Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field-to-Pump

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Pure advert. As DGG says, "I do not want to say that an article on this particular program would be totally impossible to write and source, but this one is not really usable as a start." yandman 12:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Field-to-Pump

edit
Field-to-Pump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Seems like advertising to me, severe and unfixable POV, everything here also seems to be covered in the articles linked within. Creator removed prod notice (thus proving again why prod is useless), and I can't be bothered to fight with him over it. roux   16:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Advertising. T-95 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Roux,

You state, "Nominating an article for deletion IS asking for a discussion." If so, I would appreciate your participation in the discussion. Please answer my previous questions.

19:48, 29 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Field-to-Pump ‎ (What specific issues are you trying to raise? Why do you believe the Field-to-Pump article is merely advertising? At this point, why don't you request a consensus? Simple: delete or don't delete!)

17:26, 29 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Field-to-Pump ‎ (Vandalism under the guise of an improperly proposed deletion is still vandalism. If Roux would be specific, I would be happy to address any issue she raises.)

16:44, 29 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Field-to-Pump ‎ (Improper Procedure: Policy states, "Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again." Deletion requires notice and discussion, not baseless opinion.)

11:55, 29 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Field-to-Pump ‎ (The proposed deletion is without merit. Field-to-Pump is not an advertisement. This article addresses the most recently developed strategy, employed by the Louisiana Legislature, to produce ethanol.)

Again, your proposed deletion is without merit. If it does have merit, please answer my questions or request a consensus. Is that perfectly clear? BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is here. Go there to discuss it. This is the last time I will explain this to you. //roux 21:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrianJDonovan127"

Roux, you are starting to get a little testy. Please just support your proposed deletion. If you are not capable of supporting your position, either retract or request a consensus. I will be happy to explain this to you as many times as necessary.BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion for this article's deletion is being held at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Field-to-Pump. Please discuss it there. It's unlikely anyone will view the talk page of this article when considering whether or not the article should be deleted. Rnb (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Field-to-Pump"


Rnb,

Thank you for the suggestion. I would appreciate it if you would also support your position.BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response. My only position at the moment is that the procedure for AfD must be followed, as I haven't read the article. Once the article has been brought to AfD, the tag on the page indicating such must remain on the page until the AfD process is complete. Rnb (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To address your points one by one:
  1. What specific issues are you trying to raise? Why do you believe the Field-to-Pump article is merely advertising? At this point, why don't you request a consensus? Simple: delete or don't delete! - I'm raising the fact that the entire article reads like pure advertising. And for the nth time, I did request a consensus BY NOMINATING THE ARTICLE FOR DELETION.
  2. Vandalism under the guise of an improperly proposed deletion is still vandalism. If Roux would be specific, I would be happy to address any issue she raises. - is beneath contempt. Your single-purpose article was nominated for deletion. That doesn't give you the right to make bad-faith accusations of vandalism to an editor who has, in over fifteen thousand edits and nearly a year of work on Wikipedia, never vandalised a single thing.
  3. Improper Procedure: Policy states, "Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again." Deletion requires notice and discussion, not baseless opinion. - And if you had paid attention in the first place, when you were told where the deletion discussion--that's what this is, by the way--was, you wouldn't have so thoroughly misunderstood what that policy states.
  4. The proposed deletion is without merit. Field-to-Pump is not an advertisement. This article addresses the most recently developed strategy, employed by the Louisiana Legislature, to produce ethanol. - And it reads like pure marketing hype from the Louisiana state government.
There. All done. Now, I suggest you familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia actually works, particularly with how this page works, and contribute accordingly. //roux   22:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roux,

1. Consensus - I believe the rules provide that if consensus is difficult to gauge from discussion alone, it is possible to conduct a survey of opinion to clarify the issues in the discussion. Moreover, correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia policy and guidelines also provide for Requests for Comment which is a process for requesting outside input. These procedures are in addition to merely nominating an article for deletion.

2. Vandalism – This is not a bad-faith accusation. Before nominating an article for deletion, an editor must read the article to properly understand its topic. Here, that was not done. The article was proposed for deletion without the editor having any understanding of the topic. A notice stating “This article is being considered for deletion..” was then arbitrarily and publicly placed on the article. No notice was given to the author. After five days, the article would have been deleted. This may not fall under Wikipedia’s definition of vandalism, but it is surely lacking in merit and, in your words, beneath contempt.

