Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shell providers

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 delete. Despite the obvious dispute that has preceeded this nomination, there is a fairly extensive agreement that this page should be deleted, for a number of reasons. There are a good few keep votes, but given that a couple of them don't provide much context or evidence to support their arguments, it seems reasonable to conclude that consensus endorses removal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shell providers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this wp:pointy article was created after sources were requested for this unsourced list in shell account. instead of providing a single source when requested, User: hm2k simply cut and pasted the unsourced content from shell account into this new article, as if creating an unsourced article would relieve the burden of providing sources in another article. sources still have not been found. this article should be deleted because there are no third party, reliable sources for this arbitrary list of providers which have not shown notability for being shell providers. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

instead of providing sources, hm2k provides incivility and personal attacks [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] Theserialcomma (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ADHOM. --Hm2k (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As agreeing inclusion criteria in the lead (as per WP:LSC) is being actively resisted then there seems little to stop this article being on ongoing magnet for non-notable account providers and their websites.—Ash (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe it should be deleted, why have added content since?[4] --Hm2k (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adding a viewpoint one way or the other in an AfD does not preclude collaborating on the article, this also applies to the nominator.—Ash (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, in principle, however your viewpoint and your edits are contradicting. Are you trying to prove a point? If so, what? --Hm2k (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hm2k, someone can improve an article and still believe that it doesn't meet the requirements of wikipedia. please stop being disruptive. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I am more than aware of the capabilities of an editor, however it is a futile and contradicting act, unless you actually believe the article will be and/or should be kept. --Hm2k (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As you have yet to withdraw your accusation that I'm a troll (see diff), why don't you stick to the guidelines of m:troll instead of trying to engage me in discussion? You can't hand out insults and then expect quizzing the same editors about their motivations to be taken seriously.—Ash (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You're avoiding the question. What point are you trying to prove?--Hm2k (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Does this mean you are withdrawing your accusation? If someone is insulting me, I don't really want to give them further opportunities to insult me.—Ash (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If you intend on trolling then I will treat you so, otherwise, good faith is assumed. --Hm2k (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems odd that not too long ago you were thanking me for my independent opinion (see User_talk:Ash/2009#3O:_Shell_account) and now you are not prepared to assume good faith and withdraw your previous accusation. To save time, just don't bother trying to engage me in discussion in future for any reason.—Ash (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It started when you attempted to troll me. You were helpful prior to that. Nothing has changed there. However, you still haven't answered my question, I suspect it's because it's yet another attempt to troll me isn't it, which is why you won't give me a straight answer. I'd rather you just got on with it instead of playing games. --Hm2k (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps you didn't understand my text? Go away.—Ash (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for confirming my suspicions. --Hm2k (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Go away.—Ash (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How about you go away? --Hm2k (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How about you both stop making personal comments? These reactions are juvenile - you are both old enough to not participate in name-calling. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of shell providers that is unsourced is indiscriminate and impossible to manage with thousands of potential list entries. Miami33139 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never heard of something being removed from Wikipidia on the grounds that it's a potentially large subject. Amusing. --Hm2k (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. --Hm2k (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists do not require a "references" section. The list is by best part made up of shell providers with articles. This is perfectly normal. Google: lists --Hm2k (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This AfD appears to be just a personal attack and should be treated that way. Providing content is not the sole responsibility of the creator of the article. Good faith is NOT being assumed. --Hm2k (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please raise your claim of personal attack using one of the normal dispute resolution processes. This discussion is not the right place to resolve these sorts of issues.—Ash (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note from an Admin Per the thread raised at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents, I've unhidden the comments. It is not acceptable for an editor to refactor, hide or delete another editors comments in an AfD discussion. Further occurences of this will lead to sanctions being imposed. There is a talk page attached to this AfD discussion. Feel free to use it to raise any issues connected with the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in good faith, I was trying to hide the drama before it became the focus of this AfD, but that clearly didn't work. --Hm2k (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought long and hard before adding a keep recommendation here. A list of shell providers seems an appropriate subject for an article and the suggestion that the originator of the article has resisted adding inclusion criteria of its own right does not seem a suitable argument for deletion. There is a content dispute here that needs resolution and WP:DR should be followed, AFD is not the route for that. Having said that, there are a couple of entries in the list that could be removed due unless notable enough to justify their own wikipedia article. Justin talk 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A reasonable statement, I agree. --Hm2k (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fork that appears to be a problematic indiscriminate list, or at least will become one. Non-maintainable. References (or at least linked-to articles) would be needed for each entry on the list (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that Wikipedia is not a Directory (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or cleanup would suffice then? PS. Have you actually read WP:NOTDIR? It does not apply here. --Hm2k (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no ocntext. Why in the world do we need a list of Shell providers? I don't find this to be informative or encyclopediac in anyway. Sorry I just don't, and I am contributing on the content not the contributer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about what you want or need. It is as encyclopediatic as the articles in the list. Also see WP:UNENCYC and WP:USELESS. --Hm2k (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Never should have been created, being an action done unilaterally without any agreement on the parent article talk page. Articles labeled "List of..." do need sources. I mean, consider the claim being placed against them (be it good or bad), and it's being done so without any given proof from an outside party confirming it. This is rather strictly upheld in terms of WP:BLP articles, and companies shouldn't be treated any differently. This makes such articles impossible to maintain, as mentioned by Bwilkins above. Past the horrible and possibly defamatory corporate info claimed, even if that can be supported by some third-party reliable sources (as in, technology magazines or sites, not blogs or forums), it won't resolve this challenge because of the notability issue. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Though I'm extremely discouraged by the edit disruptions performed in this discussion, those matters are taken up at incident boards and so long as all original text is replaced I'd suggest visitors double-check if the actions of this article's article might be skewing one's view in any way. I feel I've more than justified my !vote beyond my concerns with this. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should merge it back then? --Hm2k (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Theserialcomma (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relivance? --Hm2k (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the section you should look at is..Characteristics of problem editors. Specifically,

You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.You are bashing almost everyone here that disagrees with you.
