Talk:Kenya Institute of Media and Technology

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because it clearly refers to an educational institute in a developing country. It would be most unfriendly to delete this article without allowing more time for improvement. Not everyone has access to the resources of the developed world. They should be given a fair chance to contribute to WP. --Greenmaven (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually my rational was incorrect, I meant to tag for G11 since the article is written like an advertisement. Rather than assume I'm a new editor, which comes off as condescending considering I have some 4000 edits on this account and much more as an IP user, assume that I might have a different interpretation of some CSD criteria than you. Although the rules are written quite concisely, it's inevitable that there will be differences in interpretation. N^oformation ^Talk 07:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant to be friendly. I suggested you might be a "new editor" because you seem to have been an active editor for about one month only. If that is the case, I now suggest that it might be reasonable for you to be a little more careful in assigning "speedy deletion" tags. WP policy is "don't bite the newbies" See Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. This message is meant to be helpful and protective of other editors who may not have your level of IT expertise. Best wishes --Greenmaven (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine but as I wrote in my edit summary when I struck my previous comments, this isn't appropriate for an article talk page. This article is written like an advertisement and so it is tagged as G11, I'm not sure what your point of contention is here. I admitted that I tagged it as A7 by mistake and adjusted my tag. N^oformation ^Talk 10:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Btw, there is nothing in WP:BITE that prohibits a page being CSD'd if it meets the criteria. The only other guiding policy on the matter I can think of is the 10 minute grace period before tagging new articles with A1 or A3. N^oformation ^Talk 10:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is not written as an "advertisement" any more so than thousands of articles on WP about companies or other organisations. Could we agree that this is a first draft and the originator of the article deserves a period of grace in order to conform to WP standards? This is that person's first attempt to create an article. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That other pages are written like advertisements is not a justification for anything and it's totally irrelevant; those pages should also be tagged if they meet the criteria. We can agree it's a first draft but we can not agree that the user gets an excessive (i.e. more than ten minutes) grace period because of it, that's not how CSD policy is setup - there's a reason it's called speedy deletion. As you recommended, this can be moved to userspace, I don't really give a shit if he rewrites it and recreates it, but as of now it violates G11 critera and thus is tagged as a G11.N^oformation ^Talk 11:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's also pretty much a copyright violation from http://www.kimt.ac.ke/about_us.html -- John of Reading (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the copyright violation - a straight cut and paste of the final paragraph. Can this be moved to the originator's User page as a subpage while he/she fixes its shortcomings? --Greenmaven (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing the CSD tag

There has been no further discussion for about an hour, and I have removed the cut and pasted material and some of the phrases that could be defined as 'promotional'. So I am removing the CSD tag. Please feel free to tag it again if it still appears to deserve it. Best wishes to all stake-holders and editors who have contributed --Greenmaven (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Retagged as G12. You can't start with copyrighted material and then modify it to not look like the original - that's still a copyright violation. Articles need to be written from the ground up. N^oformation ^Talk 21:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly more of a grey area than that. Given that speedy deletions are to be inherently uncontroversial, I don't see how it's going to be deleted. We'll see though. OlYeller^Talktome 21:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at the duplication report, it's still a clear violation. N^oformation ^Talk 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't really agree or disagree. It's close but I'm not sure it's enough to speedily delete it. I'm not declining the db for a reason, though. OlYeller^Talktome 21:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the controversy, there is no controversy here. Greenmaven didn't dispute the G11 criteria, he said there should be an exception and that other articles are also written like advertisements. That's not an argument against the tagged criteria, it's called Special pleading and since it's specifically asking for an exception with no policy based reason, it can't be construed as a controversy, imho :) N^oformation ^Talk 21:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The controversy is with me. It's not unambiguous. Declining the speedy. Feel free to take it to AfD. OlYeller^Talktome 22:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What say we compromise by removing all unsourced content and having just a sentence lead? It can be expanded later I suppose. N^oformation ^Talk 22:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I can get on board with that. OlYeller^Talktome 22:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll get on that later tonight N^oformation ^Talk 00:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute not over

I dispute both G11 and G12 as grounds for deletion. I need more time to study the details of this assertion that either G11 or G12 apply, and to look into the possibility of bringing the article to the required standard, and I would appreciate the article being left alone until I can do that. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So you don't actually understand the criteria but you dispute it's application? That's rich. Anyway, read above, the CSD matter is settled. N^oformation ^Talk 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not appropriate when discussing issues with other editors. I am working on this article now. The matter is not settled. --Greenmaven (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's a policy that says I can't be sarcastic I'd love to see it (note, I'm being sarcastic, if there's a policy about sarcasm I probably wouldn't want to see it because it would be boring). The sarcasm made a point: you were sitting here arguing with me about whether a page meets the criteria and you didn't know what the criteria was; that's asinine. Anyway, if you read above you'll see that the CSD matter is settled. You can choose not to read above (as you clearly haven't), but that won't unsettle the matter. N^oformation ^Talk 04:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding G11

The article would need to be "exclusively promotional" and not written from NPOV. Neither are true. Case for G11 fails --Greenmaven (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to 5 hours ago. N^oformation ^Talk 04:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding G12

The article would need to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. In it's currently edited form that may not be so, or could easily made to be not so.

However, I have discovered that Jackson "Musibi" is the name of the Institute's website developer. The copyright may therefore belong to him or to the Institute, thus making it not a copyright violation, but a single sourced and therefore inadequately verified article, without independent verification from a credible source. I have therefore put new tags on the article.

This should show that this article is not a candidate for CSD immediate deletion, although it has serious (rectifiable) shortcomings. I am writing this partly to inform User:Musibi of these requirements. Hopefully he has been following the discussion.

I hope this dispute has been a useful learning experience. It has been for me --Greenmaven (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia or copyright works. Even if you own the copyright, unless you specifically take steps to legally donate the material, it cannot be included here. And again, read above, the matter has been settled. You have been wasting your time arguing with exactly no one for about 5 hours now. N^oformation ^Talk 05:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You have stated several times that the matter has been settled. However, things are not settled because one, or even two people say so. The aim on WP is consensus. I am still here because I disagree with your unilateral decision to reduce the article by, as you have put it: "removing all unsourced content and having just a sentence lead". I have taken this to mean 'reducing the article to a single sentence lead', which I object to. Normal practice would be to add , where necessary, as I have done. Therefore I suggest that the article be left as it is; by that I mean improved rather than whittled down to almost nothing. This is a work in progress. Please have some respect for the work that has gone into this. It will be 'settled' when you and I can reach some agreement. --Greenmaven (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is non negotionable. Feel free to add anything you want to the article as long as it's sourced. My decision was not unilateral, it was with the admin above. You can disagree, that's fine. Just provide sources and add information and stop arguing about CSD criteria when it's already been settled that the page will not be CSD'd. N^oformation ^Talk 06:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm with NoFormation here. Given the unreliable nature of the subject's official website, I inherently doubt anything that it claims (please view their website to see that most of it has been under construction for over a year). It feels like there's a lot of boasting going on so I think it's more than OK to require that major claims have at least some sort of reference to verify the dubious claims. OlYeller^Talktome 13:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to leave things as they stand. I have not been able to find any verification of their earlier claims. Best wishes. Happy editing. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenya Institute of Media and Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326071946/http://www.dalcafrica.com/colleges.pdf to http://www.dalcafrica.com/colleges.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)