3. Improper Procedure – I believe Wikipedia policy suggests that an editor attempts to edit, or requests the author edit, prior to proposing deletion. Here, again, no notice was given the author prior to proposing that the article be deleted nor was a discussion opened prior to publicly placing a deletion notice on the article. Maybe this policy should be reviewed.

4. “Pure Marketing Hype from the Louisiana State Government” – What precisely do you believe the Louisiana Legislature is marketing? If it is job creation and rural development, I would agree with you.

Roux, please be civil. Your testy responses detract from the discussion.BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oy gevalt.
  1. AFD discussions are precisely how we generate consensus on whether to keep or delete an article.
  2. Of course the notification was publicly placed. That's what those notifications are for. And yeah, sorry, it was badfaith accusation of vandalism. The fact that you don't agree that the article should be deleted (gee, I wonder why? And I note you haven't yet responded to the question from Malcolmxl5, above) doesn't mean that it was vandalism. Please see here for what vandalism actually is.
  3. Wikipedia policy suggests no such thing.
  4. Oh come on.
//roux   00:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oy vey,

Notice is not required. Let me understand - any anonymous Roux, Gumbo, or Ettouffee may propose an article for deletion without knowing anything about the topic. After 5 days, the article would be deleted. If the article’s author does not live on Wikipedia, he or she would not have an opportunity to defend the article prior to deletion. This sounds like a fair and equitable policy.

Publicly ridiculing any article, especially anonymously and without proper notice, is vandalism. You need to sign-off Wikipedia more often.

I suggest you re-read Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Moreover, asking for a third opinion, requesting a comment, or conducting a survey of opinion to clarify the issues in the discussion are acceptable procedures.

“Oh come on.” In other words, you are not able to support your position or answer my questions.BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anyone may nominate an article for deletion in good faith. At that point a discussion ensues, and after five days someone uninvolved in the discussion weighs the consensus, and decides whether to Keep or Delete the article. If no clear consensus is found, it defaults to keep. And kindly do not tell someone with over a year of experience and deep policy understanding to go re-read. You are the one that has no clue how things work here, not me. //roux   02:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The COI is clearer after looking over his blog in which his comments all show a clear bias towards percieved environmental benefits of the Jindal administration. He even comment-spammed this article onto another person's blog. None of his comments do anything other than praise the environmental policies of the state of Louisiana. Clearly this is using Wikipedia for his own promotional good and this is not acceptable. ThemFromSpace 01:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I do not want to say that an article on this particular program would be totally impossible to write and source, but this one is not really usable as a start. Weak delete instead of delete because someone might be willing to rewrite it.DGG (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Roux, Good faith requires the person to explain, with a degree of specificity, his or her reason for nominating an article for deletion. You state, "And kindly do not tell someone with over a year of experience and deep policy understanding to go re-read. You are the one that has no clue how things work here, not me." Roux, please re-read guidelines for nominating an article for deletion and the need for civility. Personal attacks are childish. This is a common problem with self-anointed "Editors."

The purpose of the "Field-to-Pump" article is not to promote Louisiana or Renergie. It is a clear definition of a comprehensive strategy to locally develop and market non-corn ethanol. The only opponents to the strategy are oil companies and their affiliates. Try reading and understanding the article rather than merely attacking the author.BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete A "strategy to locally develop and market" anything would be an advert. Which is what this article is, an advert, I can't see why there's had to be such a big discussion about it. Wikipedia isn't the Free-Ads section of the internet, this article needs deleting. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The statement that a "strategy to locally develop and market" anything would be an advert." is absurd. The emphasis is on strategy, not "market." Who precisely would place, and benefit from, such an advert? Dylanfromthenorth, please explain to me: (a) how ethanol is curently produced and marketed in the U.S.;(b) why large U.S. ethanol companies are filing for bankruptcy; (c) the purpose of the blender's tax credit; (d) the CBI loophole; and (e) the need to produce ethanol from feedstock other than corn. If you are able to do that, you will understand the uniqueness of the "Field-to-Pump" strategy. By the way, "Field-to-Pump" may be freely used by any small advanced biofuel manufacturer. I suggest an expert opinion is required in this case. Roux, what do you think?BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withhold judgment for the moment. I do think this article is more promotional than informative as it stands (featuring a number of very prominent mentions of Renergie, Inc, among other matters), but I'm with DGG that it could potentially be improved. I also agree that the article's primary author bears most of the hallmarks of a single-purpose account with a WP:COI, but I'd note that a conflict of interest is not grounds for deleting the article, particularly if it's disclosed. It's also no sin to be more familiar with writing for marketing than with appropriate encyclopaedic style.

