Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 22

Kideos.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The deletion of the page "Kideos.com" is unwarranted by the fact that the administrator misinterpreted the article as a G:11 violation, "unambiguous advertising or promotion." While the article does have an external link to the website, that is as far as the article goes towards advertising the website. The article used only reliable published sources to create an article that sought to be encyclopedic and neutral.

The text within the article does not support nor attack the website. It stays within a neutral zone as advised by Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Therefore, I request that Wikipedia "Overturn" the speedy deletion made by NawlinWiki on the grounds that the article respects all the rules Wikipedia has placed towards its articles. I list the following arguments to support this request:

I would also like to note that there was previous contact between NawlinWiki and I after he/she deleted the article the first time. After posting a comment on his page containing similar arguments to the upcoming arguments, there was no response from the administrator and thus I re-posted the article. The second time I posted the article, I did receive a warning and in response I placed a hangon, but the article was instantly deleted thereafter.

On to the arguments:

First, the article does not hold any bias. The fact that the article did not quote directly from the website should show how untampered the facts were. While there were quotes from what one might see as biased references, none of the quotes taken from the references were one-sided. Each quote taken was a fact, not an opinion. Had there been a quote drawing people towards the site on the article, NawlinWiki's deletion could be understandable, however that each quote on the site was a fact and not an opinion. The decision made to delete the article leaves me concerned. Furthermore, should the administrator point out where he or she perceives bias, I will gladly change that section.

Second, the article is no different than any of the other articles within its genre. Three website articles that are most similar to Kideos.com are Fact Monster, Kidzui and FunBrain. These sites have the same type of information as the Kideos.com article contains and I even used those sites as a model when posting my article. If those sites are published by Wikipedia's administrators, there should be no reason that Kideos.com should be the exception.

Finally, I would like to restate that Kideos.com did not violate any of Wikipedia's pillars. Just like the FunBrain, Kizdui, Fact Monster, or any other article, the Kideos.com article met Wikipedia's criteria. The article helped provide information, not advertisements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke81 (talk • contribs) 23:49, July 22, 2009

• Endorse deletion Looking at the deleted version, the tone was clearly advertising, not encyclopedic at all ("The site is putting a premium on kids' safety", really?) and while there were sources, they were either blogs or press releases from the company, from multiple sites. Looking here and here, all that we have is the company's advertising campaign. No independent third-party reviews yet it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Written in a wholly promotional tone, seems unsalavagable without a total rewrite. Good speedy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Arguments by reference to other articles which exists aren't really very useful, because other crap exists. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, there is no bar to creating a neutral version of the article, but it might be better to leave it to a user without a conflict of interest. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the cached version an accurate reflection of the article at the time it was deleted?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. --Stormie (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While the article may have an advertising tone in some lines, I don't think that it is all entirely biased. I think that by changing the article in some lines, the article would be completely acceptable. For instance, the Earlier Media section is all fact. 10:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe808 (talk • contribs)

Wokai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Organization now meets notability guidelines, in national and international press (CNBC, SF Chronicle, Google Tech Talks)

This article had been previously flagged for "speedy deletion" after being marked for "delete" in a "Articles for deletion". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wokai.

I would kindly request that this be reconsidered. Since the time of the September '08 discussion, Wokai has garnered significant coverage from reputable media sources (CNBC, AsianWeek, SF Chronicle, per below) and has raised significant funds, built a 100+ member volunteer base and is well on its way to its mission of raising funds from international sources for microentrepreneurs in rural China. It's a noteworthy 501(c)3 nonprofit deserving of its own mention.

Links:

Wokai's Co-Founder & Ceo spoke at Google's Tech Talks - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqhZoCp0UCg CNBC's Nick Mackey did a recent piece featuring Wokai's China operations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wokai AsianWeek covered Wokai's SF launch - http://www.asianweek.com/2009/07/13/bay-area-microfinance-reaches-rural-chinese/ San Francisco Chronicle Coverage - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/13/BACB16VUFE.DTL

Cheers, and thanks for your time.

Euwyn (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, I'm not seeing it clearly. I'd suggest you try writing a version at User:Euwyn/Sandbox first. I'd be happy to userfy the previous content there as a starting point, if you'd like. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy and eventually allow recreation of article as it looks like some minimal notability can now be established. MuZemike 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, this looks a prime candidate for userfication and submitting a draft to DRV. Euwyn, if yu are amenable please say here and someone will do it for you straight away so you can get to work without waiting for the DRV to run its course. Feel free to elave a note on my talk page if its not done by this evening and I'll do it when I get home. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Just created a version of the Wokai page at User:Euwyn/Sandbox —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC).