Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 5

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

5 October 2006

Iggy (program)

This was deleted because i had already made a page about it a while ago. It was deleted then because no information was found through a google search or anything for it and it didn't have any information about it on the internet at all.

Now however, the program is a few vesrions on and has its own website at www.huckool.com/iggy (not sure if google is listing it yet but it is there).

I'm not advertising because the program is a completely free, harmless, adfree download which means there's apsolutely nothing in it for me (the owner).

The page for it was at "Iggy (Program)"

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahpro (talk • contribs)

• Note the discussion in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iggy (program) Middenface 20:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Independent third-party coverage is needed for the program to be considered notable, and to justify overturning the AfD. Self-published sources are not sufficient. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Gay icons

I decided to create the category, and then realized it already existed, but was deleted and blocked from re-creation. There is no discussion on the page, and there are only 4 edits, two of them being the deletion of the article. I think there is a lot more that can be added to this page, as I think the Gay icon article is too sparse as well on who is characterized as a gay icon. If this is one of those topics that has been discussed ad-nausium, let me know so we don't rehash arguements. Bytebear 18:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The trash icon in Windows XP is pretty gay, isn't it? Guy 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been deleted a number of times - [1]. I don't have the CfD link to hand, but in general people have felt that categories like this are hopelessly subjective, and could as easily be applied to hundreds of people (under highly questionable rationales) or almost no-one. First you might add Joan Armatrading and Quentin Crisp, then Liza Minelli, then Barney, then Brad Pitt. There's no objective criterion under which a subject is or is not a gay icon. You could, of course, have a category "people who have been described as gay icons", and demand a source (or several) from major media or commentators. But by that point the category is worthless - if some commentator describes George Bush as a gay icon, does it go in? Encyclopedias are for something more worthwhile than the nebbish classification of everyone into unedifying categories. Middenface 18:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My aproach was to have at least one verifiable reference to a listed person as a "gay icon" to make the list. Any without citation should be considered suspect at a minimum. I think the title "Gay Icons" can still be used, but in the opening paragraph of the article state that these people have been refered to in pop culture or whatever as important to the gay community. I for example would not consider Brad Pitt a gay icon, but if he has been refered to as such, it should be noted. I am just worried that the article "Gay Icon" will get too big if we decide to list every person. it almost should go into a list article like List of gay icons but that seems overkill. Are categories only meant to be bullit articles, or can they contain references? Bytebear 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I can find this - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of gay icons but that (which is more than a year old) is a non-consensus keep. There's clearly (hopefully) been a better discussion about this that google can't find. Middenface 19:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This seems to have been deleted as "dead cat" without CfD (at least I couldn't find one in the April/May CfD archives) and then repeatedly redeleted as G4, which would of course be out of process. On the other hand protection doesn't seem to work here since the two articles listed and categorized properly. Can anyone shed light on this? ~ trialsanderrors 18:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'd be willing to bet that it was deleted as a recreation of List of gay icons, which was deleted with extreme prejudice here. Thing is, this category has been to CFD on at least three occasions. For all of that, leave it dead. Nobody has managed to define "gay icon" in a concrete way, to the point where people can't even agree if it's an icon who is gay or someone who is an icon to gays or someone who is an iconic homosexual, nevermind the useless edit wars in various articles (the category has expanded to the point where it includes every sex symbol ever plus numerous silly inclusions at various points). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed that third link for you. Anyhoo, Overturn, relist at CfD. I don't see any consensus to delete in those year-old CfD's. ~ trialsanderrors 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at most of the comments on the talk pages and the concensus for delete is that the list will grow and grow and grow. I agree that it will, so I think a simple coment to editors that the article should only be included in the category if the article specifically mentions the person as a gay icon, or influence on gay culture. That way, Brad Pitt would not appear in the category because he would not have an uncited statemnt like "Many gay people love Brad Pitt" in his article for very long, but clearly Liza, Madonna, and Cher would definitely make the cut. Bytebear 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Arch Coal