You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.
You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly read this...How to pull back from the brink

First and foremost, however bad you believe the faults of your accusers are, think long and hard about your own behaviour. Critique it in your mind with the same vigor you critique theirs. Is there not at least a germ of truth in what they say? Have you perhaps been less civil than you might have been? Have you provided high quality citations from reliable secondary sources to back your edits? In addition, it may be a good idea to scrutinize all your behavior this way, even if you are not presently involved in a dispute, so that such disputes may not arise in the first place.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" from WP:PA --Hm2k (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with this assessment - this is AFD! If the contributor wants to argue his points forthrightly and in a civil manner, then this is the place to do it. Might not necessarily convince anyone though. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"on Wikipedia, tendentious editing carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." I am accusing you of engaging in tendentious behavior for writing "We should merge it back then?" Theserialcomma (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing wrong with the content, so what makes you think it should be deleted instead of kept or merged? --Hm2k (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither notable or encyclopaedic. Jeni ^(talk) 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to expand on this? This seems like arm waving. --Hm2k (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is perfectly clear. The topic is not notable or encyclopaedic. Jeni ^(talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:UNENCYC and WP:JNN.--Hm2k (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I thank you soooo much for quoting a couple of essays, but that is all they are, essays. If you have a valid reason to comment, please do let me know. Otherwise, stop badgering everyone and start writing an encyclopaedia. I don't bother responding to people who nag at AfD, not worth my time. Jeni ^(talk) 11:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ONLYESSAY. My "valid comment" is below, I await your response. Make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions, otherwise, don't bother commenting at all. --Hm2k (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That is one of the most amusing things I've seen in a while, using an essay (the same essay at that) to claim that an essay is perfectly fine ;-) Have fun with that one. Jeni ^(talk) 11:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're not willing to justify your statement. Your contributions here are a complete waste of time. --Hm2k (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, exactly which topic isn't notable? Notability is established by the articles for the items in the list, this is a perfectly acceptable practice on Wikipedia. Which part of WP:NOT does it fall under for it to be not encyclopedic? --Hm2k (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(note) Comments in the above thread were changed by Hm2k after other editors replied to his comment. See diff for an example.—Ash (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is false, please check the diff closely again. I added separate comments and edited a comment of mine other editors have not yet replied to. This is a false claim, possible borderline personal attack. I recommend you examine the diff again, and retract your statement. --Hm2k (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this diff. You were so quick to delete my comment here without discussion that I may have picked the wrong diff, if anyone is bothered it may be worth browsing through the history of this AfD to make sure Hm2k has not tweaked the meaning of other comments. As for personal attack, for the second time on this page, use WP:DR rather than making accusations in an AfD where your behaviour has already been unacceptably disruptive. Lastly, you have repeatedly accused me of being a troll, please stick to the WP:DNFTT guidelines if you are not prepared to withdraw your accusation.—Ash (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That diff no longer applies, you know this as you undid it before you added this note. An AfD is no place to discuss my actions, use the talk page or my user talk page instead. You may now withdraw your false statement. If you continue to discuss anything other than the article, I will simply take this to ANI. Stand down. --Hm2k (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can see that due to your re-factoring of this AfD, your comment above at 11:48, 5 January 2010 has been introduced before Jeni's at 11:36, 5 January 2010. Consequently Jeni's comment has been forced out of context. My original comment was a note for any reader of this page trying to make sense of the discussion narrative. As an ANI is currently open for your disruption to this discussion, there seems little point in raising another.—Ash (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading the same thing as me? That's not at all how I'm seeing it in the history. Anyone can also see that it's you that messed it up by undoing my additions. Jeni replied and I had to restore the context myself. That ANI is already resolved. Good luck. --Hm2k (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am reading the same thing as you. Your addition of "Also see WP:UNENCYC and WP:JNN." on 5 January in the same diff was after Jeni had replied on 4 January. This version was before I attempted to make a good faith revert of your re-factoring, so don't try and blame me for your actions.