Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 7 Deletion review archives: 2008 July July 9 >

8 July 2008[edit]

  • the defenestrator – Speedy deletion endorsed. Although there is some debate hair-splitting its status between an organization and a published object, there is clear consensus that the process was either correct (valid A7), or was so insignificantly violated that the result should stand. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The defenestrator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

In another shining example of putting vandalism before encyclopedic value, the article on the defenestrator was deleted out of process, apparently because it had been created by an editor who ran afoul of the administration. The article, on a anarchist zine published by the well-known Philadelphia A-Space collective, was being maintained by the Anarchism Task Force. It was speedied under A7, the purpose of which is basically to hold back the tide of promotional articles on bands/people/organisations (not publications) at WP:NEWPAGES. Given that the offending editor has presumably been banished, the risk of inappropriate promotion is mitigated, which the Task Force will ensure. I understand that deleting the contributions of misbehaving editors is conventional; but I also put it to you that losing valuable articles on notable topics is not in the interests of the encyclopedia. I ask that the article be restored, concerns raised and if necessary, put through PROD/Afd. Deleting admin Athaenara has been notified of this discussion. Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion I can't see anything in the article that constitutes a claim of importance or significance. (Why the deleting admin mentioned the creator is beyond me; they have a clean block log, no talk page history, and no userpage history - so I conclude the user is irrelevant.) If the "newspaper" really (the article was completely lacking references beyond a link to the paper's website) only had 39 issues in 10 years, I have a hard time believing that any recreation will be viable. But certainly there is no prejudice against an attempt. I recommend the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the deleting admin mentioned the creator: my deletion summaries have evolved during the past six months or so. In addition to the reason(s), they often include the user who created the article, the user who tagged it, and occasional additional information. — Athaenara ✉ 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have me at a disadvantage as I cannot view the deleted article to verify what you say, but I still find your rationale...confusing. As administrator you are surely familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion, and specifically, you are well aware that publications cannot be deleted on grounds of failure to assert notability? You'll understand if I don't exactly grasp your argument. Regards, Skomorokh 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not much of one; the link to the google cache is in the list of links above for a reason. Try it... GRBerry 01:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I saw the article for the first time when it turned up in the CSD category. It was basically a self-description based on the publication's proprietary website. The article was created by user Defcollective (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in February 2007; I have no idea to what "deleted out of process" and "editor who ran afoul of the administration" may refer. WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising) also applied: "does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." My investigation found no reliable sources which supported its notability as per the verifiability policy. The article was tagged by L0b0t for deletion per WP:CSD#A7: "an article about a club or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." The rationale for deletion was sound and I followed through by deleting the article. — Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum I'm not sure of the etiquette here—I just want to make it clear that I won't oppose other administrators' actions (cf. wheel war). — Athaenara ✉ 22:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7 doesn't cover printed newspapers. RMHED (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, it does, what with a newspaper being an organization whose product is printed material. It's essentially the difference between, say, a book publisher and a book it publishes, and between a software company and the software it issues. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A newspaper is a product of an organization, it isn't an organization in and of itself. Therfore it isn't covered by an A7 speedy. RMHED (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having reviewed the deleted content and spot-checked the versions in history, I also failed to find an assertion of importance or significance in the article. The only source provided was a link to the newspaper's own website (which provided no evidence either). A quick google search returned little of relevance and nothing to provide a basis for expansion. Skomorokh asserts above that CSD criterion A7 does not apply to publications. In this case, I disagree. This article is about a newspaper. Newspapers are, with few exceptions, organizations covered under WP:CORP. I believe this was an allowable application of A7. If there is any evidence of notability, I have no objection to a listing to AfD but I haven't found any evidence yet. Rossami (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, WP:CORP isn't a speedy deletion criterion. — xDanielx T/C\R 09:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • One that doesn't indicate notability is. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said that WP:CORP was a speedy-criterion. What I said was that a newspaper is generally covered by WP:CORP, therefore, it is an organization and that, as an organization, I believe it can legitimately fall within the scope of the wording of A7. Rossami (talk)
