- Michael Phelps Foundation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The article was deleted 3 times, however since then the article has been changed significantly and the new sources present an unbiased review of this organization using information primarily provided by these secondary sources. as this organization is one of the most famous athlete charities in the country, by one of the most successful american athletes in history, this article should be included in the encyclopedia as it is on par with organizations like the Make-A-Wish Foundation, Livestrong, Special Olympics and the Boys & Girls Clubs of America: all of which have Encyclopedia inclusions. Changing the language so that it does not "read like an essay" this article has responded to all of the guidelines proving that it is notable and it does not sound like an advertisement. If there are any further instructions or suggestions to prove this organization worthy of an Encyclopedia article please let me know and I will willingly make those articles. MLT1989 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to be self-promotion to me; a paragraph at Michael_Phelps#Philanthropy should be enough. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the short term I think the redirect I created to Michael_Phelps#Philanthropy should be restored as it's a reasonable search term. As for the review of the article text itself, being created by Michael_Phelps is not sufficient for notability but it should be enough to escape an A7. (and I don't think it's promotional enough for G11 to apply) Restore the article and let the community make the call. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to nominator. It's extremely unfortunate that the first version of this article was created by User:MichaelPhelpsFoundation. This shows a serious conflict of interest and to many experienced users it screams "SPAM". This may be why we jumped the gun with CSD. One indication that a subject might be notable (but not in itself sufficient) is if a neutral editor with no connection to the subject "takes note of" the subject and elects to write an article about it. It would have been a lot better if they would have waited for that to happen. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- such is the theory. In practice probably 3/4 of our articles on people and organizations are initially written by someone very close to the subject, and even if initially a little spammy, they get improved, as all articles do. The ones who take the trouble to try to understand Wikipedia before writing realize they should use a neutral name that will not attract attention. My standard advice is "If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity." WHat I find a sure sign of non-objectivity is an argument that a relatively small and new organization like this says it should have an article because some of the most famous ones in the same field have articles. Additionally, the last version of the article was in my opinion unacceptable: First, it was copied directly from the program's about page (which only 1 of the 3 successive admins who deleted the article seem to have caught)--and even if you give us formal permission, the content is still quite promotional, though I agree with Ron that it's borderline G11, not clear G11. . Web pages are after all meant to be promotional, which is why copying them almost never works. Second, I see no sources outside of press releases except one write-up in a local newspaper. Without them it might escape speedy deletion, but it will never pass a deletion discussion at AfD. As usual, my overall evaluation is the same as Stifle. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if there are copyright issues then it should stay deleted (but the redirect should be restored) and if that hypothetical "neutral editor" writes a sourced NPOV article about this subject, then we can discuss it at AFD. Also, I will say that I don't think that an article being created by someone connected to the subject should in itself be a reason to delete that article as some have been fixed to be acceptable. I do think it's like stepping up to bat with 2 strikes against you. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On 7 Aug MLT1989 (talk · contribs) placed a helpme request, [1] which was answered by 2 users [2] [3] [4]. I also saw the request, and looked at the AFC, which was at this version: [5]. I considered that a valid article could be made (as there was enough evidence of coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article on the topic), but because the existing live redirect existed and was protected, I requested unprotection [6] at 17:35. That's my only involvement; I'm not sure what happened beyond that, and it's hard for me to tell, with the page/s deleted. If I'd processed the AFC later, I'd have edited it considerably, but I think it would've been possible to create an acceptable article. Chzz ► 15:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After your request, I deleted the redirect because you wouldn't have been able to move the AfC submission to mainspace over a redirect with a history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah; that's quite understandable. And yes, if I'd noticed / gone back to it, I'd probably have trimmed the AFC and 'accepted' it, and we wouldn't be here. So really, this is just a bit of a misunderstanding. I think easiest answer would be, now, to fix up the AFC so it was acceptable and make it live; I don't personally see much point in an AFD discussion over a