Arch Coal was deleted by Jimbo Wales with the edit summery of "rm corporate spam." This content was created by a commercial source and released under GFDL. But it was placed in good faith within the rules of wikipedia by an unconnected third party (myself). The content was legitimate and the article was neutral. I haven't been able to identify what, if any, policy the article violated... so I request the article be undeleted and a proper AFD could be preformed to gain community consensus. ---J.S (t|c) 05:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am happy for this to go through deletion review. The issue with the article is that it was written by someone who is inappropriately using the Wikipedia name in commerce. Articles written for pay by consultants being paid by the subject of the article pose some very difficult conflict-of-interest issues about which we should be extremely careful. DRV provides a reasonable forum to study the article carefully. Probably not the best forum, but rules in this area are of course still evolving, so it seems like the only reasonable place to discuss it at the moment.--Jimbo Wales 13:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not squashing this. ;) ---J.S (t|c) 15:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Put frankly, I have no idea. It is generally accepted that you don't over-rule Jimmy when it comes to admin actions - many arbcom cases (the userbox wheel war comes to mind) have resulted in admins losing their administrative powers because they reverted Jimmy in a wheel-war situation. I honestly don't think DRV is going to get anywhere on this topic. The only way this will serve a purpose is if Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · count) reads it, and decides to act upon arguments (if they are presented) to restore. Having never seen the article, and not knowing terribly much about Jimmy's action in this case (I've read the talk page of User:MyWikiBiz, that's about all), I have no idea. Daniel.Bryant 07:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless he's acting as WP:OFFICE/in an official capacity (in which case that should be made clear in the admin summary), Jimbo's admin actions should be subject to scrutiny like those of the rest of us. I propose ignoring that it was Jimbo who deleted it, and we just consider the actual article and the deletion. If the consensus is to undelete, it can then be put to Jimbo and he can decide whether to respect consensus or not (perhaps along with a note asking him to make clear when he's acting as an admin and when he's acting as head of the Wikimedia board, which wouldn't be the first such request I think). --kingboyk 12:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Per Daniel Bryant, this DRV is moot because overturning a Jimbo action is verboten. Take it up with him. FCYTravis 08:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've had a look at the article, and its not one that I would have speedied, and I'd possibly even have voted keep at an AfD. It does need a bit of tidying up and rewriting to bring it into line with Wikipedia style - but not much (admins may like to contrast it to [2]). I personally recommend undelete, but as reverting Jimbo being an admin is a grey area (reverting him acting as an editor is fine, reverting him acting as head honcho is a Bad Thing.), I will leave a note on his talk page inviting him to comment here. Thryduulf 09:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to endorse deletion - and I'm completely ignoring the Jimbo factor here. The main assertion of notability is that it's the second-largest coal producer in the US, and that seems weak to me. Largest would probably be OK, second-largest sounds pretty good, but how far down do we go? Given that, I'd like to see it verified, which would indicate notability via external coverage - and it isn't. The biggest factor for me is that this article is completely unverified, but according to the edit history this is a MyWikiBiz article - for those that haven't followed this, the company paid a writer to write a professional-looking Wikipedia article. That means there can be no excuse for 'undelete and make it into a proper article' - if it doesn't meet standards now, then it probably won't. If someone does come up with some non-trivial third-party coverage that verifies an assertion of notability, I might change my mind, but I don't particularly encourage them to try since I look on that as kinda the job of the guy who was being paid to write an article that wouldn't be deleted.

