Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:52, 5 October 2006

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

5 October 2006

Arch Coal

Arch Coal was deleted by Jimbo Wales with the edit summery of "rm corporate spam." This content was created by a commercial source and released under GFDL. But it was placed in good faith within the rules of wikipedia by an unconnected third party (myself). The content was legitimate and the article was neutral. I haven't been able to identify what, if any, policy the article violated... so I request the article be undeleted and a proper AFD could be preformed to gain community consensus. ---J.S (t|c) 05:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am happy for this to go through deletion review. The issue with the article is that it was written by someone who is inappropriately using the Misplaced Pages name in commerce. Articles written for pay by consultants being paid by the subject of the article pose some very difficult conflict-of-interest issues about which we should be extremely careful. DRV provides a reasonable forum to study the article carefully. Probably not the best forum, but rules in this area are of course still evolving, so it seems like the only reasonable place to discuss it at the moment.--Jimbo Wales 13:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not squashing this. ;) ---J.S (t|c) 15:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Put frankly, I have no idea. It is generally accepted that you don't over-rule Jimmy when it comes to admin actions - many arbcom cases (the userbox wheel war comes to mind) have resulted in admins losing their administrative powers because they reverted Jimmy in a wheel-war situation. I honestly don't think DRV is going to get anywhere on this topic. The only way this will serve a purpose is if Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · count) reads it, and decides to act upon arguments (if they are presented) to restore. Having never seen the article, and not knowing terribly much about Jimmy's action in this case (I've read the talk page of User:MyWikiBiz, that's about all), I have no idea. Daniel.Bryant 07:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless he's acting as WP:OFFICE/in an official capacity (in which case that should be made clear in the admin summary), Jimbo's admin actions should be subject to scrutiny like those of the rest of us. I propose ignoring that it was Jimbo who deleted it, and we just consider the actual article and the deletion. If the consensus is to undelete, it can then be put to Jimbo and he can decide whether to respect consensus or not (perhaps along with a note asking him to make clear when he's acting as an admin and when he's acting as head of the Wikimedia board, which wouldn't be the first such request I think). --kingboyk 12:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Per Daniel Bryant, this DRV is moot because overturning a Jimbo action is verboten. Take it up with him. FCYTravis 08:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've had a look at the article, and its not one that I would have speedied, and I'd possibly even have voted keep at an AfD. It does need a bit of tidying up and rewriting to bring it into line with Misplaced Pages style - but not much (admins may like to contrast it to ). I personally recommend undelete, but as reverting Jimbo being an admin is a grey area (reverting him acting as an editor is fine, reverting him acting as head honcho is a Bad Thing.), I will leave a note on his talk page inviting him to comment here. Thryduulf 09:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to endorse deletion - and I'm completely ignoring the Jimbo factor here. The main assertion of notability is that it's the second-largest coal producer in the US, and that seems weak to me. Largest would probably be OK, second-largest sounds pretty good, but how far down do we go? Given that, I'd like to see it verified, which would indicate notability via external coverage - and it isn't. The biggest factor for me is that this article is completely unverified, but according to the edit history this is a MyWikiBiz article - for those that haven't followed this, the company paid a writer to write a professional-looking Misplaced Pages article. That means there can be no excuse for 'undelete and make it into a proper article' - if it doesn't meet standards now, then it probably won't. If someone does come up with some non-trivial third-party coverage that verifies an assertion of notability, I might change my mind, but I don't particularly encourage them to try since I look on that as kinda the job of the guy who was being paid to write an article that wouldn't be deleted.

