothing has changed there. However, you still haven't answered my question, I suspect it's because it's yet another attempt to troll me isn't it, which is why you won't give me a straight answer. I'd rather you just got on with it instead of playing games. --Hm2k (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps you didn't understand my text? Go away.—Ash (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for confirming my suspicions. --Hm2k (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Go away.—Ash (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How about you go away? --Hm2k (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of shell providers that is unsourced is indiscriminate and impossible to manage with thousands of potential list entries. Miami33139 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never heard of something being removed from Wikipidia on the grounds that it's a potentially large subject. Amusing. Also see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. --Hm2k (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists do not require a "references" section. The list is by best part made up of shell providers with articles. This is perfectly normal. Google: lists --Hm2k (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This AfD appears to be just a personal attack and should be treated that way. Providing content is not the soul responsibility of the creator of the article. Good faith is NOT being assumed. --Hm2k (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please raise your claim of personal attack using one of the normal dispute resolution processes. This discussion is not the right place to resolve these sorts of issues.—Ash (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note from an Admin Per the thread raised at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents, I've unhidden the comments. It is not acceptable for an editor to refactor, hide or delete another editors comments in an AfD discussion. Further occurences of this will lead to sanctions being imposed. There is a talk page attached to this AfD discussion. Feel free to use it to raise any issues connected with the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in good faith, I was trying to hide the drama before it became the focus of this AfD, but that clearly didn't work. --Hm2k (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought long and hard before adding a keep recommendation here. A list of shell providers seems an appropriate subject for an article and the suggestion that the originator of the article has resisted adding inclusion criteria of its own right does not seem a suitable argument for deletion. There is a content dispute here that needs resolution and WP:DR should be followed, AFD is not the route for that. Having said that, there are a couple of entries in the list that could be removed due unless notable enough to justify their own wikipedia article. Justin talk 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A reasonable statement, I agree. --Hm2k (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fork that appears to be a problematic indiscriminate list, or at least will become one. Non-maintainable. References (or at least linked-to articles) would be needed for each entry on the list (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that Wikipedia is not a Directory (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or cleanup would suffice then? PS. Have you actually read WP:NOTDIR? It does not apply here. --Hm2k (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no ocntext. Why in the world do we need a list of Shell providers? I don't find this to be informative or encyclopediac in anyway. Sorry I just don't, and I am contributing on the content not the contributer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about what you want or need. It is as encyclopediatic as the articles in the list. Also see WP:UNENCYC and WP:USELESS. --Hm2k (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Never should have been created, being an action done unilaterally without any agreement on the parent article talk page. Articles labeled "List of..." do need sources. I mean, consider the claim being placed against them (be it good or bad), and it's being done so without any given proof from an outside party confirming it. This is rather strictly upheld in terms of WP:BLP articles, and companies shouldn't be treated any differently. This makes such articles impossible to maintain, as mentioned by Bwilkins above. Past the horrible and possibly defamatory corporate info claimed, even if that can be supported by some third-party reliable sources (as in, technology magazines or sites, not blogs or forums), it won't resolve this challenge because of the notability issue. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Though I'm extremely discouraged by the edit disruptions performed in this discussion, those matters are taken up at incident boards and so long as all original text is replaced I'd suggest visitors double-check if the actions of this article's article might be skewing one's view in any way. I feel I've more than justified my !vote beyond my concerns with this. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should merge it back then? --Hm2k (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Theserialcomma (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relivance? --Hm2k (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the section you should look at is..Characteristics of problem editors. Specifically,

You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.You are bashing almost everyone here that disagrees with you.
You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.
