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 and stubbify. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Casagrande[edit]

Marco Casagrande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article is part of a massive astroturfing campaign relating to Casagrande Labs. Numerous SPAs have been creating articles citing nothing but their own web site, or seeding others. Wikipedia is not here to promote your business. DarkAudit 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Non-notable subject.Stellatomailing 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. A very notable contemporary artist and architect. Contemporary Art -magazine, Montreal Biennale description, Finland Office information in Taiwan, Architectural Review, Taiwan Journal. Page needs formatting though. — PeterDavey1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • This user is a confirmed sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Britisharchitecturefoundation23. DarkAudit 04:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep from the list of commissions and prizes, an important architect. There are some spammy sections to be removed, and some additional rewriting to do. An editing question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Spammers and astroturfers should not be rewarded for their disruption of Wikipedia. DarkAudit 04:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's assume good faith: the person adding these articles may not know that what they're doing is against Wikipedia policy. I see no reason why a clearly notable person should be ignored because they (or, more likely, someone who knows them or admires them) are using Wikipedia incorrectly but in good faith. A properly written and sourced article on this individual will improve Wikipedia. No reason to be punitive. --Charlene 09:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • When the list of users involved is as many as seven or eight users (not counting IP edits), it's difficult, if not impossible to assume good-faith. The edit history and amount of duplicate articles involved in the campaign show that this is not some well-meaning newbie, but a concerted effort to bend Wikipedia to their own ends. DarkAudit 13:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per DGG. Clearly notable. The spammy material should be removed, but the article is quite informative too. Stammer 07:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable, just remove spam and advertising. --ML 08:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not necessarily with prejudice. But any article with the sentence fragment Cross disciplinary, radical and ecologically conscious nature of creative work moving freely in between architecture, urban planning, environmental art and other disciplines of art and science in its lead paragraph needs to be rewritten from the ground up. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Good-faith goes out the window when the crew involved spams unrelated articles like Ross Martin. This is not a question of notability from my view. This is willful abuse of Wikipedia. DarkAudit 14:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . Editing needed. Berlage Institute— Preceding unsigned comment added by Archseeker (talk • contribs) — ArchSeeker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • This user is a confirmed sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Britisharchitecturefoundation23. DarkAudit 04:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Puppetry confirmed There is no longer any question. This is not a good-faith article, but spam and conflict of interest. Best to burn and start over. DarkAudit 18:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubbify and start fresh. The fellow appears to be notable, so deletion would be inappropriate, even if the use of 20 sockpuppets in promoting Casagrande and his work would make it a real pleasure. However, the extensive bad-faith editing means we can't trust a word of the contributions. Most should be rolled back, and this article should be stubbed, saving only references to reliable sources. William Pietri 23:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the spammy stuff has been removed now. The "sockpuppet" is apparently a fast learner. Stammer 05:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't learn fast enough to keep from getting blocked. Most of the red links in the article are a result of the cleanup effort to remove the other spam articles and spam links. DarkAudit 05:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, book he wrote is very known in Finland, he has also been in the public as an architect. --Tbonefin 10:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the book is very notable. I'm not sure about the architecture merits, but at least as a writer he is absolutely notable enough. --Jannex 10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article and its notability stand on their own, regardless of the circumstances of their creation. Given the sources provided, the article stays; its creator can be dealt with in a different court of action. Alansohn 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per DarkAudit Modernist 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Notability isn't everything, especially when it comes to willful abuse of Wikipedia for one's own ends. Because of the behavior of the (now blocked) authors, everything in the article is suspect. Every word is tainted with conflict of interest and is no longer reliable. There are those who have said 'don't throw out the baby with the bathwater' during this incident. Well, this baby was the one who willfully, and with malice aforethought, tainted the bathwater. DarkAudit 14:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes content should be edited to be more objective and instructive. Notable work useful to begin discussing crossover architecture (possible new topic). Pitouflette 3:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) — Pitouflette (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment This was never a case about notability. This was a case about willful abuse of Wikipedia solely to promote a man and his firm, perpetrated by an army of puppets. The only edits to this article unrelated to this AfD nomination have been by these puppets. As such, they are completely without merit. Not one word of this article is reliable due to conflict of interest. Not. One. Word. It needs to be stripped down to it's barest of bones and started over. Deletion and recreation would insure that no record of the puppet's contribution would be acknowledged as worthy of inclusion. They have abused Wikipedia, and should not be rewarded. DarkAudit 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please it is notable and all erasure votes are better reasons for editing really yuckfoo 01:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Was notable as an writer/war crimes suspect even before career as artchitect. -- Petri Krohn 23:44, 4 June 2007 (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.