  • Endorse deletion. I agree with Rossami - a newspaper is a group or organization covered under A7. Regardless, the nom hasn't indicated the article -does- indicate it's significance, so even if it's not covered under A7, I'm seeing very little point in restoring an article that clearly won't survive any other deletion process, expecially after more than a year of "being worked on". --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically an improper A7 deletion, but there is no way the deleted article would survive an AfD nomination. I'd be happy with it being userfied if someone is confident that they can establish notability, but it really would just be bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake to restore it in place. --Stormie (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The user has the choice of coming here directly, and while we suggest he contact the admin first, we do not require that he do so and I doubt that any such requirement would be accepted as policy. As for the deletion itself., media except web content can be not be deleted under A7, no matter how unimportant the subject is thought to be. A company publishing a newspaper of a book qualifies under WP:CORP, a newspaper or a book does not. I continue to be astounded that people here will defend deletions such as this that are flagrantly in opposition to deletion policy. DGG (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my opinion remains above. DGG is correct that failure to contact the deleting admin first is not reason to endorse deletion - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I'm not certain that there is a distinction to be drawn here between the periodical and the group or person publishing it. Certainly they don't go so far on the website as to identify a publishing individual or organization, as I've checked that. The concern that this may be beyond the drawn boundaries of A7 is reasonable; but again - Wikipeia is not a bureaucracy. I'd be happy to see this userfied if anyone produced evidence of even one independent and reliable source, but such are not to be found in the article. And for what looks to be a local interest and minority point of view zine publishing only once every three months, I'm not assuming that such sources exist. GRBerry 17:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Hair-splitting aside, it's textbook. If someone comes up with the evidence of notability (i.e; has multiple, reliable, and independent sources that have enough material to talk about it), go to town. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree that, per a rather stupid loophole in our CSD criteria, the article should not have been deleted. However, I have no confidence that it would even have a chance at an AfD. For that reason, I endorse the deletion, because undeleting and running it through an AfD just for process is bad. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • In Popular Culture – Deletion endorsed. While there are some understandable complaints about the extreme speed with which this debate was closed, there are no actual explanations of why the decision might have been the wrong one, except that the community didn't have the chance to comment. However, Luna's point that he was ignoring the rules deliberately has not been well countered: the proper way to counter such an argument is to argue that the decision itself is not the right thing for the encyclopedia. But instead, the only argument against using WP:IAR is that Luna Santin wasn't doing things in the normal way. In other words: the arguments against deletion are empty, but the arguments for the deletion are reasonable and substantial. I do hope Luna recognizes that in the future it may be better to just let the debate happen.

I would be completely convinced otherwise if someone had at least presented one reliable source about the proposed topic (that is, the use of "In popular culture" sections in Wikipedia articles). There is no reason to have this debate unless someone actually wants to have a real go at writing a serious article on this topic. If so, finding a reliable source would be a necessary first step anyway. So, if we do need to have further debate, someone needs prove it by providing a source. If you do that I will reverse my decision and allow an AfD to happen. – Mangojuicetalk 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
In Popular Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Prematurely deleted as WP:SNOW when there were more Keeps than Deletes. FYI, there is some discussion at the admin's talk page and another article of the same name seems to have been created now as a redirect. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist, sorry, but that was a really bad call. The rationale might have been colourable if the debate was over, but the early closure on top of that just isn't on. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the premature closure. Regardless of the nose-counts, this did not meet the required criteria for an early close. Given the subsequent edits to the page, though, a relisting is probably better than just reopening the current debate. Rossami (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand. "Required criteria" to ignore all rules? Do you actually disagree with the decision for any substantive reason? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please go read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means and in particular the section titled What "Ignore all rules" does not mean. IAR is not a license to ignore rules that help us make better decisions or rules that help us to work together with less friction. That discussion had substantive discussion both for and against. And while I probably would have argued for deletion myself, that was for the AFD process to sort out. The participants who thought that there might be an appropriate topic here deserved their chance to make their case as best they could. Your premature closure did nothing but create controversy where none existed before. Rossami (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're upset that I made a decision to implement what you profess was the appropriate outcome? There was a lot of text on the page, yes, but I would hardly call the debate "substantive," as I've already explained two or three times, including on this page (without retort, I might add). While I generally agree that leaving AfD pages open is the way to go, there are times when doing so only prolongs dramatic disruption, encourages false hopes, and wastes a lot of time for a lot of people to achieve a result that is clear from the outset -- this was one of those times. You say I've caused controversy and friction, but I rather believe I've seen a net reduction in both, since making the close. I've asked before, and will ask again: is there any concrete, specific reason to expect a longer discussion would ever return a different result? