Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WittyFeed

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 no consensus. Lots of comments but no one actually taking any positions on the article. A Train^talk 09:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WittyFeed

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

Bringing this here as it passed AfC and has had at least one speedy declined before the one I just declined. Feel like it needs a broader discussion than simply a CSD. Officially neutral. StarM 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion disc*Commentussions. StarM 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify, the original declined speedies appeared to be malformed notability speedies, and were declined because the article had been accepted as a draft and seemed reasonable. The most recent speedy was a procedural one, as a creation of a sock of a blocked user. I don't know what the earlier versions of this article looked like, but the current version look acceptable. Do we nuke an acceptable article because it was created by a sock (that account in question claims to be a COI but not a sock) and rewrite it or leave it? Meters (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Response and a G11 in there by someone who appeared to have an issue with this editor per a thread on the Help Desk. I'm not sure, and s/he isn't listed as a confirmed sock hence why I didn't think this should be a pure speedy. StarM 20:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks. I'm inclined to think we should keep this, but I'll wait for those with more experience in these types of messes to clarify things. Meters (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does seem to be notable, and the current version is not all that promotional. But if it is a sock of a coi editor that's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if I'm understanding @SpacemanSpiff: correctly here it's more meat than sock. I'm not sure if this changes whether this article needs to go. StarM 02:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Undisclosed paid editing is more than simple meatpuppetry. Meters (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment very true. I was under the (possibly wrong) impression that they declared the COI and that's why they went through AFC. The trail is in a number of places though and I might have missed a key piece. StarM 03:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a lot more than meets the eye here, which is also why I didn't tag or delete the article under G5 unlike another one from the same account. There's a significant overlap of the account with at least two paid COI groups (that I know of) and then there's the account's own claim of just being friends with the founders of this company. If the company is found to be notable then I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping the article after allowing editors in good standing to clean it up (which has presumably been started via AfC and will be done further during this discussion). —SpacemanSpiff 03:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, SpacemanSpiff, for the further detail. StarM 17:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I was the one to approve this draft, and as such, I will not cast a vote, it seemed then, and continues to seem now to be a notable topic to me. I was not aware that the author of the article was possibly a sock, and I approved the article based on the content which seemed acceptable, and still does to me. The article doesn't seem to have an incredibly promotional tone to me, and even if it was written by a sock, I still don't understand why we should delete a seemingly notable and mostly well written article based on who wrote it. I am very far out of my depth in sock related policy, so please excuse my ignorance. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting you did anything wrong in approving this article. The article was reasonable. It's simply a question of what to do with it know that we know it was created by a sock of a blocked editor, and, even worse, apparently by an undisclosed paid edit. Meters (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:31, 19 July 2017 (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.