Incidentally, I think we should argue how we want in this DRV, and then leave it up to Jimbo whether he wants to act on the consensus (which I hope will be an endorsement anyway), rather than muddy the waters with speculation over whether this DRV is moot or not - we can cross that bridge when we come to it, at time of closing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, yes, sorry, pretty much stole your point up above :) --kingboyk 12:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the verifiability concerns for a second, I was under the impression that all companies listed in NYSE were notable. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Assuming the data in the article is true, Undelete of course. Second-largest coal producer in the United States (12% of US coal supply), $2.5 billion turnover. If that's not notable we'd better get busy on AFD folks, we have about 100,000 less-notable companies to get rid of. I'm not sure I'm even looking at the right article... looks like a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia article on a company to me. As for spam... what, am I gonna go out and order a million tons of coal from them to feed my power station because I've seen this humble piece on Wikipedia? Erm, no. --kingboyk 12:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Er. Um. First up, the source is mywikibiz, which is bad. Second, it was nuked by Jimbo. On the other hand the source was identified as mywikibiz by the creator, which is honest, and the article is written in what appear to me to be neutral terms. The company itself is a shoo-in for WP:CORP, if the article is accurate, and if this had been posted by any other editor we would surely never have noticed it. I suggest we ask Jimbo for his detailed reasoning, since he rarely does anythign without a good reason. Guy 14:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The article in itself was fine, the source is (at least nominally) GFDL, and the subject clearly fulfills WP:CORP. On the moral grounds, though, I'm too flabbergasted with the method by which business-related articles get into the Wikipedia by means of paid 3rd party publishers. If the case is repeated though, we might think about a policy ammendment to prevent future gaming of the system. Duja 14:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Jimbo. Naconkantari 14:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AFD. The issues here are problematic. It does seem this article meets WP:CORP. However it was created, it can be improved. We're still feeling out the policy issues of paid article creation, and Jimbo (above) has stated he is open to this deletion being reviewed. I think it deserves to be done in the usual deletion forum and with the content visible to all participants, i.e. not deleted. Martinp 14:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Blank and rebuild If the source is Mywikibiz[3] then that is not acceptable - we should discourage mywikibiz and its like. However, the company is clearly notable and deserving of an article. Suggest blank and rebuild as at least a stub. Bwithh 14:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AFD This seems like the ideal test case for the very important MyWikiBiz question: should people be able to make money by writing Wikipedia articles for hire? Let the community as a whole discuss, and undelete so they can see the article in question. There will be people following from this DRV discussion to make arguments on each side, possibly even Jimbo. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this may be a case of WP:OFFICE sovereignty here[[4]][[5]], which I basically support - as it's not simply a question of content on Wikipedia but a practice regarded as antithetical to the Wikimedia Foundation Bwithh 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It pretty clearly isn't WP:OFFICE, since Jimbo himself says so, just above "I am happy for this to go through deletion review." If he were claiming fiat power, he would say so, instead he wants us, the community to hash it out. He also says that DRV probably isn't the best forum, and I think he is right, since the community can't read the article while it is deleted. Therefore I think Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion is better, for two reasons: first, because the community there is usually larger - more people read AFD than DRV; and second, because AfD implies the article is visible during the the discussion. The edits you refer to are Jimbo being unhappy in regards to the user, which isn't the same thing as the article itself. For what it's worth, I suspect we may end up keeping the article and banning the user.... but that's for a separate discussion. Also, I'd have to see the article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - There is no point in blanking and rebuilding the article, instead of MyWikiBiz being paid to write an article, we would be writing an even better one for the client for free. In the end, the client pays MyWikiBiz, and we write the article?! And I'm absolutely amazed at Sam Blanning's reasoning for endorsing the deletion whilst ignoring the Jimbo. If you are willing to delete a NYSE listed company, the 2nd largest coal producer in the US, then you may as well delete every single webcomic, every single game mod, most computer games, most books and comics and half the bios. I've seen the article, it was a short informative and neutral article (didn't exactly have enough length in it to be POV pushing) of an obviously notable company. What we need here is openness, not even allowing MyWikiBiz to post articles in their userspace is pretty ridiculous, did you know that it was User:J.smith who uploaded the original article? How are we meant to track these things if they're uploaded by random people?! Without the openness that MyWikiBiz has offered, and the suggestions of WP:COI, we get hidden webspam such as the case I pointed to at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Webspamming_campaign_-_King_Tractor_Press.2FShawn_Granger. I've commented on this issue before at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_11#Commercial_editing_of_Wikipedia, various places in the WP:COI talk page and at User_talk:Jmabel/PR. If a company is being paid to write encyclopedic neutral articles, then they are encyclopedists, I hope that they can see the detriment to their own company that unencyclopedic, non-neutral articles will attract. The article on Arch Coal, had it not been written by MyWikiBiz, would certainly still on Wikipedia, and it would not even have had an NPOV tag on. It was merely beyond a stub, giving information on things that could easily be verified from their corporate reports. - Hahnchen 15:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It was corporate fluff. It was not even remotely close to NPOV. It is undeleted now, so you can see for yourself.