| Revision as of 10:25, 25 December 2024 editTristancr (talk | contribs)158 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:36, 25 December 2024 edit undoHyperAccelerated (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,521 edits →Appin (company): ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| *'''Keep''' as it clearly meets ] with multiple significant in-depth and independent articles.{{pb}}I don't think it's appropriate to call out particular accounts as socks -- that's for SPI -- but the article has been of particular interest to accounts with a short edit history. Certainly accounts like @] and @] took an interest in the article early in their editing careers and then ended up blocked. It's likely there are multiple-account editors active on the article now. But I've watchlisted it for some time and it seems editing has been on a reasonably healthy path - recently a new account removed what looked like a good cite, and another account put it back with an edit summary, nothing to see here. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' as it clearly meets ] with multiple significant in-depth and independent articles.{{pb}}I don't think it's appropriate to call out particular accounts as socks -- that's for SPI -- but the article has been of particular interest to accounts with a short edit history. Certainly accounts like @] and @] took an interest in the article early in their editing careers and then ended up blocked. It's likely there are multiple-account editors active on the article now. But I've watchlisted it for some time and it seems editing has been on a reasonably healthy path - recently a new account removed what looked like a good cite, and another account put it back with an edit summary, nothing to see here. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom. ] (]) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom. ] (]) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Keep:''' "Delete according to ]" is total nonsense. Per ], in order for this page to be deleted, the nominator would need to explain why there are no diffs that we can revert to. That's going to be an uphill battle, given that the current state of the article does not read like an attack page. The nominator has said themselves that ] is met, so there's nothing to discuss and the article should be kept. ] (]) 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:36, 25 December 2024
Appin (company)
AfDs for this article:New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Appin (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appin closed in 2013. The article is facing a string of changes where there may be a WP:SOCK (see latest changes). Delete according to WP:ATTACK which summarizes that the article has a denigrating purpose, rather than an informational one. WP:NPOV and WP:LBL, because the article is only about calmony even if it is quoted by notable media sources. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I verified that the first deletion was met with a string of blocks, which is why decided to send an initial message to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, following which agreed to initiate these discussions directly.--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - As article creator; company clearly meets WP:GNG. If nom has WP:ATTACK or WP:NPOV concerns, could those get discussed on the talk page before going to AfD? If there are WP:ATTACK or WP:NPOV issues on an article for a notable subject, the remedy is to address the issues on the page, not delete. NickCT (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article's contribution history demonstrates that this article cannot be remedy, because a string of possible WP:SOCK editors update the article against these policies. Obviously, meets WP:GNG but this is not enough for the article to be kept. Because this article does not describe the company and (only controversies and legal acts). Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which editors percisely are you calling possible WP:SOCKs? Regardless, even if you're right, can't we just remove whatever content they've added? NickCT (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article's contribution history demonstrates that this article cannot be remedy, because a string of possible WP:SOCK editors update the article against these policies. Obviously, meets WP:GNG but this is not enough for the article to be kept. Because this article does not describe the company and (only controversies and legal acts). Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the previous AfD, which clearly shows the article meets WP:NORG. Deletion is not an appropriate solution for the concerns highlighted by the nominator. Astaire (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as it clearly meets WP:NORG with multiple significant in-depth and independent articles.I don't think it's appropriate to call out particular accounts as socks -- that's for SPI -- but the article has been of particular interest to accounts with a short edit history. Certainly accounts like @NoWarNoPeace and @John Bukka took an interest in the article early in their editing careers and then ended up blocked. It's likely there are multiple-account editors active on the article now. But I've watchlisted it for some time and it seems editing has been on a reasonably healthy path - recently a new account removed what looked like a good cite, and another account put it back with an edit summary, nothing to see here. Oblivy (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tristancr (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: "Delete according to WP: ATTACK" is total nonsense. Per WP: ATTACK, in order for this page to be deleted, the nominator would need to explain why there are no diffs that we can revert to. That's going to be an uphill battle, given that the current state of the article does not read like an attack page. The nominator has said themselves that WP: GNG is met, so there's nothing to discuss and the article should be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)