redirect which might have become an article. Chzz ► 21:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was deleted four times, never once with a proper AFD. [7] The most recent time was with the explanation "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)". I suppose no one saw the prod and removed it in time. No sense not sending this to an AFD if someone is against the prod. Dream Focus 18:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I originally created the redirect over a red link that was "salted" to prevent recreation. Therefore I thought that it was prudent to continue with full protection. I was not aware of any unprotection request and didn't know why the redirect was deleted under a "generic" G6. As far as the reason why the AFC submission wasn't approved, see this discussion I started at WT:CSD after first seeing this case on Orange Mike's talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Send to AfD. After the initial version of this article was created by MichaelPhelpsFoundation (talk) it has been re-created and edited by no less than five SPAs - there is clearly a campaign going on, and I have raised an SPI. Yesterday the latest puffy version was created, but (non-SPA) user Cerejota (talk) then did a good job of trimming it back to basics with edit summary "reduced to all notable, reliable sourced, verifiable information, eliminate iffy external links." That version can be seen here. Cerejota then changed his/her mind and redirected to Michael Phelps#Philanthropy ("not really much more info than already there after cruft and puff taken out"). I agree with that view, and think the redirect is the right answer, but as DreamFocus says this has never had a proper AfD and we should probably have one to settle the issue. My suggestion is, hold an AfD on Cerejota's trimmed-back version. JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and partial change of mind: if it will help someone decide how to close this, I would be equally happy with Cerejota's proposed solution (below): delete and replace with a protected redirect to Michael Phelps#Philanthropy, (which would need to be watched to see it was not inflated with puffery). JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment with !v further on - I admit am getting re-acquainted as to where systemic consensus lies on speedy delete, PROD and AfD. There seems much has changed in the two years or so since I last paid real attention to deletion in Wikipedia. Hence I felt that CSD due to previous deletion was cool, but it wasn't because it was not a result of AfD. I though of PROD, but then I realized the article seemingly was a good work. So I studied the sourcing, using WP:V as a principle, including trying to find more WP:RS to the various items (for example the court case around the domain name). Came to nothing. I could only conclude that this meant that most of the article was primary or otherwise unreliable source puffery and cruft, based on WP:V and WP:RS. One thing hasn't changed in my time and that is that notability is a central criteria for inclusion. One thing is under debate, but is generally accepted, that notability is not inherited. Another principle that is on controversy but generally accepted is that there are alternatives to deletion. So instead of prod or AfD, I redirected to the "Philanthropy" section on Michael Phelps, and added the single line of incontrovertible non-puffery and V/RS compliant info into that section. This is because while notability is not inherited, there is a better chance of something getting some notability in the future if connected to a notable figure. For example, it is not out of the question that once Michel Phelps retires, he will devote time to this foundation, which might increase its profile to the point of notability. So a deletion would mean we have to recreate it once again. However, a redirect allows us to simply revert and start from that. It also has the advantage of encouraging adding information to the "Philanthropy" section, giving the possibility of WP:SUMMARY forking if too much good info is there, even if notability is not met, "Philanthropy of Michael Phelps". So a few alternatives (in descending order of personal preference, first is what I want the most):
- Protect (salt) redirect - so that any attempt to recreate article needs admin intervention. Leave a note with instructions in talk page of redirect and a link to these instructions in the edit notice of the redirect and the edit summary for the indef proc.
- delete and salt - this will keep being recreated if we do not salt. Lets not AGF beyond normal human tolerances.
- rename and redirect to Philanthropy of Michael Phelps as per WP:SUMMARY, I do not believe there is enough material for this at this point, but it is an alternative to deletion for which independent notability is not an issue, as Michael Phelps is notable so is his philanthropy. We would have to be careful that it reflects all of his philanthropy and not just the Foundation, or that the article doesn't become about the Foundation, but otherwise kosher. Also salt the redirect per above.
- AfD - if we must, but why be bureaucrats? - a DRV is as good as any other forum to decide this stuff. If submitted to AfD, my position would be "merge and redirect" to Michael Phelps' BLP section on "Philanthropy".
One thing is clear to me, closing this DRV without action would be a disservice to the topic, to the involved editors, and in an extremely small way, to Wikipedia itself.--Cerejota (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