--Jimbo Wales 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that I saw the article before it was copied over to Wikipedia, and had voiced my concerns over the way articles were to be copied over from MyWikiBiz at User talk:MyWikiBiz. I thought that for that length, that it covered the most important aspects of the company. I know I can't have been the only one to think that the article was adequate, as I did not copy the contents over. - Hahnchen 23:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I specifically said "blank and rebuild" rather than "delete", which are different. Anyway, an article deletion without prejudice against recreation does not mean that no article on the company will be allowed to exist in the future or even the next day. As for MyWikiBiz, I doubt that every or even most companies would use their services when they can copy and paste their company blurb into wikipedia with a little formatting in a matter of minutes (plus there are all those companies MyWikiBiz would presumably never consider for being not notable enough), so MyWikiBiz's impact on the hidden spam problem is negligible. Bwithh 19:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Note that the company is only listed; there is no assertion that it is used to calculate a significant ranking, as WP:CORP requires. Neutrality is not relevant here - that's something we worry about after we've established that the article is worth the effort of maintaining. And yes, I support the deletion of all articles with no verified assertion of notability, particularly when the assertion of notability depends on Wikipedia editors saying '2nd largest? X number of employees? I guess that sounds kinda ok', as opposed to, say, obviously notable achievements or involvement in newsworthy events. On a different DRV I might say 'list on AfD, the author should be given a chance to find verification', but to repeat myself, if this article is the best a paid professional can do then I have very little hope that this is an encyclopaedic subject. I also find it telling that there are no links to this article - the only mention of this company elsewhere in the encyclopaedia is on a list of ticker symbols. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Just look on Google News [6], it absolutely smashes criteria 1 of WP:CORP, it so obviously is notable. I have no idea why websites get away with one review in a tiny paper seem to pass WP:WEB, yet a company with revenues in the billions fails your criteria for notability. This is such an obviously notable company, the reason why there are no incoming links, or why the company was still a redlink was an obvious example of WP:BIAS. The typical Wikipedian is more likely going to write about about his favourite indie rock band over a coal company which only serves corporate customers. Compare Category:Wholesalers of the United Kingdom against Category:Flash cartoons. I somehow doubt this was the best a paid professional could do, I could have done a lot better, maybe you should charge more and put more work into it. - Hahnchen 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Arch Coal is listed as part of the S&P 400 (mid-cap)... Every single company in the S&P400(mid-cap) should be listed on wikipedia. Arch Coal is also listed on the S&P composite 1500 index - another very important stock index. (source: [7]). In addition to that arch coal is listed on the NYSE (symbol: ACI).... that is often used as a default measure of notability due to the high-bar required to be listed there. I think the notability of Arch Coal is indisputable and regardless of this debate it should have an article in some form. ---J.S (t|c) 16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The burden to assert and verify notability is on the editor of the article, and I believe that goes double for those being paid to write articles. I've no objection to an article that meets encyclopaedic standards being written in this one's place, but my endorsement of this particular deletion, and my surprise that people can't grasp that when someone is paid to write articles that meet Wikipedia standards, and the results fail to meet the most basic of them, something is wrong, both stand. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
        • There was an assertion of notability in the article. There was a link to its stock market figures in the article. What I'm amazed with, is that given these, you still thought that the 2nd largest coal company in the US was not notable. - Hahnchen 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Article is reported as being 'NPOV' by those who claim to have seen it. Source self-identified, so bias (if any) is known. Subject is encyclopedic. Why blame an article for the 'sins of its parents'? Bo 16:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (I already "voted" above). There seem to be 3 issues here. 1) According to hoovers.com, Arch has annual revenues of $2.5Billion, 3,700 employees, two dozen mines in the U.S., and (my estimate) 10% market share of U.S. coal production, 2nd largest after market leader Peabody which has 20%. Therefore I think it is clearly notable enough for an article to exist about it. 2) I and other nonadmins cannot see the article, but it is said it is NPOV and does not seem to have other egregious content or style flaws which would recommend killing rather than improving it. 3) The creator was paid to write it, doing so openly even if indirectly. We may decide that this is inappropriate, but that's a broader discussion than this article. I happen to think that we are "The encyclopaedia anyone can edit" which programatically does not ask who users are or who pays their bills, and we should not make it "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, but provided they are not being paid for it", but that is a personal opinion. In any case, I strongly urge that we take this to a broader forum and undelete the article for the duration of the discussion to enable everyone to see it. Martinp 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Huh. This is that Arch Coal? I didn't know it was as big as all that. This doesn't seem to be advertising; assuming its claims are accurate, it's sufficiently large that it can't really benefit from advertising on Wikipedia, has a legion of hits on Google News, and I've heard of it (always the most important issue in a notability !vote ;D). That said, I would think that the best idea would be to overturn and send to AFD; while MyWikiBiz's plan isn't the best it's better to encourage the ones who are transparent instead of the ones who aren't, and it doesn't seem Jimbo was wearing his God-King hat (crown?). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I was thinking an AFD would be appropriate to judge the individual merits of this article.... but it might be bogged down by a discussion of paid-editing in general. ---J.S (t|c) 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That is an issue. If this is undeleted, I suggest an immediate effort to work on citing the article, particularly establishing that it is included in major stock market indicies (if it is), to help offset the negative pall of MyWikiBiz association. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • We should just encourage MyWikiBiz to write better articles. User_talk:MyWikiBiz#If_you_continue suggests that his article on Arch Coal was not complete before another user uploaded it onto Wikipedia by a totally different user (a big flaw in the Jimbo Concordat). I suggest that MyWikiBiz completes articles before uploading them to his website, or even better to a place in his userspace which is obviously signposted to avoid confusion with an actual article. Your suggestion of working especially hard on the article would just be doing his job for him, for free. You pay MyWikiBiz, instead of just getting what MyWikiBiz offers, others will improve your article to GA status! Why should we be giving extra attention to Arch Coal over say Category:Wholesalers of the United Kingdom? - Hahnchen 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Um. Because it's a business from my hometown? I'm sympathetic to the desire to have an article on this company for purely sentimental reasons; on a pure analytical level, there's nothing particularly wrong with this article but it is borderline. Hence my advice: we should send it to AFD as borderline, but here's some insider advice to stay on the good idea of that borderline. