Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voodoo Tiki

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 Reuserfy. As of this discussion, the consensus is to delete this article based on the lack of independent, reliable sources, which means it is not verifiable. I agree that because this is a consumer product, because of its lengthy deletion history, and overall lack of sourcing, it is too easy for this to be perceived, in its current state, as advertising instead of encyclopedic. Because the creator has shown a willingness to take another stab at this, so be it. The article contents will be found for the time being at User:Ubzy/Voodoo Tiki Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Tiki[edit]

Premature restoration of deleted material. Was deleted before, in Dec. 2007 (speedily, I think; it shows up in the WP:DRV logs, as a rejected candidate for restoration, but there is no pre-existing AfD log for an article by this name), with the warning that it must be fully sourced in a userspace draft before being restored. This has not been done; only very trivial facts have been sourced (I have {{facts}}-tagged the unsourced sections). Furthermore, the article does not establish notability (though it alleges notability enough, via discussion of breadth of distribution, to perhaps survive speedy deletion). As far as content goes (not to mention style, for which it has been cleanup-tagged) it is basically just an advertisement, going on at length about the qualities and elaborate production of the commodity with no material on critical reception, popularity or other metrics of a product's notability. Was also not at all written in anything approximating encyclopedic style, full of sentence fragments and rambling redundancies, but I've personally cleaned that up a lot myself just out of charity. I do not think it is impossible to write an encyclopedic article about this company/product (whether it will prove to be notable or not), but this isn't it, and the (re-)creator was warned at DRV. I think this should be userspaced again for further development. The editor responsible for it appears to have made some effort to source it, but needs to read WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT more closely and try again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly and without prejudice. This is a consumer product; independent, third party references may be available for it. I set my mojo working on it, and found but one. But as such, there isn't enough in the article's text in chief, which suggests conflict of interest issues. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello,

I understand and please accept my apologies if this article is not acceptable for the Wikipedia.

You said " Premature restoration of deleted material. Was deleted before, in Dec. 2007 "

I don't know what are you talking about, that page was protected, therefore I wasn't able to create nor modify anything. This was my first addition.

I just want to say that, from a human point of view, thisis what I have done:

I have saw that the article was protected, asked for unprotection. Someone told me: Create the article on your user talk page. And I did it. The article was rejected as an advert.

Then, I´ve enhanced the article with sources and cleaned up everything. See references from Ian Chadwick's Tequila website, in my article.

I´ve tried to contact the admin that locked the article long time ago -since I wasn´t the cause of the protection-. No reply. I´ve tried to unprotect it, explaining everything, and telling that the article is on my user talk page. (See history). The article was finally unprotected. I´ve though that the article was OK. Since I was asking constantly for corrections, before the article was, like you said, re-created. (But understand that this was the first time I've added my texts to Voodoo Tiki).

In short: As soon as an admin told me the article was OK, I've moved it to the Voodoo Tiki page.

That's all. All I ask is: assume good faith. I know the article is not perfect, is my first (important) one.

I do accept any corrrection you might have, please point me in the right direction. It is just a little bit frustrating to see my article accepted and a few hours later rejected.

I am not discussing your point of view at all, I am just trying to tell you that I don't want to create an advert. There's no need. I've wanted to see my first important article online, that's all.

Help me, please.

I will work -and learn- to add notability of a product. Ian Chawick is one of the best references in Tequila, I was trying to add his notes about the article...

Anyway... Do you want me to move it back to the user page again until this article is ready?

I might ask for help, in order to get the article in proper shape. What's the next step... I am so excited about my first article, and at the same time I'm a little bit frustrated. :Thanks for cleaning up the article and everything!

update:

There are many good articles about Voodoo Tiki on the Net, just like: Luxist

Should I add them to the main article? Thanks!

update: I am very concern about COI... Does it means that my account is going to be blocked because of this tequila article? I've tried to follow all the rules.

This brand is popular.

There are a lot of many less popular tequila articles on the Wikipedia online right now... Do whatever you have to do, but _please_ understand that I want to create a neutral article and I was following -trying- all the rules.

I've moved the article because it was approved by an administrator -since it was on my user page and an admin saw everything: my user talk page and my request for unprotection comments.

I was willing to receive suggestions in order to improve the article and to correct any possible flaw-. The admin gave me green light- when the article was unprotected.

Understand that I did everything right. I've created it on my user page, asked for approval, and an admin approved it.

I'm typing more here than in the article itself. Please assume good faith, and help me if you want. That is all I want... Thank you!

--Ubzy (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ubzy, this isn't about you. It's about the Voodoo Tiki article having been deleted before (evidently having been written by someone else), for the same problems still evident in this version of the article; it is nothing personal. It doesn't matter who wrote it; the point is that it is not an encyclopedia article yet. This is why the AfD nominations suggests sending it back to your userspace for additional work. No one is talking about deleting it off the system entirely, much less blocking you as a user. Don't panic. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What would be needed here is independent coverage by third parties who are considered reliable (and with a general preference for printed materials with a byline over websites or blogs). The statements in any article should correspond to what the independent, third party sources say. We generally don't rely on a company's own websites or publications, at least not to establish whether it deserves an article or not. Since they generate those materials themselves for promotional purposes, they make them say what they want to say; they aren't trustworthy enough for our purposes.
Moreover, articles about commercial businesses and products do get somewhat higher scrutiny. Wikipedia is a high visibility site. The temptation to use it for free advertising is strong. Our attempts to improve the credibility of information here mean that these things are going to face an uphill battle.
The article as it stands now is sourced entirely to Voodoo Tiki's own promotional website, and I fear that does not pass muster. Like I said, this is a consumer product. Independent coverage may well exist. I'd be happy to copy this article to a draft on your user page until such time as it can meet these tests. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you Smerdis of Tlon, I really appreciate your help I a do understand what you mean. I will make an effort to enhance the article, meanwhile feel free to copy this article to a draft on my user page until such time as it can meet these tests.

This will serve me as a good lesson, in order to create better articles in the near future.

I will add more third party -relevant- sources as I can, and I will follow SMcCandlish sugesstions too.

I receive a lot of benefits from the Wikipedia, and I will certainly try to expand it with as a way to say: Thank you!

Kindest Regards,

--Ubzy (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, vastly improved. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very spam-like, reads like a PR release by the company. WWGB (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2008 (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.