—Ash (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing this at all. In the current copy my "Also see WP:UNENCYC and WP:JNN." appears after Jeni's reply on the 4th, and before Jeni's reply on the 5th. You however, had removed my comment and left only Jeni's reply on the 5th, I had to restore it for context. You messed that up, not me. I was just trying to improve my comment, which I didn't think was an issue. You were correct to assume good faith and undo which is why I fixed them as separate comments after, but this statement is now completely false and simply disruptive thus this needless discussion. --Hm2k (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The time of this diff is 11:28, 5 January 2010, which is when you edited your comment after Jeni had replied on 23:31, 4 January 2010. I then reverted your edit as shown in this diff at 11:37, 5 January 2010. You are confusing the text date against the comment with the actual time of your re-factoring.—Ash (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni's comment is here, which appears between the diff you mention in your (false) note and when you undid it, so I had to restore the context that comment of Jeni's to make sense. Hopefully you now see that and can cease making false statements and disruption. It'd probably be wise to draw a line under this whole discussion and strikeout the false statement otherwise I can only see this as being disruptive.--Hm2k (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the comment it appears to still be accurate. You originally changed comments after other editors replied, I reverted not noticing Jeni's edit and you made later changes probably in an attempt to make the thread look sensible. You have not actually reversed your original edit, consequently Jeni's later comments are still out of context due to your manipulation of text after other editors have replied. If you believe my statement is false (presumably calling me a liar) then take it up at the open ANI or stop digging the hole you find yourself in.—Ash (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no policy reason to delete this. There are a couple of uncited and non-bluelinked entries, but that can be fixed by editing. As far as "unmaintainable" goes, have a look at list of freeware, which still can't be deleted. This list has only a handful of entries. Pcap ping 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valid content fork. The links at the bottom show where to find additional things that could be considered for addition to the list. The article can grow, to a size which would not fit well with the main article, so its best to keep it separate. Dream Focus 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment there isn't a single 3rd party, reliable source - and the links are spamish. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cmon Serial. let them have their opinions too. We aren't voting here just giving our rationale for keep/delete.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no real content, just a list. Categories serve this purpose for notable providers. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a null argument per WP:CLN, I've been told. Pcap ping 12:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - great so Ican go make up a random company and claim it is a Shell provider? You can verify freeware, how would we verify the providers? Apples and oranges my friend. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:CLN, a list has actual content. Nearly half of the small list of entries is lacking reliable sources for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - In principle, an article called List of shell providers could exist within policy if it had a clear criterion for list inclusion. On the talk page of the article there is so far no consensus as to what list criterion to use. Elsewhere in Wikipedia, people often use a criterion which allows lists of entries that are notable enough to have their own articles. That's perfectly OK, but this one does not follow it. For instance, Sakima.Ivy.NET and Super Dimension Fortress do not have their own articles. I do not believe that mere *existence* of a shell provider is enough to justify inclusion. (Lists based on that rule are a spam magnet). I'd consider changing my vote if the editors of the article were to agree on a clear list criterion before the AfD closes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually I've been thinking that a category might be more appropriate since it would be easier to mark notability and relevance for each company separately. Also much easier to maintain in a case like that. Still not sure about notability after that but that would be a case for another day, and it would be a significant improvement on a lot of the objections raised here. So, another view. Oh, just for the sake of it Hm2k, it's extremely discouraged to clog the discussion page and I'd really encourage it taken to the talk page if it's going to be indented out 10 times and almost down to personal incivilities. Take it to the talk page if ranting is necessary. Drop the canvassing, please, and don't think this comment clearing won't be noticed by a closing admin as it is. I encourage you to step back a moment and ponder even an accidental sense of WP:OWN on this and read over the things you've said. Focus on core policy stated against. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the contributor you refer to is currently blocked so cannot respond and the category you mention already exists: category:Shell account providers.—Ash (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though can we please move this to List of shell account providers?) Looking at the list, there are quite a few notable organizations. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but could use improvement. LotLE×talk 20:37, 9 January 2010 (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.