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I can't see the article, but it is a major corporation (multi-billion dollar market cap), and should certainly be included. It seems unlikely that the problems are big enough that they can't be fixed without deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• List at AFD after undeleting. I recommend, before setting up the AFD, setting up a community discussion on the merits of paid advertising. The AFD should prominently redirect that discussion there, execpt as it applies to this specific article. We have enough statements above (though not all here verified) that the subject of the article meets WP:CORP by both the news tests and the stock market index tests to believe that a legitimate article upon the subject is possible and worthwhile. The question then becomes one of whether the contents of this version are helpful for the ultimate perfect article. Prior discussion here reveals that the article doesn't have huge glaring flaws, so an AFD discussion is a reasonable decision. GRBerry 17:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• AfD is not a great place for that, I'd say. Actually the best outcome is probably if someone active on this DRV just writes a better article; I can't think of a downside to that myself. Guy 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• The downside is that we would be doing MyWikiBiz's job for him, for free. And I think GRBerry refers to paid editing, not paid advertising. - Hahnchen 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think your creating a false dilemma. Whether or not MyWikiBiz gets paid is irrelevant in the discussion on whether or not wikipedia should have an article on Arch Coal. We've already decided that Arch Coal is the type of company that we SHOULD have an article about (since it passes WP:CORP and any other verifiability/notability test with flying colors). The actual question in front of us is if the content of this article is worthy of being kept under current policies or if it should be deleted as irrevocably bias and recreated by an un-bias editor. ---J.S (t|c) 18:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I have undeleted the history for your reviewing pleasure. Guy 17:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Corporate spam? Yes. But it's corporate spam about a company we should have had an article on anyway. Needs citations, but according to the Google cache of the article, it doesn't seem to have any severe problems not repairable through normal editing. Additionally, it's ranked 691st on the Fortune 1000, which means it should pass WP:CORP quite easily, and a quick google shows numerous non-trivial references to it by business journals. If this was a deletion by anyone but Jimbo, this could almost be a speedy restoration. --tjstrf 17:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"If this was a deletion by anyone but Jimbo" - I think that's the main issue here... But I'm always been one to commit blasphemy... lol (if I'm not carrying the mediator too far) ---J.S (t|c) 18:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Right, endorse deletion but allow re-creation. Much of the article was straight copy-and-paste from pages on the company website, hence speedy-as-copyvio. I have now used several different sources to come up with an article which is not altogether dissimilar but is not verbatim copied as most of the original was. Can we go home now? Guy 18:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a copyvio? If thats the case then thats a big problem. ---J.S (t|c) 18:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was a copyvio - the source given (iirc in an edit summary) specifically states it is GFDL content. AIUI (and I might be wrong) Wikipedia can include GFDL content from elsewhere provided it is cited and linked to (to enable attribution). If it wasn't already this could easily be done with an entry in a References section. Thryduulf 18:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please unprotect it then? It doesn't seem to be a copyvio, where's the link it was meant to be ripped from? - Hahnchen 18:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's unprotected now there is new content, and the sources include the History link on the About Us page of the company website. The assertion of GFDL is meaningless unless (a) the source says it's GFDL (which it doesn't) or (b) the original author can prove ownership or right to release (which he has not). Very few companies will GFDL material from their website, when push comes to shove. Guy 18:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the Arch Coal website. It does not appear to be a copyvio. - Hahnchen 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I did check befor I created the page... Either way the current version is quite good (better actualy) and there is no longer a need to revert to the origional. ---J.S (t|c) 19:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and then recreate untainted. Jimbo's objection appears entirely to be with the mode of the article's creation, and he's entirely correct about that. The company does, however, appear to be notable, and I think we're deficient about having an article about it (our coverage of corporations is, in general, poor). A properly written and sourced article wouldn't suffer from the corporate propaganda issue the sleazy original did - a bit of Googling shows there are plenty of notable concerns about environmental matters that should be in the article. (Incidentially, you'll also notice that the myWiki shills have bought the google adwords for Arch Coal). Middenface 18:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - It wasn't a sleazy original, it was barely beyond a stub and presented the most important facts about that company. A bit of Googling shows plenty of concerns about every company under the sun, what you're in danger here is of unbalancing the article due to unfounded claims of NPOV. - Hahnchen 18:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Uhm... Midden? Could you please tone down the vitriol a bit? I don't care who they are, but calling people's work vile, sleazy, and referring to them as confidence tricksters is encroaching into WP:NPA territory. --tjstrf 18:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It's also fairly incivil to me. ---J.S (t|c) 19:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'd like to change my opinion here to Endorse JzG's version. It's nutral (if not incomplete) and it's sourced. It's a great start. ---J.S (t|c) 19:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The current content looks great. I have concerns about the paid advertorial writing thing myself (in a marketing-fired business, would never go into the "pay me to write a Wikipedia article for you" thing), but with the ability to rewrite, delete, etc., I think there's at least some oversight. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Assuming this is to determine whether the company in question is verifiable enough to warrant an article, it should be undeleted. Material on Wikipedia comes from many sources, crackpots, copyrighted material, etc. We should focus on the actual text, not who created it. My quick search on WSJ.com notes 170 articles, with 27 mentioning "Arch Coal" in the headline. It is a company of wide enough interest that it's succession plan was the subject of an article in February 2006. I continue to be amazed at how we will accept text from any anon as long as it is verifiable and useful, but if someone identifies themselves, then we hold them to a higher standard instead of just looking at the edtis and judging whether it is verifiable, neutral, and useful. Finally, having worked in Price, Utah, I have seen the impact this company's mines can have on a community, and they definately meet the standards of WP:CORP. --Trödel 20:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Attempt at a summary where we are now