    When I come back and look again, I'll be looking for a succinct treatment of the subject of less than half the current length, in an accessible, summary style that doesn't feature laudatory references to any particular companies or individuals.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand on that: the lead section of the article contains a number of "red flags" of promotional writing. (An encyclopaedic article would begin something like this: Field-to-Pump is a Louisianan environmental intiative concerned with biofuels. It arises from the Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative of 21 June 2008... and so on.)

My advice would be: first, cut every single adjective and adverb. Second, cut every single mention of a company or individual. Cut everything about Renergie's history and development; if Renergie deserves an article, write an article about Renergie. Cut most of the stuff about Act 382; if Act 382 deserves an article, write an article about Act 382. In any case where you absolutely can't avoid mentioning Renergie or Act 382, get a reference from a high-profile reliable source and quote what they say about it. Do not under any circumstances write anything about Renergie that doesn't appear in a reliable source, because it will get the article deleted. Make sure everything you write is directly related to the Field-to-Pump initiative. Including some sourced remarks that are critical of the initiative will be very helpful in getting the article kept.

Wikipedians are very sensitive to people who may appear to be using Wikipedia for promotional purposes and it's vital to avoid making the impression that you're doing that.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can go with what S Marshall says, I'm going to watch this debate and see where it goes. I still think it's a delete, but fair play if a suitable rewrite is forthcoming.

On a side note, I know it's difficult when your article get's flagged for deletion, but lets try and keep this page civil and to-the-point. I'm not answering the a-e questions up there because I dont see their relevance to this articles debate..... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dear S Marshall,

Thank you for your helpful advice. It was appreciated.

I published the “Field-to-Pump” article for the purpose of opening discussion. I believed “Field-to- Pump” would grow through thoughtful editing and constructive criticism by the Wikipedian community. Unfortunately, I do not believe that is possible. I have decided to delete the article for the following reasons.

1. Lack of Proper Notice – I do not have the time to constantly monitor the “Field-to-Pump” article to defend against future nominations for deletion. The article could be deleted in five days without me ever knowing about it. Wikipedia may address this issue by directly notifying a contributor that his/her article has been nominated for deletion. This could be done automatically by sending an e-mail to the contributor.

2. Anonymity of Editors – The vast majority of volunteer editors prefer to remain anonymous. This makes it impossible to tell if their editing is unbiased or a deliberate attempt to place misinformation in an article. Since the volunteer editor is unknown, he/she is not accountable for his/her actions. One result is that vandalism appears to be fairly common throughout Wikipedia.

3. Lack of Meaningful Discussion – It appears that many volunteer editors merely rely on conclusory, self-serving allegations, rather than thoughtful discussion, to express their opinions. Furthermore, there is complete lack of civility between volunteer editors and contributors of articles. The following is an excerpt from of a recent exchange between very experienced volunteer editors:

S Marshall, thank you for your professionalism. It was refreshing. As author of the “Field-to-Pump” article, I would like to voluntarily delete the article as soon as possible. Please advise as to the proper Wikipedia procedure. Very truly yours,BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is a prime example of how AfD discussions shouldn't run. It's descended into a shouting match on personal terms instead of a considered debate on the article in question. If you have issues with other users, keep those issues to your own talk pages please, AfD is NOT the school playground. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrianJDonovan - I have again removed that material from this page. It is not relevant and does not belong. As Dylanfromthenorth said, keep it to your own talkpage. Not here. Final warning. //roux   18:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Dylanfromthenorth and Roux,

Please stop deleting portions of my original message to S Marshall. I am sure S Marshall will respond directly to my request as soon as possible. He does not require your assistance. I realize Roux's quotation is embarrasing to the Wikipedia community. However, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Again, my original message to S Marshall stated the following:

Dear S Marshall,

Thank you for your helpful advice. It was appreciated.

I published the “Field-to-Pump” article for the purpose of opening discussion. I believed “Field-to- Pump” would grow through thoughtful editing and constructive criticism by the Wikipedian community. Unfortunately, I do not believe that is possible. I have decided to delete the article for the following reasons.

1. Lack of Proper Notice – I do not have the time to constantly monitor the “Field-to-Pump” article to defend against future nominations for deletion. The article could be deleted in five days without me ever knowing about it. Wikipedia may address this issue by directly notifying a contributor that his/her article has been nominated for deletion. This could be done automatically by sending an e-mail to the contributor.

