User talk:Tdfdc/Sandbox

Cleanup done as requested[change source]

OK, I did some cleanup and copy editing for grammar and tone. I also added some links. It would be good to explain what the acronyms CEA and CES mean. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CES - Consumer Electronics Show. CEA - Consumer Electronics Association. Sorry for the delay in replying.Tdfdc (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved here from article talk page[change source]

The page was recreated and deleted. I am copying the talk page content here so that it won't be lost.

QD:G4:Creation of content that is already deleted. It includes an identical or similar copy, with any title, of a page that was deleted, after being discussed in Requests for deletion, unless it was undeleted due to another discussion or was recreated in the user space. Before deleting again, the Administrator should be sure that the content is similar and not just a new article on the same subject. This rule cannot be used if the article was only quickly deleted with no request for deletion.

The article is no longer identical and neither a similar copy. It has been considerable updated several times by two editors, one of them an admin. It has got 70% of new sources added as well.

It was also reviewed by Osiris, please refer to him saying "the wording is fine now". He couldn't have said that without actually reviewed the article. Thus the condition for re-posting has been met.

I would also remind, that Chenzw have said that he is not sure if the notability requirement has been met or not; and after that I have added yet another 3 sources.

Please, let us establish some AGF as well. This article is neutral now, it doesn't have to be QDed. It would be much more beneficial that if any editor/admin thinks that notability hasn't been met yet, despite a good list of references for such a small article, to actually add a few sources. Tdfdc (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved here from User talk:Auntof6[change source]

The following discussion has been moved here from my talk page because this is the proper place to discuss improvements to this draft. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to create an article "Products of Spider International". Here is the draft. [1]. Please let me know if you would QD or RfD it? According to https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#New_Survey Chenzw is unlikely to take a definitive position that it is not notable. I personally have defended "Spider International" on the grounds that its better to give it a benefit of a doubt, however regarding "Products of Spider International" I'm more confident that they are notable. Thank you.Tdfdc (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That page is a mess -- it looks like multiple articles in one. It should be in the form of a list with minimal info about the company. Even so, I don't think an article that's a list of a company's products would be notable if the company itself is not notable. Some other points:

The text in that article under "Background" is still about the company, not the products. If the article is supposed to be about the products, you don't need that much info about the company.
The infobox is also about the company, and wouldn't belong on a page about the products.
You have way too many references. You shouldn't need more than one ref to support any one thing.

I caution you not to speak on behalf of other editors, as you are doing here for User:Chenzw. I give no weight to that statement, because you have misinterpreted and misrepresented editors before, including me. I also suggest you work on something else. Many of us feel you have wasted a lot of our time on discussions related to this company, and you might find yourself topic banned if you continue.

To sum up, in the state it's in, I would definitely think it should be deleted or at least userfied. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tdfdc, I refuse to work/comment on any other articles related to/about Spider International, unless in an administrative capacity. This thing has taken up too much time for me already. Please look for someone else. Thank you. Chenzw Talk 01:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autonf6: What changes would you like me to adapt so that you won't have to delete it? Removing infobox? Ok. However, I encourage you to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia. It is an analogue to this article in the regard that some editors voiced opinion that the company itself is not notable. They did retain paragraph about the company and have retained the infobox as well.

I have worked on something else too and will continue to do so. It was already stated, that it's your decision how much time to invest in an argument.

I don't think it's an elegant thing what you are trying to do: to threaten with an administrative action because you wouldn't like to see the article posted, even though it complies with the guidelines.

Please note, that as of now, I'm a member of Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians (see my user page), and it is my right to try to retain any article that is written according to the guidelines. cTdfdc (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autonf6, could you tell me please what changes you would like to be implemented, before I'll post the article? Considering that any content related changes can be done after the article is already in the mainspace. (If some other admin will decide to delete it, its outside of the scope of my initial comment to you, however in that case I would probably ask for an input from the Inclusionists). Please also consider reviewing the reasons against blanket deletion before rendering your final decision.Tdfdc (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(change conflict) It reads very much like an advert. Possibly to the extent that if it was on mainspace I'd delete it. The part where the companies tagline (I'm assuming) “superior sound anytime, anywhere.” is obviously copied straight from the website - the quotation marks are different to the ones here (" v ”) and theres words like "produces good bass" and "produces less bass than Monster’s Beats by Dr. Dre." and "aims to make products that are better than mass market brands, and cost less" - Its one huge advert and I'd QD it. Kennedy ^(talk) 10:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy, the content of the article was edited in the past by Auton6, and after that, Osiris has said that the wording is fine.

The companies goal is attributed as such and is taken in quotes. We can change the form of the quotes.

Only the product's section wasn't reviewed. I have simply expressed what the reviews stated, without original research. Any input from yourself, or changes are most welcome.

At this time, we are not really discussing the article's content, but it's right to be in the mainspace. Thank you. Once it is in the main space, any interested editor may propose, and implement any changes to the content.Tdfdc (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that "the wording is fine". The last comment I made about that aspect was: "The writing is much better since we had the RfD, from what I can see." And it was in regards to this revision being an improvement on this revision. It shouldn't need saying, but my comment does not apply to all subsequent revisions... Osiris (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that, I did say that the wording of an even earlier revision was fine. Again, though, it does not apply to subsequent revisions. Osiris (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the comment in which you have said that the wording is fine. There weren't any major changes since then. Thank you.Tdfdc (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did comment on the articles content; that it was one huge advert with the aforementioned flaws. Thus rendering it unsuitable for being in the mainspace. I'm sure theres a distinction there, I certainly tried to make that distinction by my points. I'm not sure "Products of Spider International" is the best title also, given that it describes the company. Just the company name would be preferable for me if/once its on the mainspace. Others may have differing opinions but thats mine. I don't have an issue with an article about this company being in mainspace, just it has to be neutral. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally prefer also the article to be upon the company's name. But having "Products of", since the products' exposure is more notable, is okay with me either. I agree that it has to be neutral. If you will review en:sony you will see their slogan "The company's current slogan is make.believe." And, if anyone will have any concerns with any of the sentences, he/she can edit them once the article is in the mainspace.Tdfdc (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also welcome Autonf6's editing of the draft prior to getting it into mainspace.Tdfdc (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I post the article? BTW: I would suggest to attribute the last sentence "costs less" to Stereophile.Tdfdc (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at your draft? You have everything in there twice. As far as posting it, even if you remove the duplicate content, I think it would qualify for QD under two different criteria. One is WP:QD#G11, advertising (as per Kennedy's comments). The other is WP:QD#G4, recreation of content that is already deleted -- changing the title to say it's about the products and adding a list of products doesn't make it substantially different from the article that was QD'd, RfD'd, and went through deletion review twice. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]