1. Jimbo deleted the page for some mixture of a) the content is corporate spam, and b) the author MyWikiBiz is someone with a business model which poses challenges to WP and with whom "communication has deteriorated".
2. When listed on DRV, Jimbo indicated he had no objection to this deletion being reviewed
3. Guy undeleted the history pending further discussion so it could be seen by all
4. Seems to be emerging consensus that Arch Coal is certainly notable and deserves an article. May indicate need to clarify WP:CORP regarding what sort of notability claim must be explicitly stated versus merely implied by context.
5. Original version by MyWikiBiz was better than many brand new articles are, but lacking in several respects. The current revision, in particular with edits by Guy, is better but still rather stubby. Can we agree that we no longer want to delete this completely and restart this article from nothing?
6. We still have the challenge of how do we respond to paid editing. This is an important issue, and we are far from having consensus on it.
7. There seem to be additional issues regarding MyWikiBiz's interaction style with Jimbo and potentially some editors. I don't know the story. In my opinion, however, regardless this should be separated from the previous points. There seems to be no indication that MyWikiBiz's version or the current version would contentwise be deeply flawed as a result, though there may be implications on under what conditions we wish to accept future content from MyWikiBiz regardless of how our attitude to paid contributions develops.

I know this is not in keeping with usual DRV format, but I think we need to move beyonf it. Comments? Martinp 22:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your summary is good. DRV should be a discussion, not a "second vote" after an AFD, so what you have done here is wonderful. We talk, we think hard about the right way forward, and we do so in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Excellent.

