Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pheed
- 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. It's now several days since the user was blocked, with no indication they'll be back. No prejudice to re-creation by an independent editor. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Pheed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD was contested. My concern is that this looks like a creation of banned contributors wiki-pr.com: an article on this topic was previously posted by the blocked contributor Tedteeth01 . —rybec 23:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. If a block user created it, then it can be speedily deleted. Is there any evidence that it was recreated by Wiki-PR? Otherwise, it looks like it's notable. Forbes and Rolling Stone are pretty solid citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Several articles contributed by people named in the Morning277 SPI have been recreated by editors who make few or no other edits. I reported some of them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 on 22 November but there's been no answer from the sockpuppet investigators, so there's no check-user evidence. I'm asking you to look at the behavioural evidence. The way this article was contributed by Special:Contributions/Social_Mike_Ferlita Social Mike Ferlita fits the pattern: article created in a single edit, then account abandoned. The help request also fits a pattern. Compare to these:
Extended content
|
|---|
hello Faizan. i am new to Wikipedia and looking to add my article through the sandbox. i am having difficulties with red errors in the reference section. could you guide me through the process. S72013 (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello... I'm new to Wikipedia and not sure how to use talkback to your page. Sorry!!! I'm trying out this sandbox thing and I need help with references, can you aid me? Bhasinnitish (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Hey there, I'm working in the sandbox and a bit overwhelmed with my references not working. I could use some assistance? --Wam'tchire (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Orangemike. Do you think you could help me out with an article in my sandbox? I'm trying to add this reference but for some reason can't code it in properly. This is the link I want to add: http://personaldemocracy.com/company-reviews-2010/ddc-advocacy Do you think you could help me out? Ficoman86 (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC) User_talk:Orangemike/Archive_24#References_help Hello Lvivske. I have looked at all your contributions and appreciate the work you have contributed to Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could help me out with the page on my sandbox. Any advice or tips would be helpful, but I was mainly hoping you could help me out with this reference: http://www.justrelaxmagazine.co.uk/#/tee-ashira/4575254751 I was trying to write out the citation so that I could add some more text, but the citation just wouldn't work out for me. Could you help me out? Awaisrahman007 (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey DMacks, I put some basics down on Pheed, the social networking company and social network. When I created the page I got a little message telling me to let you know I started the page since you deleted it when it was not notable back in 2011. I used a few articles from Forbes and Rolling Stone to get it started. Hope this research helps you guys. |
—rybec 19:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - I can see where it appears to match some patterns of Wiki-PR accounts, but it also looks to match a whole lot of perfectly innocent editors' activity (in other words, I don't think the connection is obvious enough to carry weight in a deletion discussion. The article certainly passes GNG and doesn't appear to be written like an ad. --— Rhododendrites talk | 03:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment On December 18, the account in question along with several others were blocked as suspected sock-puppets of a long-time-banned editor. There was no evidence against the account other than he appeared to be not-completely-new and that he created an article, Pheed, previously created by the banned editor or one of his actual or suspected sock-puppets. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice to being re-created by an editor with no credible allegations of being a banned editor or editing on such an editor's behalf, and defer speedy- or AFD-deletion until 7 days after the editor in question was blocked (i.e Christmas Day) to allow reasonable time for the account-holder to appeal his block. In case any editor wishes to rewrite it, I will put the references in the current version on the talk page of this AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.