Incidentally, I think we should argue how we want in this DRV, and then leave it up to Jimbo whether he wants to act on the consensus (which I hope will be an endorsement anyway), rather than muddy the waters with speculation over whether this DRV is moot or not - we can cross that bridge when we come to it, at time of closing. --Sam Blanning 11:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, yes, sorry, pretty much stole your point up above :) --kingboyk 12:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the verifiability concerns for a second, I was under the impression that all companies listed in NYSE were notable. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Assuming the data in the article is true, Undelete of course. Second-largest coal producer in the United States (12% of US coal supply), $2.5 billion turnover. If that's not notable we'd better get busy on AFD folks, we have about 100,000 less-notable companies to get rid of. I'm not sure I'm even looking at the right article... looks like a perfectly acceptable Misplaced Pages article on a company to me. As for spam... what, am I gonna go out and order a million tons of coal from them to feed my power station because I've seen this humble piece on Misplaced Pages? Erm, no. --kingboyk 12:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Er. Um. First up, the source is mywikibiz, which is bad. Second, it was nuked by Jimbo. On the other hand the source was identified as mywikibiz by the creator, which is honest, and the article is written in what appear to me to be neutral terms. The company itself is a shoo-in for WP:CORP, if the article is accurate, and if this had been posted by any other editor we would surely never have noticed it. I suggest we ask Jimbo for his detailed reasoning, since he rarely does anythign without a good reason. Guy 14:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The article in itself was fine, the source is (at least nominally) GFDL, and the subject clearly fulfills WP:CORP. On the moral grounds, though, I'm too flabbergasted with the method by which business-related articles get into the Misplaced Pages by means of paid 3rd party publishers. If the case is repeated though, we might think about a policy ammendment to prevent future gaming of the system. Duja 14:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Jimbo. Naconkantari 14:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AFD. The issues here are problematic. It does seem this article meets WP:CORP. However it was created, it can be improved. We're still feeling out the policy issues of paid article creation, and Jimbo (above) has stated he is open to this deletion being reviewed. I think it deserves to be done in the usual deletion forum and with the content visible to all participants, i.e. not deleted. Martinp 14:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Blank and rebuild If the source is Mywikibiz then that is not acceptable - we should discourage mywikibiz and its like. However, the company is clearly notable and deserving of an article. Suggest blank and rebuild as at least a stub. Bwithh 14:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AFD This seems like the ideal test case for the very important MyWikiBiz question: should people be able to make money by writing Misplaced Pages articles for hire? Let the community as a whole discuss, and undelete so they can see the article in question. There will be people following from this DRV discussion to make arguments on each side, possibly even Jimbo. AnonEMouse 15:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this may be a case of WP:OFFICE sovereignty here]], which I basically support - as it's not simply a question of content on Misplaced Pages but a practice regarded as antithetical to the Wikimedia Foundation Bwithh 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It pretty clearly isn't WP:OFFICE, since Jimbo himself says so, just above "I am happy for this to go through deletion review." If he were claiming fiat power, he would say so, instead he wants us, the community to hash it out. He also says that DRV probably isn't the best forum, and I think he is right, since the community can't read the article while it is deleted. Therefore I think Misplaced Pages:Articles for Deletion is better, for two reasons: first, because the community there is usually larger - more people read AFD than DRV; and second, because AfD implies the article is visible during the the discussion. The edits you refer to are Jimbo being unhappy in regards to the user, which isn't the same thing as the article itself. For what it's worth, I suspect we may end up keeping the article and banning the user.... but that's for a separate discussion. Also, I'd have to see the article. AnonEMouse 16:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - There is no point in blanking and rebuilding the article, instead of MyWikiBiz being paid to write an article, we would be writing an even better one for the client for free. In the end, the client pays MyWikiBiz, and we write the article?! And I'm absolutely amazed at Sam Blanning's reasoning for endorsing the deletion whilst ignoring the Jimbo. If you are willing to delete a NYSE listed company, the 2nd largest coal producer in the US, then you may as well delete every single webcomic, every single game mod, most computer games, most books and comics and half the bios. I've seen the article, it was a short informative and neutral article (didn't exactly have enough length in it to be POV pushing) of an obviously notable company. What we need here is openness, not even allowing MyWikiBiz to post articles in their userspace is pretty ridiculous, did you know that it was User:J.smith who uploaded the original article? How are we meant to track these things if they're uploaded by random people?! Without the openness that MyWikiBiz has offered, and the suggestions of WP:COI, we get hidden webspam such as the case I pointed to at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Webspamming_campaign_-_King_Tractor_Press.2FShawn_Granger. I've commented on this issue before at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_11#Commercial_editing_of_Wikipedia, various places in the WP:COI talk page and at User_talk:Jmabel/PR. If a company is being paid to write encyclopedic neutral articles, then they are encyclopedists, I hope that they can see the detriment to their own company that unencyclopedic, non-neutral articles will attract. The article on Arch Coal, had it not been written by MyWikiBiz, would certainly still on Misplaced Pages, and it would not even have had an NPOV tag on. It was merely beyond a stub, giving information on things that could easily be verified from their