User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2008/December
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Scientology and sex
Hi Xymmax, could I ask you to please have another look at this Keep decision? The reasoning given for the Keep decision cites consensus rather than policy or guidelines. In my view a number of the Keep arguments were newbie arguments that are plainly indefensible from a policy or guideline point of view -- such as commending the article for its use of primary sources: "primary sources only help to avoid misconceptions -- it is coming directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak", or reliance on tangential references to sex in articles on Scientology to establish the notability of "Scientology and sex" as a topic. Please see what you can do, and perhaps have a look at the secondary sources that the article actually does cite. I still don't see a single source that says, Okay, this is a topic worth having an article about. Cheers, Jayen466 11:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Heads up: Jayen466 (talk · contribs) left a similar message complaining about the outcome of this AfD at the talk page of Vassyana (talk · contribs). Forum shopping? Cirt (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am sure you are also aware that the AfD was initially closed as "Keep" by a non-admin (at the time it had unanimous "Keep" consensus aside from the nominator), was brought to DRV, brought back to AfD again, before you finally closed it as "Keep". Cirt (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
First AfD, Second AfD, initial non-admin close with unanimous "Keep" consensus, taken to DRV and reopened, closed again as "Keep", by an administrator. Beating a dead horse at this point. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Xymmax: Please note - Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has been cautioned by Vassyana (talk · contribs) to be careful to avoid venturing into forum shopping, beating a dead horse, or refusing to acknowledge the working consensus. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) Hello all. I've taken some time to re-read the discussion and my close, and I believe that I correctly read the consensus there as a "keep." Clearly, in cases in which our content policies are violated unambiguously, the closing administrator is obligated to delete the offending article notwithstanding opinion to the contrary. However, in most cases, the application of policy to a particular article is to be determined by the group's discussion, rather than by fiat. In those cases, the closer's role is limited to figuring out what consensus can be distilled from the discussion. This article, in my opinion, is of the second type, and there was a clear consensus to keep. While it is not a content policy, CONSENSUS is policy, and I try to give defer to working consensus whenever possible. Thanks for consulting with me, and please feel free to proceed to WP:DRV if you feel there was an error in the AfD process here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response, and I agree with your assessment of the close. Cirt (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback, Xymmax. I don't think I'll pursue DRV further at this stage. However, Cirt acknowledged in the AfD that content reliant on primary sources alone should be pruned. We've started discussing this on the article's talk page, and I trust we'll get the article right eventually. Cheers, Jayen466 14:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
AfD closure
This is a bit odd. Perhaps you didn't see the previous close? Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, didn't reload the page after reading the discussion. Thanks, I'll get to undoing. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sladillard
You may wish to email the user as well, just in case he doesn't check his talk page. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent suggestion, and I will do it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You closed this AfD as Delete but didn't delete the page. I'm not sure enough of your rationale to delete it for you, and besides know that that can cause confusion so I thought I just point it out for you to look into. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- LOL... I guess I should work on my rationale, eh? Thanks for the message, I forgot to push the button. I'll take care of it now. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Xymmax, I have to disagree with you on the deletion of the Petsense article. Petsense is a retail store chain with 25 stores across the country. While agree with you that the article sounded too much like an advertisement, I feel that Petsense is a large enough business entity to necessitate a Wiki article. I was reading over the Talk page on deletion and a day after deletion we had a article reported on us in the Palestine Star and ten days later an article in the Mt. Airy News two of our newest markets. The problem as you may know is that these are rarely static links and if added to the page to verify Petsenses notariaty they may be here today gone tomorrow. Is it possible for myself to recreate the article more to the Wikipedia:CORP notability guideline, with out it being auto deleted? --Ben Shroyer (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Replied under the separate heading below. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting on the above-mentioned RFCU. Incidentally, it was my very similar comment here at the original SSP that led to me being accused of being a sock puppet in the first place. As I have noted before, I have some very serious concerns about the whole incident, and I appreciate that you took the time to note your opinion. Regards, --HoboJones (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Petsense Deletion
Have you had time to consider my previous message? --Ben Shroyer (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Ben. I'm sorry, I've been off line for a few days, RL and all. I tend to agree that Petsense seems like the type of company that should have an article, but as I mentioned when closing the AfD discussion, independent sources were lacking. I think that the Mt. Airy paper article is basically a trivial mention, and not much help. The Palestine article is good - focused on the company directly, and much more helpful. I'm willing to undelete the article to your user space if you are interested in working on the article. Would you like a shot at it? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure Ill take another Stab at it, and thank you for your help with this. --Ben Shroyer (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, it's at User:Benshroyer/Sandbox/Petsense. Good luck, and let me know when you're ready fo it to come back into mainspace. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Asperger etc.
