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. The general thrust of the discussion is the same as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Power (2nd nomination). But unlike there, in this discussion the "delete" or "userfy" opinions outweigh the "keep" opinions by more than two to one. I am content to call this a consensus for deletion (with possible userfication if requested) because unlike perhaps some other related articles, the notability of this topic is argued to be borderline, and two of the three "keep" opinions don't really address that.  Sandstein  08:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Internet Millionaire[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Next Internet Millionaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renominating in the hope of getting consensus. This is part of a promotional series of articles, for Joel Comm, some or all of them written by paid editors.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia .

I think we need to stop tolerating this sort of article. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(to summarise below big ref blob) No complete rewrite was done before (it may have been done now by both of us). There was several inaccuracies in the original parts (not done by you or I). Widefox; talk 01:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Content wise, I'm not yet buying that it's completely OK - it hasn't been completely rewritten has it? Maybe at least 1. lede 2. Primary claim of it being the online Apprentice. I've given two other (painstakingly researched) reasons above. Although the COI edits are before the new TOU, the bigger picture is why I'm here. Appreciate you've fixed the content. How can these two tangential aspects be reconciled? Maybe leave it a week? Widefox; talk 01:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says it is based on The Apprentice. This is supported by this article in The Florida Times-Union, which says:

The Next Internet Millionaire bills itself as an online version of shows like The Apprentice, which pit ambitious businesspeople against each other for a lucrative business deal for the winner.

Therefore, the lead is supported by the source. You wrote "the parts you left (lede and cats) were wrong".

Since you removed the category Category:American reality television series, the categorization now is accurate. Since I cleaned up the lead, the lead is now accurate. Do you have any outstanding concerns about the article's prose, which I completely rewrote?

Leaving the COI tag is unhelpful because the article has been rewritten by a non-COI editor. The cleanup is done. There is no reason to keep it up during the AfD because it wrongly indicates that the cleanup is not done and biases editors towards supporting deletion.

Cunard (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. The content is finally rewritten. Do you agree it's worth being cautious about a big promo/sockfarm/COI mess. You know we're evaluating this as part of the biggest one this year/ever? I welcome further scrutiny considering, and that's why this COI tag AfD is here, indicating to AfD participants that aspect (which may, or may not be 100% solved content wise now - you agree it wasn't after your original rewrite, right?). Disclosure of the catalyst (from my perspective) for the AfD isn't about biasing. My two reasons to keep are not challenged. Widefox; talk 01:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely rewrote the body of the article. I did not touch the lead, which I now have done by removing an unsourced part. The inaccurate category is a very minor issue. I don't find the tag helpful since as you've admitted, "The content is finally rewritten." Since the article was rewritten, the tag now is obsolete. But in the interest of not edit warring with you, I'll remove it after the AfD is closed. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think WP:IAR is a good reason to delete my hard work on a notable topic. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not fair, you chose to be in that BOGOF position. Your hard work results, in effect, of subsidising the (clandestine/illegal) market. WP/WM as an org should not set up people for failure, we need actual solutions to tackle the illegal market, and BOGOF does the opposite - incentivises it. You were fully aware it was a COI rescue (a BOGOF). You cannot afterwards complain. Short term - good work, long term - destructive market force. Of course, if you can promise to fix all COI / TOU articles yes no problem. How can you even ask others to join you? It's counterproductive (per DGG), it's wikt:give hostage to fortune. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle (company) )Widefox; talk 12:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this really turns the situation on its head. An editor attaching his good reputation to a tainted topic and asking that it be retained on that basis? Wow. I'm jumping in now with my !vote. — Brianhe (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTPOINTy - there's making a point, and there's disrupting to make a point. In the short term this could be seen as POINTY, long-term we need to decide what's best as BOGOF editing may be seen as POINTY. We're an encyclopaedia not a newspaper WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT. If the subject is worthy we should include it, it could be argued that there's competing disruptive forces here, but let's be clear and agree one thing, WP is not a promo platform and there's no place for undisclosed COI / paid editing. That's the disruption. Mopping up after isn't (whichever form that may take). Widefox; talk 08:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of anyone else coining the phrase before I did, but it was me that called it BOGOF. Widefox; talk 21:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your accusation that I've written a promotional article and violated NPOV is vague but hurtful. I've striven for NPOV in The Next Internet Millionaire by including all points of view from the reliable sources about the subject.

    Here is the "Reception" section of the article:

    Wired reviewer Adario Strange said The Next Internet Millionaire was "slicker, more professional, and easily something you might find on broadcast television". Randi Zuckerberg criticized the show in The Daily Beast, writing, "The key fault in this otherwise slickly produced show about the oh-so-glamorous world of, um, internet marketing was the host, internet geek—I mean, web marketing guru (and shameless self-promoter)—Joel Comm."

