Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Wyman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 B1atv 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC) {non admin closure)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP, no assertion of notability, no references, heavily edited by User:Oliverwyman. Advertising, in other words. Biruitorul 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Currently reads like it's from a company brochure. Needs secondary references. Renee 02:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs to be rewritten with some references, but the company itself is noteworthy if the claim of having 2500 professional employees is true. Silverchemist 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - with Oliver Wyman Group --MarsRover 04:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article makes explicit claims of notability within its industry. Any content or tone issues are properly addressed using appropriate tags. Using the AfD process to clean up articles is at best, abusive. Alansohn 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes explicit claims of notability within its industry -- ie, it's a PR piece, from my perspective. And by the way, that's the third time today you've accused me of abuse/spam/policy violation. My actions are in good faith, so please stop. Biruitorul 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a boatload of tags that should have been used if the genuine concern was that the article needed to be reworded, just in case you did not want to exercise your responsibility under Wikipedia:deletion policy to improve the article yourself. And though the claim that your AfD barrage qualifies as spam was not made here, submitting multiple AfDs with no evidence whatsoever that any effort was made to investigate notability as required, certainly qualifies as spam. What was this "good faith" action intended to accomplish? Alansohn 04:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes explicit claims of notability within its industry -- ie, it's a PR piece, from my perspective. And by the way, that's the third time today you've accused me of abuse/spam/policy violation. My actions are in good faith, so please stop. Biruitorul 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough.--Bedivere 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obviosly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 14:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any secondary sources to back that up? Biruitorul 03:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The entire piece is not sourced. Also seems OR to me. Notability alone doesn't cut it. Chris! ct 04:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources were already included at the bottom of the article. The lack of inline references does make it harder to attribute claims of notability for those who didn't make it to the Sources section at teh bottom of the article, and several of these sources were converted into references inline in the text. Besides, notability is what it's all about; I sourcing was truly the issue, there are a plethora of tags (such as "fact") that should have been added to the article. AfD is an extremely poor excuse for cleanup, if that's what was intended. Alansohn 05:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Often editors will not even attempt to improve article unless they are pressured to. That is what I believed. Chris! ct 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Often delete voters won't bother reading the entire article. Neither you nor the nominator seem to have gotten to that part of the article. That is what I believe. The "no references" claim only holds water if you mean that you can't see a source next to each claim. Unfortunately, there simply is not any requirement to place sources right next to the associated statements. They were always there in the article. Alansohn 05:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there is no requirement to place sources next to statements. But not doing so will also cause editors like me to nominate articles for deletion. So it is up the creator or contributor of the article.Chris! ct 05:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Often delete voters won't bother reading the entire article. Neither you nor the nominator seem to have gotten to that part of the article. That is what I believe. The "no references" claim only holds water if you mean that you can't see a source next to each claim. Unfortunately, there simply is not any requirement to place sources right next to the associated statements. They were always there in the article. Alansohn 05:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Often editors will not even attempt to improve article unless they are pressured to. That is what I believed. Chris! ct 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources were already included at the bottom of the article. The lack of inline references does make it harder to attribute claims of notability for those who didn't make it to the Sources section at teh bottom of the article, and several of these sources were converted into references inline in the text. Besides, notability is what it's all about; I sourcing was truly the issue, there are a plethora of tags (such as "fact") that should have been added to the article. AfD is an extremely poor excuse for cleanup, if that's what was intended. Alansohn 05:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I withdrew my previous statement as it sounds like a threat. What I mean is that editors are responsible to use inline references. It takes too much work to review every link to see if materials are sources. Chris! ct 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It clearly doesn't take much to put an article through the AfD gauntlet, and a valid justification is often not provided nor are any of the obligations imposed on the nominator at Wikipedia:deletion policy to edit and improve the article before considering AfD ever followed. Wikipedia:Verifiability mandates inline sources solely for "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Furthermore, WP:V also describes some of the smörgåsbord of available tags -- such as "fact", "refimprove" and "unreferenced" -- which, if used, might be more likely construed as a good faith effort to address sourcing in a collaborative fashion. In contrast, AfD is often abused as