2. Anonymity of Editors – The vast majority of volunteer editors prefer to remain anonymous. This makes it impossible to tell if their editing is unbiased or a deliberate attempt to place misinformation in an article. Since the volunteer editor is unknown, he/she is not accountable for his/her actions. One result is that vandalism appears to be fairly common throughout Wikipedia.

3. Lack of Meaningful Discussion – It appears that many volunteer editors merely rely on conclusory, self-serving allegations, rather than thoughtful discussion, to express their opinions. Furthermore, there is complete lack of civility between volunteer editors and contributors of articles. The following is an excerpt from of a recent exchange between very experienced volunteer editors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roux “Warning for your another personal attacks in March 2009 

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Roux. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Roux, we all know your relentless incivility and habit of making "personal attacks" (quite amusing because those descriptions that you produce are just showing "your character" very well) are nothing new, but I want you to behave yourself like constructive editors. Please do not try to behave inappropriately even if on your user page. Good luck.--Caspian blue 10:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this clear: you are calling his comment in the section above this a personal attack? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that sounds not personal attacks? Read WP:NPA.--Caspian blue 13:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars, please. Do you know how much more seriously I would have taken a polite, hand-written note? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Rules and policies have a superiority than essays that may contain "minority" view. I only respect editors acting respectively. If he desperately wants to keep the "hell away from me", he should not make this vicious comment behind my back; I am simultaneously singularly uninterested in anything Caspian Blue does, and very specifically interested in keeping the hell away from his shotgun blasts of incivility and personal attacks. So, no. --Caspian blue 13:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Behind your back, was it? As far as I can tell, it was right on-wiki... –Juliancolton | Talk 13:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, you have to remind that Wikipedia is an open place. That's why I can see his another disruption. --Caspian blue 13:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, mate, what are your intentions here? Are you simply trying to start a battle? If so, I suggest you have a cup of tea and be on your way. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All I intended was to give him the warning for what Roux said about me. --Caspian blue 14:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

NO, Caspian blue -- in this specific context, your posting is recidivist, undeserved and unjustifiable. Please STOP now. --Tenmei (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck is this bullshit? Caspian blue, you have a long and well-documented history of attacking the hell out of anyone who makes the stupid fucking mistake of calling you on your bullshit, which is why I try to stay away from you. Your bullshit is NOT worth the stress it causes. Stay the FUCK off my talkpage, do not post here, any further posts here will result in me finding an admin to permanently block you from editing Wikipedia. That is it. I am sick and fucking tired of your bullshit. You first started attacking me when I was trying to mediate a dispute between you and someone else. Why did you start attacking me? Because I fucking told you to fucking stop attacking someone else. You are a net loss to this project and you shouldn't be here. For some reason that I cannot understand, you were allowed to get away with abusive sockpuppetry--proved by CheckUser--and you are continually allowed to get away with random personal attacks against any user you feel like, whenever you feel like it. Well that stops here. You will stay the fuck away from me, permanently. That better be clear enough for you. STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME. //roux 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Roux, calm down please.... :-/ We all realize that Caspian is not standing on firm ground with his accusations; don't escalate this into a random shouting match please...no one wants more drama... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a random shouting match I am sick and fucking tired of his bullshit being tolerated around here for the sole reason that anytime anyone tries to do something about it, he makes using Wikipedia a living hell for them until they give up. It is time something permanent is done about him, and if he posts here again that will be the final straw. He is to stay away from me, permanently. He is to not comment here. He is to not talk to me anywhere else on Wikipedia. He is to stay the flying fuck far the fuck away from me forever, because I am sick and fucking tired of dealing with his goddamn bullshit. //roux 14:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Roux. Try my method, for dealing with unwanted visitors at one's Userpage. Give their postings the ole' deletion treatment. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey buddy, long time no see. I hope you're doing well? As for deletion.. no. I want his ridiculous behaviour displayed for all and sundry. He's gotten away with it for far, far too long. //roux 15:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been semi-retired since late-Februay (2-hrs a day on Wikipedia, is my limit). GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)”

Vulgarity and childish behavior such as the above is unacceptable.

S Marshall, thank you for your professionalism. It was refreshing. As author of the “Field-to-Pump” article, I would like to voluntarily delete the article as soon as possible. Please advise as to the proper Wikipedia procedure. Very truly yours,BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Field-to-Pump&oldid=1254987804"