Talk:Authonomy

Hmm, if you speedy within 30 seconds of an article being created and while still being researched, its no wonder we can't retain new editors. Sjc (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have asked the tagger to be a little more patient in cases like this in the future. It was clear to me from the outside that a CSD was not the way to go: plenty of sources are out there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironically I am on the Task Force part of whose remit is to solve precisely this sort of over-zealous abreaction, and to generally improve community health. It's always nice to be able to back up one's arguments with case history, and this is a lovely bit of prima facie evidence. Thanks for your response btw Shawn. Sjc (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, for my forensics, I note that this was speedied under A7:

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organisations, web content).

The salient part of this clause reads:

An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. [..]

At the time of the speedy A7 the article clearly stated that authonomy was owned by HarperCollins, itself a subsidiary of News Corporation, the second largest media conglomerate in the world. As such, it is patently not at any point an A7 candidate since NewsCorp is subject to constant scrutiny and all its activities at some level or other are inherently notable, in the minutest detail. Sjc (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

--Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck finding citations from organisations not to some extent owned or controlled by Newscorp. I'm done here and I'm done with Wikipedia. This is frankly an abusive community. Sjc (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)