Thanks for the note; I don't typically speedy anything that's in a discussion, unless it's a special case, which I saw this to be. Being aware that there had been the previous discussion and that there was the current one, I deleted them because (1) I agreed with TenPoundHammer's calling them attacks, and (2) there was no opinion expressed except delete on the discussion. As I say, I'd not normally do this if not for these two factors. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's a perfectly reasonable position;no worries here. Take care. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Xymmax,
I noticed that you closed the AfD discussion for the Futaba Channel article a couple days ago. I disagree with your rationale and thought I'd discuss it with you. I think that many of the keep arguments provided valid rebuttals to the nominator's argument of failing to meet WP:WEBSITE. The summary of the policy in a nutshell states that article should not be advertisements and that the website should be notable and of historical significance. I don't think anybody tried to make the point that the article was an advertisement, but several keep !votes pointed out the Futaba Channel's notability and historical significance by noting that its software/template has been used to create clones of the original Japanese site which have proven notability. And based on that, it can be argued that WP:WEBSITE doesn't even apply since the article isn't just about a website anymore, it's based on an engine, design, however you want to characterize it. In addition, a couple editors brought up WP:COMMONSENSE which I think is valid. Based on the fact that a majority of the !votes supported keeping the article and the website has an Alexa rating of 3,892, these points themselves aren't proof of notability but they demonstrate that there is potential for notability to be proven.
I think that the there were valid points made on both sides. Because of this, I think it would've been more appropriate to close the discussion as a keep per no consensus rather than delete. In addition, this was the article's first nomination for deletion and I don't believe that the article was given enough of a chance to be enhanced. The article was clearly in need of cleanup, but I don't think that's grounds to conclude that no reliable sources exist to prove the subject's notability. Also, articles can be nominated multiple times, so if there really aren't reliable sources that can't be found to prove notability then it could be nominated again. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank goodness. I was beginning to think no one cared about this article. I appreciate your comments. I have taken the time to re-read the AfD discussion, and I still can't shake the opinion that the deletes got the better of it. I agree with you that WP:WEB may not be the most fair set of criteria to use with Futaba Channel, which is why in my close I referred all of WP:N. You used the term "notablity" a couple of times in your comment, but of course in Wikipedia terms there was no showing of coverage by independent reliable sources. The common sense argument, in my opinion, actually was the strongest argument that the keep votes had. I agree, we have articles on a lot of sites with lower rankings. Still, although it was not challenged in the AfD, the lack of sourcing is so severe that one could fairly argue that substantial portion of the article even failed WP:V. In the absence of sources, I simply didn't see how the subject could be written about in an encyclopedic manner. I performed a thorough search for sources, and came up empty. Many of the participants in the Afd I know to be quite experienced editors, and several of them speak Japanese to a greater or lesser extent. No one was able to produce even a single relevant source. Ultimately, this is why I closed the AfD as delete. I will state that I do feel that Futaba is the type of site we should cover, and I all ready had contacted one of the AfD participants to seek some help in locating Japanese sources. And, while no one has taken me up on it yet, I will happily userfy this article for anyone to improve. I too will continue to look for sources, and if any can be locating, I'm willing to restore. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate the time you took to give me a detailed response for your reasoning. While I respect it and you bring up very good points, it's my opinion that if it's believed that there is potential for notability and verifiability, then it should be considered a clean-up issue rather than a deletion issue. If after a time period the article remains unimproved in regard to sources, then that would give more credence to the belief that notability can't be proven and therefore then prompt an AfD. I also think more can be gained from having the article readily available rather than having it userfied since exposure to the general community increases the chance that more editors will work to improve the article if it's tagged as in need of improvement, and users who would want the article userfied would still work on the article anyway. In short, it's my opinion that deletion may have been premature. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Xymmax. I put some work into adding references at User:Kissable&Quiet/AbsolutePunk.net. In wading through sources in my library's database, I came across many musician profiles in newspapers that say something along the lines of "and they received a glowing review on AbsolutePunk.net." I think there are enough third-party non-trivial mentions to indicate that it meets the general notability guideline. If we do move it back to mainspace, we will also have to undelete the prior history for GFDL purposes. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent. I'll restore the history and move it back (maybe not in that order). Thanks for the improvements :)Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- A pleasure. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Quick question
You commented that internal search was inferior to google for the "advanced user". I'm a fairly advanced user; I'm interested. Do you have an example google search URL that I can play round with? Thanks :) And happy new year! FT2 (Talk | email) 15:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I just meant that if you take full advantage of the various restrictors, you can leverage your search significantly. I suspect you use many/most of these all ready, but a good reference is here. Hope that helps. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!
Appreciate it, and have a happy new year! Hutch1970 (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to help. Best to you and yours. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)