corporate reports. - Hahnchen 15:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the company is only listed; there is no assertion that it is used to calculate a significant ranking, as WP:CORP requires. Neutrality is not relevant here - that's something we worry about after we've established that the article is worth the effort of maintaining. And yes, I support the deletion of all articles with no verified assertion of notability, particularly when the assertion of notability depends on Misplaced Pages editors saying '2nd largest? X number of employees? I guess that sounds kinda ok', as opposed to, say, obviously notable achievements or involvement in newsworthy events. On a different DRV I might say 'list on AfD, the author should be given a chance to find verification', but to repeat myself, if this article is the best a paid professional can do then I have very little hope that this is an encyclopaedic subject. I also find it telling that there are no links to this article - the only mention of this company elsewhere in the encyclopaedia is on a list of ticker symbols. --Sam Blanning 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Just look on Google News , it absolutely smashes criteria 1 of WP:CORP, it so obviously is notable. I have no idea why websites get away with one review in a tiny paper seem to pass WP:WEB, yet a company with revenues in the billions fails your criteria for notability. This is such an obviously notable company, the reason why there are no incoming links, or why the company was still a redlink was an obvious example of WP:BIAS. The typical Wikipedian is more likely going to write about about his favourite indie rock band over a coal company which only serves corporate customers. Compare Category:Wholesalers of the United Kingdom against Category:Flash cartoons. I somehow doubt this was the best a paid professional could do, I could have done a lot better, maybe you should charge more and put more work into it. - Hahnchen 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Arch Coal is listed as part of the S&P 400 (mid-cap)... Every single company in the S&P400(mid-cap) should be listed on wikipedia. Arch Coal is also listed on the S&P composite 1500 index - another very important stock index. (source: ). In addition to that arch coal is listed on the NYSE (symbol: ACI).... that is often used as a default measure of notability due to the high-bar required to be listed there. I think the notability of Arch Coal is indisputable and regardless of this debate it should have an article in some form. ---J.S (t|c) 16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Article is reported as being 'NPOV' by those who claim to have seen it. Source self-identified, so bias (if any) is known. Subject is encyclopedic. Why blame an article for the 'sins of its parents'? Bo 16:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (I already "voted" above). There seem to be 3 issues here. 1) According to hoovers.com, Arch has annual revenues of $2.5Billion, 3,700 employees, two dozen mines in the U.S., and (my estimate) 10% market share of U.S. coal production, 2nd largest after market leader Peabody which has 20%. Therefore I think it is clearly notable enough for an article to exist about it. 2) I and other nonadmins cannot see the article, but it is said it is NPOV and does not seem to have other egregious content or style flaws which would recommend killing rather than improving it. 3) The creator was paid to write it, doing so openly even if indirectly. We may decide that this is inappropriate, but that's a broader discussion than this article. I happen to think that we are "The encyclopaedia anyone can edit" which programatically does not ask who users are or who pays their bills, and we should not make it "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, but provided they are not being paid for it", but that is a personal opinion. In any case, I strongly urge that we take this to a broader forum and undelete the article for the duration of the discussion to enable everyone to see it. Martinp 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Huh. This is that Arch Coal? I didn't know it was as big as all that. This doesn't seem to be advertising; assuming its claims are accurate, it's sufficiently large that it can't really benefit from advertising on Misplaced Pages, has a legion of hits on Google News, and I've heard of it (always the most important issue in a notability !vote ;D). That said, I would think that the best idea would be to overturn and send to AFD; while MyWikiBiz's plan isn't the best it's better to encourage the ones who are transparent instead of the ones who aren't, and it doesn't seem Jimbo was wearing his God-King hat (crown?). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I was thinking an AFD would be appropriate to judge the individual merits of this article.... but it might be bogged down by a discussion of paid-editing in general. ---J.S (t|c) 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That is an issue. If this is undeleted, I suggest an immediate effort to work on citing the article, particularly establishing that it is included in major stock market indicies (if it is), to help offset the negative pall of MyWikiBiz association. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I can't see the article, but it is a major corporation (multi-billion dollar market cap), and should certainly be included. It seems unlikely that the problems are big enough that they can't be fixed without deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• List at AFD after undeleting. I recommend, before setting up the AFD, setting up a community discussion on the merits of paid advertising. The AFD should prominently redirect that discussion there, execpt as it applies to this specific article. We have enough statements above (though not all here verified) that the subject of the article meets WP:CORP by both the news tests and the stock market index tests to believe that a legitimate article upon the subject is possible and worthwhile. The question then becomes one of whether the contents of this version are helpful for the ultimate perfect article. Prior discussion here reveals that the article doesn't have huge glaring flaws, so an AFD discussion is a reasonable decision. GRBerry 17:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• AfD is not a great place for that, I'd say. Actually the best outcome is probably if someone active on this DRV just writes a better article; I can't think of a downside to that myself. Guy 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I have undeleted the history for your reviewing pleasure. Guy 17:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)