    Riley Duncan of TechCrunch said he was unsure about whether to praise or criticize the show, writing, "On the one hand it's slickly produced and some of the expert advice is worth watching, particularly if you're in the ebook ... sorry Internet Marketing business. Yet on the other hand you just know that the whole show is a front for Joel Comm Inc; a vehicle from which he can further expose himself to a broader audience and ultimately sell more ebooks and related products."

    The Wired review is positive. The Daily Beast is negative, calling Joel Comm a "shameless self-promoter". TechCrunch has a mixed review, noting the show can be educational but that it is just "a front" for self-promoter Joel Comm. This presentation is compliant with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balance.

    Cunard (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is Cunard's right as an editor to rewrite, and that right should be defended. Widefox; talk 21:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Cirt (talk · contribs). I am the primary editor of the article's current version and have no conflict of interest with the subject. I don't intend for the article to be used for promoting the subject. I included mostly negative information about the show's reception since the sources were primary negative to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balance. What can I do to improve the article to convince you that I do not intend for it to be promotion? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I didn't intend to slight any personal individual Wikipedia editor themselves. I merely meant the tone itself came across as a bit promotional. I'll have to take another look to try to make more specific suggestions for improvement. Good luck to you, — Cirt (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Okay so the Reception sect appears to have only three sources or so with scant discussion in an in-depth nature. Perhaps you could first try expanding that particular sect with maybe at least three times as many sources and paraphrase (instead of quote) some of the discussion to see that way if it goes into greater depth. Just a suggestion, — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, Cirt (talk · contribs). Thank you for your helpful suggestion for improvement. The quotes in the "Reception" section definitely can be shortened, which I've done. I've shortened the quotes to be just several words instead of several sentences.

    I've reviewed the sources again, and I think only Wired, The Daily Beast, and TechCrunch comment about what they like and dislike about the show. The other two three, The Denver Post, Canwest, and The Florida Times-Union, don't comment about what they like and dislike about the show, so I was unable to include them in the "Reception" section.

    Cunard (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cirt (talk · contribs), are there any other changes I can make to address your concerns about the tone being too promotional? I am unable to expand the "Reception" section because only three sources review it. I don't want my hours of work on this notable topic to be wasted by the article's deletion. Cunard (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason.

    How is there "clear promotionalism"? Please point out specific instances of the article of promotionalism so I can fix them. I have no connection with the subject and rewrote the article because I found the subject notable.

    There is no borderline notability. The subject is clearly notable for having received significant coverage in Wired, The Daily Beast, TechCrunch, The Denver Post, Canwest, and The Florida Times-Union.

    Cunard (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cirt (talk · contribs), I've searched very hard for sources on Google and in news databases. I don't think there are any sources other than Wired, The Daily Beast, TechCrunch, The Denver Post, Canwest, and The Florida Times-Union. These seven sources allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Userfication won't work because I cannot expand the article further without more sources. Do you have access to news databases that contain sources about The Next Internet Millionaire not mentioned here? If yes, I'll gladly incorporate them into the article. But if not, I'm not sure how I can expand the article without more sources. I think only these seven sources have covered The Next Internet Millionaire in detail.

    Cunard (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel for ya, maybe try HighBeam Research, and also other archival online database resources that might be accessible via your local library like LexisNexis or NewsBank ? — Cirt (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already tried HighBeam Research which returned two articles from The Florida Times-Union and one article from The Pueblo Chieftain (all three of which I have already listed above). NewsBank lists the same sources mentioned above. I do not have access to LexisNexis.

I think the article in its current state is acceptable since it's neutral and reliably sourced. Although I too would like to expand the "Reception" section, I am unable to because no other available sources discuss The Next Internet Millionaire. With seven sources, there is enough material to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, so would you consider supporting keeping the article?

Cunard (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might try LexisNexis which you could access at your local library, or ask for help from the reference librarian. Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library might be able to help you out. — Cirt (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My local library does not have LexisNexis access and nor does Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. If you have access to LexisNexis, would you please check for The Next Internet Millionaire articles for me? Cunard (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional. – the rewritten article is not promotional. Please specifically point out where you believe it's promotional.

    While I applaud the efforts of Cunard (and others) to research references, this is simply the wrong place to be directing those energies. – it is not your place to direct volunteer editors where to direct their energies.

    Once the selection criteria is biased, no cleanup efforts can correct that bias. – this is wrong per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. I have corrected any Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues here. It is false to say that once a non-neutral article has been created, its issues never can be remedied.

    That you don't like the topic because of its origins is not a valid reason to delete a rewritten neutral article about a notable topic.

    Cunard (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2015 (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.
More