I think the article is a travesty of NPOV. I am glad that it is undeleted so that people can see. It is corporate fluff. It would be delightful if we could generate an absolutely excellent article, featured article quality. But this would not be the article that Arch Coal would pay a PR firm to create.--Jimbo Wales 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its a travesty of NPOV at all. It's only 10 sentences long, giving us the bare bone facts about the company, detailing its most important and notable aspects. I can't see why an article of this length should have a separate controversy section, which inevitably all company articles do. Just take a look at other articles in Category:Mining companies of the United States, the original article kept pretty much in line with format and content. A simple Google for "Gold Reserve" Venezuela controversy revealed this article, is Gold Reserve now a travesty of POV? No, it's a stub, just like Arch Coal is a stub, albeit one written by a paid-for organisation. - Hahnchen 22:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jimbo, help us understand why you feel the article is a travesty of NPOV. I see an article that gives us some stubby basic facts, probably not the most important ones but not bad either, with no positive or negative spin. I've seen your posting on MyWikiBiz' user talk page, and I gather you feel there are controversies on this company that should eventually make it (in NPOV fashion) into the article. I don't know what they are, but I accept for the time being it is so. But failure to discuss those seems to not be a capital sin. Besides, I think some sort of analogy of our principle of being very careful in discussing controversies surrounding living persons should apply to "living companies" as well. Martinp 22:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say this is pretty similar to the average Wikipedia article, in that it is a brief summary of basic facts on a topic. It is analogous to most of our articles on albums, movies, ships, municipalities, stars, etc. If that amounts to a travesty of NPOV, we probably have a serious problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)