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. I encourage all parties to continue discussing the content of the article on its respective talk page. In general, however, there seems to be a consensus that the subject itself is notable, which is the scope of an AFD. bibliomaniac15 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TSLAQ[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

TSLAQ (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)

This is a biased (fails WP:NPOV) article that attempts to legitimize a non notable group of stock manipulators and, by doing so, the article itself is part of a securities fraud online manipulation strategy known as short and distort. The article creator and major contributor — QRep2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and appears to be closely tied to the subject of the article, TSLAQ. All edits to the article from several different editors that talk about this group’s controversies, including how this group has a history of spreading rumors and false information, are immediately reverted by the clearly biased article creator. Iamchinahand (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing stated above is true; there is no evidence that TSLAQ engages in short and distort, I'm not closely tied to the subject (I am not part of TSLAQ, I am researching it), and there have been plenty of edits that have been left or discussed at length before being kept on the entry. I haven't seen a single well-thought argument on this page as to why TSLAQ should be deleted, just flagrant assertions. QRep2020 (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did make my account to work on the TSLAQ article, as I believed there were important changes I wanted to implement on the article. I am not affiliated with TSLAQ, and I do not support the group's actions. Anyone can look at my edit history on the TSLAQ article and see that I have only wanted transparency on the actions of TSLAQ, many of which were opposed by QRep2020 for reasons I thought were illegitimate, again all documented in the talk section of the article. Phyronian (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phyronian: I now see your attempted edits to the article clearly and how they were all reverted by User:QRep2020. Please feel free to add your vote to this AfD as you seem to clearly understand the situation with this article. Iamchinahand (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly Iamchinahand (talk) did not even bother to read the rather robust TSLAQ Talk page as the user removed contributions from numerous editors who discussed their updates at length. This call for deletion is really rather unsubstantiated and likely for biased reasons. I'd also like to add that this particular entry has been repeatedly vandalized in the past and that if one examines the article's update history what is happening now looks very similar to what has happened in the past. QRep2020 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author of article claiming any other viewpoint is so-called "vandalism" furthers claim that this is a biased author and a poorly written article. The author reverts any edits, including edits from User:Tintdepotcom (User:Tinting2020) and User:Cihwcihw, that include mention of the major controversies of this group. This is a malicious group that will do anything to hurt Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla) for financial gains under the false-cover that they are "anti-fraud". The article is written in a fashion that gives credibility to what many believe to be a very malicious group without any mention of the group's serious controversy. Anyone that reads the articles talk page can see that the subject of the article is a malicious group. It is also apparent that the author of the article goes to great lengths to try to appear to be neutral and unaffiliated with the group in his so-called "Statement of Neutrality and Non-involvement". This is very fishy. I don't believe this article is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Unless this article is rewritten to include more than the one completely biased viewpoint, it will be deleted. Iamchinahand (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: This article should be deleted because it fails WP:NPOV, a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. The article can not be "cleaned up" because the article's creator reverts any edits that would make the article meet these guidelines. Further, the article's creator claims "vandalism" with all attempted edits to make the article satisfy the NPOV guidelines. Iamchinahand (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iamchinahand, you're not making your case to me, I'm not the decider. I was trying to gently point out that this AFD is a mess. Schazjmd (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iamchinahand, if that is the case then the article creator needs to be addressed, rather than the article itself be deleted. We have plenty of mechanisms for dealing with such actions, which include blocking of editors and protection of articles, but not deletion of articles on notable subjects. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, I have yet to see any evidence or argument in the AfD discussion as to the article's perspective being non-neutral beyond saying it is "apparent" (as in either somehow the perspective taken in the article is self-evident or known via intuition). Secondly, the claim that TSLAQ should somehow not be intellectually represented because they are allegedly "malicious" and conduct "security fraud" is irrelevant for the very reason previously given though misconstrued: Wikipedia houses reference to individuals, groups, organizations, etc. of all types, manner, focus, etc. and takes no normative position as to how "bad" or "good" the referents behave or are by nature. Finally, for now, these claims have been waged before on the TSLAQ talk page and were answered and discharged; as the article has not changed substantially since said dialog, the initial claims continue to possess no merit. QRep2020 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to add that on Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup it reads: "If the subject of an article has been proven to pass notability guidelines, there is no need for a deletion discussion". Given the various third-party major news articles on the topic, the previous discussion on Talk: TSLAQ, and the fact that the article has been live for months now, one can conclude that it passes the notability guidelines. Therefore, there's no need for this or any deletion discussion. When can this discussion be closed at the earliest and is there anything that can be done to prevent it from happening again? QRep2020 (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why my recent contribution was deleted. I simply stated my argument and provided a hyperlink to evidence of TSLAQ activity. Who is behind this deletion effort? Why don't they post specifications for what they would like to see done to the article? There is plenty of evidence. There is a phenomenon to be described. Is there some wikipedia rule that objects or situations have to be five or more years old to be described in Wikipedia? Who are you and what is nature of the problem? Just because you are more conversant with Wikipedia formatting, does not mean you should exercise dictatorial deletions. The age of fable (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw some specifications and suggestions in the notes on the History page for this AfD from moderators. QRep2020 (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution to every problem is not article deletion. This article has plenty of problems, but the way to fix them is by editing the article, with, as I said above, the admin tools of blocking and protection being available if editors don't follow policy and talk-page consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does one go about properly writing/editing a Wikipedia article about an anonymous online disinformation organization that has convinced some (including some in the media) that it is legitimate? Is there a Wikipedia page that explains best practices? Iamchinahand (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way that we go about writing any Wikipedia article: by basing it on what is written about the subject in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if it was that simple, but disinformation aimed at the media causes unknowing media to write about it as if it is the truth (see Short and distort). This disinformation reported by media then becomes an "independent reliable source" that can easily be manipulated on Wikipedia. In fact, one of the authors that the TSLAQ article references, Linette Lopez from Business Insider, allegedly lost her job because of low quality reporting on Tesla. Again, we are talking about an anonymous online group. For normal topics, I agree that we just need independent reliable sources. This article does not belong on Wikipedia. Iamchinahand (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The media, outlets like CNBC, LATimes.com, Wired, Bloomberg.com, is spreading disinformation? Seriously? Assuming that is the case - which it isn't by a long-shot - what exactly is the "disinformation" that these world-renowned publications are spreading? Also, where does it state that online anonymous groups are not allowed to be featured on Wikipedia? QAnon details an anonymous online group and I don't see that page getting tormented. QRep2020 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

non notable fake company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsla1337 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • TSLAQ isn't a company and there's no argument or reasoning included, so I imagine the vote from "Tsla1337" won't be counted towards the consensus judgment? QRep2020 (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2020 (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