Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 19: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:26, 23 March 2009

< March 18	Deletion review archives: 2009 March	March 20 >

19 March 2009

Talk:List of minor state highways in Utah (closed)

Mutoh Europe nv

Why was this page deleted? Nobody had a problem with this page and now there seems to be a problem.. I fail to see why.. .IT (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the headers so they point to the right article. The article was speedily deleted as a blatant advertisement by Tone (talk · contribs). Looking at the deleted article, I'd have to agree that was the case. Endorse Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it any different from the articles published about Mimaki, HP, .. It's solely stating the companies history and the like. The all rights can be deleted, but I fail to see what else is a problem. .IT (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How can it be deleted, if they are claiming the rights then they claim the rights, you can't just delete it, that would be a viloation of there copyrights. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - You're mistaken, keeping a text to which the company claims the rights violates their copyright. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I got in touch with the company because of this. After talking to one of their rep's, they don't mind the copyright to be removed as long it serves the purpose to be listed on Wikipedia. .IT (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well you'd need to get them to send an appropriate release to the wikimedia foundation anyway, my or your word for it is not good enough... --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  This is not a proper reason--we are discussing the article, not the nominator. Stifle, when you & I agreed upon the wording of the message, I never thought you would use it in a way like this. We agreed upon "not mandatory" and here you are, treating it as mandatory. DGG (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Nothing to do with treating the contact with the deleting admin as mandatory; as far as I am concerned, by not replying, the nominator is, to borrow a legal phrase, failing to prosecute his appeal. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the article as a clear G11, besides, it has a copyright tag on. I stay at my position. If anything, the article can be rewritten but in that form it is unacceptable for WP. --Tone 09:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I recommend for deletion Mutoh Holdings Co. Ltd. because of the same issue. WP is not a register of companies. --Tone 09:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet others are not attacked about it. Mimaki has a very similar page to Mutoh's and it has not been the subject of deletion. And I can mention others. Also it's a separate page, I didn't add Mutoh's name to other pages like I've seen HP bragging on the large format printer page. Where is there advertising on Mutoh's page, does it mention marketing terms, does it try to sell something? I only states the history of a company, one of the major companies in the Ostend area. I think it's not wrong to mention a major company that is active in Flanders. .IT (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That one is pretty bad as well. --Tone 14:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally considered a poor argument in deletion discussions. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – there are roughly 1000x more articles (even more) than active editors. It is not unreasonable to suggest that a number of articles to get overlooked. Combine that with the inherent nature of editors to congregate towards certain subjects (i.e. Barack Obama or Ayn Rand) more than others—what we call systemic bias—it should be expected that some articles become ignored. This, however, does not excuse the article from any and all community-imposed standards. Also, as mentioned above, the company's copyright would have been violated because once the edit button was hit creating the article, as it says between the edit box and edit summary, You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL; regular copyright is not compatible with the GFDL. User should have requested the appropriate permissions through OTRS to release the information from copyright. MuZemike 17:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of this rule, considering this was my first Wikipedia page ever to be made, I expected a bit more leniency, but I can understand everyone is equal. I can also understand that others do the same is little for the sake of argument, but it does feel a bit discriminating when your pages are deleted where others equally good/bad remain untouched. I can understand that Wikipedia is a bit unmanned, but when the pages managed to get deleted twice feels a bit odd. Nevertheless I would like to know what the problem was with the site. Blatant advertising sounds a bit harsh. What content makes it so advertising, is the use of words in a commercial way? What is said to be wrong? Because that is the reason why it's deleted. The copyright became later on a topic, a topic which I discussed with a rep. of the company. He had no objections to releasing it from the copyright, if it serves the purpose of being listed on Wikipedia. Considering the position of the company, one of the most important companies in the niche of the sign industry, it should be listed on the world greatest encyclopedia. Wikipedia is there not to advertise companies, but the company is relevant to quite a few topic's. On it's page it just lists information about the company, it's history and it's products. Nothing like "we are the best" or "the nr1 in large format printing". So it's not really advertising. I would like some lines within the text that portray blatant advertising.. .IT (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The article is a straight description of the company and not promotional. They may or may not be notable, but that would be for an Afd. I don't think all the people commenting can see the page, so I temporarily undeleted it for review. I know that I would never delete a straightforward page like this via speedy G11. DGG (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the copyright issue? I note the version you restored still has the All Rights Reserved text in it. At best This should be redeleted pending a formal release. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 * I was unaware of this rule, considering this was my first Wikipedia page ever to be made, I expected a bit more leniency, but I can understand everyone is equal. I can also understand that others do the same is little for the sake of argument, but it does feel a bit discriminating when your pages are deleted where others equally good/bad remain untouched. I can understand that Wikipedia is a bit unmanned, but when the pages managed to get deleted twice feels a bit odd. Nevertheless I would like to know what the problem was with the site. Blatant advertising sounds a bit harsh. What content makes it so advertising, is the use of words in a commercial way? What is said to be wrong? Because that is the reason why it's deleted. The copyright became later on a topic, a topic which I discussed with a rep. of the company. He had no objections to releasing it from the copyright, if it serves the purpose of being listed on Wikipedia. Considering the position of the company, one of the most important companies in the niche of the sign industry, it should be listed on the world greatest encyclopedia. Wikipedia is there not to advertise companies, but the company is relevant to quite a few topic's. On it's page it just lists information about the company, it's history and it's products. Nothing like "we are the best" or "the nr1 in large format printing". So it's not really advertising. I would like some lines within the text that portray blatant advertising.. [[User:.IT|.IT]] ([[User talk:.IT|talk]]) 10:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn''' The article is a straight description of the company and not promotional. They may or may not be notable, but that  would be for  an Afd. I don't think all the people commenting can see the page, so I temporarily undeleted it for review. I know that I would ''never'' delete a straightforward page like this via speedy G11.    '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 15:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
+*: And the copyright issue? I note the version you restored still has the All Rights Reserved text in it. At best This should be redeleted pending a formal release. --[[Special:Contributions/81.104.39.44|81.104.39.44]] ([[User talk:81.104.39.44|talk]]) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)