You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly read this...How to pull back from the brink First and foremost, however bad you believe the faults of your accusers are, think long and hard about your own behaviour. Critique it in your mind with the same vigor you critique theirs. Is there not at least a germ of truth in what they say? Have you perhaps been less civil than you might have been? Have you provided high quality citations from reliable secondary sources to back your edits? In addition, it may be a good idea to scrutinize all your behavior this way, even if you are not presently involved in a dispute, so that such disputes may not arise in the first place.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" from WP:PA --Hm2k (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"on Wikipedia, tendentious editing carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." I am accusing you of engaging in tendentious behavior for writing "We should merge it back then?" Theserialcomma (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing wrong with the content, so what makes you think it should be deleted instead of kept or merged? --Hm2k (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither notable or encyclopaedic. Jeni ^(talk) 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to expand on this? This seems like arm waving. Also see WP:UNENCYC and WP:JNN. --Hm2k (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is perfectly clear. The topic is not notable or encyclopaedic. Jeni ^(talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, exactly which topic isn't notable? Notability is established by the articles for the items in the list, this is a perfectly acceptable practice on Wikipedia. Which part of WP:NOT does it fall under for it to be not encyclopedic? --Hm2k (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no policy reason to delete this. There are a couple of uncited and non-bluelinked entries, but that can be fixed by editing. As far as "unmaintainable" goes, have a look at list of freeware, which still can't be deleted. This list has only a handful of entries. Pcap ping 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 this [[wp:point]]y article was created after sources were requested for this unsourced list in [[shell account]]. instead of providing a single source when requested, [[User: hm2k]] simply cut and pasted the unsourced content from [[shell account]] into this new article, as if creating an unsourced article would relieve the burden of providing sources in another article. sources still have not been found. this article should be deleted because there are no third party, reliable sources for this arbitrary list of providers which have not shown notability for being shell providers.  [[User:Theserialcomma|Theserialcomma]] ([[User talk:Theserialcomma|talk]]) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * instead of providing sources, hm2k provides incivility and personal attacks [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_shell_providers&action=historysubmit&diff=335079568&oldid=335024025]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_shell_providers&diff=prev&oldid=334894431]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_shell_providers&action=historysubmit&diff=335612290&oldid=335196509]] [[User:Theserialcomma|Theserialcomma]] ([[User talk:Theserialcomma|talk]]) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
+:*See [[WP:ADHOM]]. --[[User:Hm2k|Hm2k]] ([[User talk:Hm2k|talk]]) 11:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' - As agreeing inclusion criteria in the lead (as per [[WP:LSC]]) is being actively resisted then there seems little to stop this article being on ongoing magnet for non-notable account providers and their websites.—[[User:Ash|Ash]] ([[User talk:Ash|talk]]) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 **If you believe it should be deleted, why have added content since?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_shell_providers&diff=335802029&oldid=335708075] --[[User:Hm2k|Hm2k]] ([[User talk:Hm2k|talk]]) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 24: / Line 26: @@
 *'''Delete''' A list of shell providers that is unsourced is indiscriminate and impossible to manage with thousands of potential list entries. [[User:Miami33139|Miami33139]] ([[User talk:Miami33139|talk]]) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
-**I have never heard of something being removed from Wikipidia on the grounds that it's a potentially large subject. Amusing. --[[User:Hm2k|Hm2k]] ([[User talk:Hm2k|talk]]) 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
+**I have never heard of something being removed from Wikipidia on the grounds that it's a potentially large subject. Amusing. Also see [[WP:ATA#CRYSTAL]]. --[[User:Hm2k|Hm2k]] ([[User talk:Hm2k|talk]]) 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet|list of Internet-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 01:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)</small>
@@ Line 44: / Line 46: @@
 :'''Delete'''. This article has no ocntext. Why in the world do we need a list of Shell providers? I don't find this to be informative or encyclopediac in anyway. Sorry I just don't, and I am contributing on the content not the contributer. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell In A Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
-::Wikipedia is not about what ''you'' want or need. It is as encyclopediatic as the articles in the list. --[[User:Hm2k|Hm2k]] ([[User talk:Hm2k|talk]]) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
+::Wikipedia is not about what ''you'' want or need. It is as encyclopediatic as the articles in the list. Also see [[WP:UNENCYC]] and [[WP:USELESS]]. --[[User:Hm2k|Hm2k]] ([[User talk:Hm2k|talk]]) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''': Never should have been created, being an action done unilaterally without any agreement on the parent article talk page. Articles labeled "List of..." '''do''' need sources. I mean, consider the claim being placed against them (be it good or bad), and it's being done so without any given proof from an outside party confirming it. This is rather strictly upheld in terms of [[WP:BLP]] articles, and companies shouldn't be treated any differently. This makes such articles impossible to maintain, as mentioned by Bwilkins above. Past the horrible and possibly defamatory corporate info claimed, even if that can be supported by some third-party reliable sources (as in, technology magazines or sites, not blogs or forums), it won't resolve this challenge because of the notability issue. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 61: / Line 63: @@
 :*Well, there's nothing wrong with the content, so what makes you think it should be deleted instead of kept or merged? --[[User:Hm2k|Hm2k]] ([[User talk:Hm2k|talk]]) 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' - neither notable or encyclopaedic. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Jeni|<font color="deeppink">Jeni</font>]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Jeni|<font color="deeppink">talk</font>]])</sup> 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
-:*Care to expand on this? This seems like [[Wikify#Handwaving|arm waving]]. --[[User:Hm2k|Hm2k]] ([[User talk:Hm2k|talk]]) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
+:*Care to expand on this? This seems like [[Wikify#Handwaving|arm waving]]. Also see [[WP:UNENCYC]] and [[WP:JNN]]. --[[User:Hm2k|Hm2k]] ([[User talk:Hm2k|talk]]) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 ::*Nope, it is perfectly clear. The topic is not notable or encyclopaedic. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Jeni|<font color="deeppink">Jeni</font>]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Jeni|<font color="deeppink">talk</font>]])</sup> 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 :::*Sorry, exactly which topic isn't notable? Notability is established by the articles for the items in the list, this is a perfectly acceptable practice on Wikipedia. Which part of [[WP:NOT]] does it fall under for it to be not encyclopedic? --[[User:Hm2k|Hm2k]] ([[User talk:Hm2k|talk]]) 00:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)