1

I think that we should consider something like, holding those types of articles to a much higher standard. If they don’t fit it, NFD|ADV.

2

One thing that it will do is make it easier to decide whether or not to put an ADV on it. Even if the title has the subject, a bad adv is just that.

3

I think it depends on the subject. An article about using iTunes should be allowed because iTunes is well-known software, and we aren’t advertising it. An article about using the brand new MusicBox 6000 should be deleted.

4

Those aren’t the type of articles that I was referring to. I meant the ones that people run across and they aren’t sure what to do with them.

5

BUMPing this thread

6

I like @Eric Wester’s view as communicated to me in talk page messages:

  1. I’m sure you’ve likely read through the brand name guidelines as it relates to the deletion policy. Hopefully by providing my own interpretation of these guidelines it will shed some light on why I voted the way I did. If an article clearly exists for the sole purpose of promoting a relatively unknown or apparently spammy product or service, it doesn’t really belong on wikiHow. The site receives a ton of readership and we don’t want to give a first time reader here a bad first impression if they come across an article that seems to be a blatant advertisement. Although the article did include the name of the product in the title, it wasn’t written to a standard that I would consider acceptable to keep on the site. In order for me to want to keep a “promotional-type” article on the site, it’s needs to be just about featured article quality where we should be proud to show it off as one of the finer pieces of how-to advise from our site (an example is How to Use iTunes). It should include helpful, step-by-step instructions with detailed images to follow each step, and a video, if applicable (none of which should appear to be spammy).

  2. It might seem like I have really high standards for articles that might come across as an advertisement - I do! Keeping too many lesser quality articles on wikiHow can damage our reputation. Especially recently, there’s been a drive to increase article quality even further, so this is one small way that I can help achieve our goal.Thanks for your response. Keep in mind that I only hold these very high standards for promotional-type articles as well as character (how to be like) articles. And although I don’t require that they be featured article-ready right out of the gate, I would expect them to be near-FA quality. Oftentimes the authors behind these articles are actually working for the company that offers the product or service being promoted and we’re simply providing advertising for them, which isn’t our purpose here. I agree with you that almost all articles can be saved from deletion, but we have such a plethora of spammy articles contributed that I believe editors’ precious time (such as your own) would be better spent saving articles that will be more helpful to a larger audience (and let the original author spend their own time to edit the article, because if they truly understand our mission, they’ll take the time to improve the article).

7

Bump

8

Agree with @Ttrimm @alabaster and @Eric Borderline advertising isn’t needed and shouldn’t be accepted even if tweaks can be made to let it barely comply. After 10 years, wikiHow should be more polished and professional.

9

My thought is that articles about using a well known and popular product/service are fine, but articles about some new thing that nobody’s heard of before should be deleted. The Google test is good for determining this, if you can find references to the product/service somewhere that isn’t for promoting it (such as a Wikipedia article), then it’s probably known enough tip be kept. Otherwise deletion seems like the right choice. And when I say an article about using the thing, I mean actually using the product. There can be a little background information in the intro, but it shouldn’t be about how great the thing is, just an unbiased guide to using it.

10

I have written too many articles for ‘unknown’ software to agree with that one, wholeheartedly. If it is a how to, is WELL done (not just basic BS steps and it kinda looks like one), then I am fine with it. The rest, I agree.