[WikiEN-l] How to do something about AFD

[Ray Saintonge]

Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 11/03/2008, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>   
>>  (Incidentally, I'll retract my earlier remark a bit.  Jumpstart sounds
>>  like it could be legitimately okay too,
>>     
> The topic probably could be, but the article isn't.
>   
How these things are handled is the important issue.  The aggressive 
approach is not the way to deal with a newbie with a short edit 
history.  Nuking him when he apparently used a sockpuppet (The Russian 
name translates as "Brilliant pearl".) was a hasty move.  What would be 
better would be to explain very politely and very respectfully at least 
once that this sort of thing is just not done, as I have in an off-list 
message to him.  Drastic measures should only be used if he becomes 
clearly defiant.
>>  since it's likely most Wikipedia
>>  editors wouldn't have heard of it merely because of geography.  Moslanka,
>>  in Russia, may be another one.  There seems to be a common theme here of
>>  something foreign being called non-notable because nobody in America has
>>  heard of it.)
>>     
> They just don't have any third party references. Period. Russian
> references would be fine too. As they stand these articles are
> completely pointless.
>   
The absence of third-party references alone should not be sufficient for 
deleting an article.  Reasonable doubt that the entire article is false 
needs to precede a move for deletion.  Talking to the contributor in a 
constructive manner can be very helpful.  In this case the editor is 
currently active; there is no need to dig deep into the article's 
history to find out who is responsible for what.
> If they somehow magically pass AFD without deletion and without extra
> references, I can and *will* blank these articles without breaking
> *any* rules.
>
>   
Threatening such actions is unwarranted.  The article has problems, and 
I presume that the other article which was speedily deleted has similar 
problem.  I agree that articles about recruiting should not go into the 
same details about available courses as the article on the institute in 
Moscow, but an article on Moslanka.  By talking nicely the hoped for 
result will be that he is willing to remove the redundant material himself.

I have no problem with basic neutral information about a company coming 
from a single source.  Basic information would include where they are, 
who the directors are, and their general areas of activity as well as 
other routine information.  This would certainly be helpful to a person 
who is a potential recruit and who just wants to know who these guys are.

Other kinds of activities would require independent verification.  One 
participant in the AfD suggested that some people had made complaints 
about the company; that would certainly need to be sourced before it 
goes into the article.  Another valid question might be what other 
companies might be doing the same thing in other parts of the world, or 
what are the typical recruitment policies of the Russians.  These would 
interest some readers, and with a little guidance this contributor's 
efforts could be redirected to more acceptable work.

Ec