Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stiletto Spy School

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stiletto Spy School

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

Blatant, uncontroversial WP:Promo, written by a self-declared WP:COI editor User:Eclipsed, sourced by PR-fed "news feeds" and media-invite driven PR events. This is simply a two-store local business which spent money on ongoing PR services, and requested, and expected, a Wikipedia article. All refs are puff pieces, and were instigated by PR; text about the company itself is substantially the same text in all refs. None were organic ("I saw an ad and went", or "My neighbor went and told me about it") - no refs describe any reason for writing about the business. None constitute an investigation, a review, comparison with any other such studios, analysis, survey, or other research. No refs cite any other sources. None were written by experts, or anyone qualified to judge the quality of the training given, or the claims made about the instructors employed. Example: MSNBC's video shows an obvious promo filming setup - studio setting with company logo prominently displayed the entire time. The Psychology Today article was written by a self-declared PR person. The Fox News piece included a former CIA operations officer, but he had nothing good or bad to say about the school itself, other than "If you know 'just enough about everything', you know just enough to get into a world of hurt." The timing of the sources appears deliberate, resembling PR release timing. This is, indirectly, gaming Wikipedia's "sources over time" requirement in GNG. Article was PRODed. User:Silver seren deleted the PROD an hour later without disclosing it on the talk page with ({{Old prod full}}) per WP:DEPROD (step 3). The deletion edit summary was "The article is clearly notable, per the GNG and the numerous high quality sources". No, not per WP:GNG, or per WP:CORP, or per WP:SCHOOL. Sources aren't independent, if they are prompted by PR. Only two sources could have been high quality, but in this case, are not.

There may be pro-PR-based article POV. User:Silver seren praised Eclipsed's authorship of multiple business article stubs here:

"One of the best examples, I think, of a paid editor (I know this is about PR specifically, but it's related) becoming a volunteer and then also helping to serve the overall company article issue is User:Eclipsed. He's been diligently working in his Requested articles workspace on creating stubs for requested company and business articles. ..." -- User:Silver seren "

May be mergeable into a larger article about spy "schools". Lexein (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What the hell is with the personal attacks on me and Eclipsed? This is not promotional at all and Eclipsed is not a COI editor for this subject. Just because he has a COI on something else doesn't mean you can then say he has a COI on all company articles. He's been working on the backlogged company AfC requests all on his own because he wants to help out. Furthermore, your "analysis" of the sources is all opinion with no proof whatsoever. The refs are all months apart, meaning that they weren't in response to a single event. Here's coverage of it in Het Laatste Nieuws and here's coverage in Le Figaro, as additional sources to what's already in the article. I don't know what your problem is with me or Eclipsed, Lexein, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It's notable, period. Silver seren^C 09:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Nothing personal. No attack intended. I disagree with direct paid editing (via Talk ok), and I think COI editors should only create articles through AfC, when there is even a hint of a conflict. A history of paid editing tinges everything with conflict. I took note of your enthusiastic support of this COI editor, because that, and this article, changes the nature of this encyclopedia, steering it toward being PR, a directory, things that it is WP:NOT intended to be.

That an editor declares COI does not grant license to create articles about small businesses based on puff sources, and it doesn't matter what country publishes the puff piece, it's puff, and PR. I don't dispute that the business exists (it does), just that it meets standalone notability (it doesn't). Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY, or a WP:PROMO venue; here, I apply WP:DUCK. Nearly identical text in puff pieces, one written by a PR person = PR-driven. Independent and reliable sources provide substantial discussion supporting the importance of the topic, but none of the sources used or in Talk do that. "It was fun and empowering, said the customer standing there" does not a notable business make. I am skeptical of these sources, their timing, who triggered them, who sponsored them for the reasons stated. If there were any substantive professional sources: doctor, sports psychologist, training expert, espionage expert, weapons expert, martial arts expert, business expert (analyst at the Wall Street Journal), anyone, I might not have put this up for AfD. But, bluntly, this article would not have survived AfC, so why should it now survive AfD?

What would you have me strike through? I will consider it.

May be mergeable into a larger article about spy schools.--Lexein (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic passes WP:GNG per:

Daily News article
Today (NBC News/MSN) article
Le Figaro article
Het Laatste Nieuws article

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All nearly identical puff pieces. None demonstrate importance. The LeFigaro article seems a bit plagiarized from the NY Daily News - not a good source. The Het Laatste Nieuws article is just another regurgitation, not an original article, and not a good source. We have a responsibility as editors to spot PR splashes and set them aside. Some press releases, and PR-driven news placements in a larger article can be tolerated, but not every single one. --Lexein (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep Sources establish wp:notability, probably genuine coverage because it is inherently novel & interesting to many. I consider them to be typical coverage, not "puff" pieces. Based on my superficial read of the above and the situation, high concerns about past and future exploiting / gaming of the system to do promotional work, but the system is the system unless we change it. So far it has been just a dry enclyclopedic stub but I suppose it has a high risk of being turned into a full blown promotional piece if it survives. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 16:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2012 (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.