a means to address these issues in far more disruptive fashion. Alansohn 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on my experience, tags like "fact" or "unreferenced" are not effective to get editors moving. Most of the time, they just ignore the tags. Though I think that AfD is effective to get editors moving, I rarely use it (if you check, my mainspace edits are more than my Wikipedia spaces edits) unless I think it should be deleted right away. Sorry if your position is different from mine, but my position is always leaning to deletionism. Chris! ct 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're acknowledging that you go straight to AfD because you can't be bothered to observe Wikipedia:deletion policy, which requires you to improve articles and use those tags that you find too burdensome to use, you're admitting that you shamelessly violate Wikipedia policy. What you're describing is not a difference in opinion, but a refusal to abide by the basic tenets of Wikipedia. With an abject refusal to work on a collaborative basis to build and improve this encyclopedia, it's no wonder that deletionists are looked on with such disdain. Alansohn 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop attacking my position even if you disagree with it. Last time I check, the deletion policy allows me to AfD article if "content [is] not suitable for an encyclopedia." So I don't see how I am "shamelessly violating policy." Chris! ct 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not attacking your position, I'm pointing out that you only read half of the policy. The problem is that you fail to observe the part that says "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion", which is the other half of the Wikipedia:deletion policy equation. You can't pick and choose only those parts that allow AfDs to be created, without teh corresponding obligation to make a legitimate effort to improve articles before nomination. As part of building an encyclopedia, collaboration requires that good faith efforts be made to assess notability and availability of material before an AfD is initiated. It is this due diligence obligation that you refuse to exercise here and that is disruptive. Alansohn 22:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you've found another person to put on trial. If I may speak in my own defence (and as much of this as applies to Chris): AfD should not be used solely as an article-improvement mechanism. However, articles I nominate I consider to be unencyclopedic, at least in their nominated form. Yes, there may be room for abuse in that, but I suggest you stop targeting reliable editors like Chris and me for such trifling reasons, if for nothing else than per WP:DICK. Biruitorul 22:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nice to have you all in one place. My response to articles -- as required by Wikipedia policy -- is to add content and sources to improve them. Your collective response is to delete. I more than fulfilled your obligation on your behalf, adding multiple sources inline as no one seems to have read the Sources section at the bottom of the article. Even with the improvements to address the claims both of you have made, there seems to be no acknowledgment that the issues have been addressed and that votes should be changed and the AfD withdrawn. If only there were some sense from either of you that there is a genuine good faith effort to improve articles, and not just an effort to get rid of what you don't like. And the trifling gratuitous remark is a perfect example of this Wikipedia essay. Alansohn 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you've found another person to put on trial. If I may speak in my own defence (and as much of this as applies to Chris): AfD should not be used solely as an article-improvement mechanism. However, articles I nominate I consider to be unencyclopedic, at least in their nominated form. Yes, there may be room for abuse in that, but I suggest you stop targeting reliable editors like Chris and me for such trifling reasons, if for nothing else than per WP:DICK. Biruitorul 22:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not attacking your position, I'm pointing out that you only read half of the policy. The problem is that you fail to observe the part that says "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion", which is the other half of the Wikipedia:deletion policy equation. You can't pick and choose only those parts that allow AfDs to be created, without teh corresponding obligation to make a legitimate effort to improve articles before nomination. As part of building an encyclopedia, collaboration requires that good faith efforts be made to assess notability and availability of material before an AfD is initiated. It is this due diligence obligation that you refuse to exercise here and that is disruptive. Alansohn 22:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop attacking my position even if you disagree with it. Last time I check, the deletion policy allows me to AfD article if "content [is] not suitable for an encyclopedia." So I don't see how I am "shamelessly violating policy." Chris! ct 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're acknowledging that you go straight to AfD because you can't be bothered to observe Wikipedia:deletion policy, which requires you to improve articles and use those tags that you find too burdensome to use, you're admitting that you shamelessly violate Wikipedia policy. What you're describing is not a difference in opinion, but a refusal to abide by the basic tenets of Wikipedia. With an abject refusal to work on a collaborative basis to build and improve this encyclopedia, it's no wonder that deletionists are looked on with such disdain. Alansohn 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on my experience, tags like "fact" or "unreferenced" are not effective to get editors moving. Most of the time, they just ignore the tags. Though I think that AfD is effective to get editors moving, I rarely use it (if you check, my mainspace edits are more than my Wikipedia spaces edits) unless I think it should be deleted right away. Sorry if your position is different from mine, but my position is always leaning to deletionism. Chris! ct 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Has many good sources now in the article. Miles Naismith 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.