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're ignoring the controversy and friction that you've created here. We are now essentially running the AfD on this page, wasting far more time and effort that if you'd just allowed the AfD to run its course. Could there have been a different result? Certainly. Reading the same discussion, I could have seen a credible argument to merge-and-redirect (or redirect without merger) instead of to delete. This could have preserved the pagehistory for those who saw potentially useful content. No one had yet proposed that solution but if the discussion had been allowed to continue, that might have an outcome with no controversy. I don't know if that would have been the right outcome but shutting down the discussion prematurely was definitely the wrong outcome. Rossami (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ignoring the controversy? Demonstrably a false statement, since I'm actively participating in the discussion here and was quite responsive on my own talk page. Far more time and effort? Hardly, unless you think your own time is somehow exponentially more valuable than that of the many editors, new and old, who would continue to be drawn into a discussion rendered pointless by the fact it was essentially a done deal from the start. You mentioned redirect history; I'd be fine with restoring the redirect's history at this point, that hardly strikes me as worth quibbling over. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & relist an inappropriate use of WP:SNOW. RMHED (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Honestly I think that while WP:SNOW is questionable for the deletion debate, it should still apply here. The most appropriate handling of the popular XKCD link would be to reference the link in the popular culture article, as is done by a redirect, or as a notable mention of wikipedia in an external source on the wikipedia article. Since a separate article including the word 'In' is not sufficient as separate from the main popular culture article to merit its own article. Adding it would violate WP:UNDUE with respect to XKCD. Finally, this article is a wikipedia-reference, which means that creating a self-referential article of this type, based only on the XKCD article, violates the first principle of the WP:SELF guideline. In short, while I agree that invoking SNOW as early as it was is questionable from the deletion process, SNOW still holds for the ultimate fate of the article. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oveturn as more arguments to keep than delete can't possibly result in a snow closure. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would tend to disagree. Since the discussion is not a vote, the the issue is one of the arguments presented by either side. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Beg pardon? Since when has AfD been a matter of sheer numbers? Especially when the discussion is being flooded with fans from xkcd, from reddit, from forums, and so forth, and most of those fans are either brand new or returning from looong vacations to make obvious "Keep because it's funny!" votes that are, if anything, best discounted. I do see that several people have stated "it's notable," but only one of them bothered even trying to justify that claim with evidence, in spite of repeated requests... gee, it's almost as if they just know the right buzzwords to cover up a WP:ILIKEIT argument. Absent demonstrable notability, this is an obvious case of WP:SELFREF and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY/WP:NEO. Absent independent sourcing, this is an obvious case of WP:NOR that fails WP:V inherently. Absent sourcing that is not Randall Munroe of xkcd, the article seems to portray RPOV rather than that coveted WP:NPOV. Any admin can look at the deleted edits; the article was lifted almost verbatim from a recent xkcd comic; the article was a circus for xkcd fans, and nothing more. The experienced users aware of this fact seem to favor the deletion, as they've redirected the article, kept it redirected, and even semi- and then fully protected it in a redirected state.
      It is true that this closure was out of strictly interpreted process, but is there any serious reason to believe a longer debate would turn out any differently? Not the possibility of a reason, an actual one, mind you. If there is no such reason, continuing the AfD will only result in more flooding with no appreciable change in result.
      I encourage users commenting here to re-examine the AfD, with a particular eye for distinguishing between comments from active users knowledgeable in Wikipedia practice and policy, and those from drive-by users mostly prompted here from off-site. That done, I suspect you may see an entirely different discussion than you had previously. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer was correct in their statement that there was no way this would have been kept by any reasonable read of the debate - even if we leave aside the fact that this article was nothing more than blatant navel gazing, it had multiple policy violations as stated. This was reflected in the debate, in which pretty much every argument to keep could be outright discounted as having no basis in policy. While this is likely to be overturned due to a love of procedure over product, I will eat my hat if a relisted nomination results in anything other than a delete, rendering the overturn of the previous closure as little more than an exercise in futility and an application of procedure for it's own sake. That said, the closer deserves the thorough application of trout for a close that is so out of procedure that it was beyond inevitable to see it on DRV (and probably be overturned and re-listed and re-deleted). It'd have been far less of a headache to just let it run until it could be closed sans-snow. Shereth 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - do you want to implode the blogosphere or something? In any case, the article was totally non-serious and self-referential. Sceptre (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn. Oh my, How many times do I need to say this? avoid self-reference is a style guide. It in no way says we can't have articlres about Wikipedia related topics. And the notion of snow deleting when there is a clear majority favoring keeping is at best drama-enducing. Given how much Wikipedia's handling of pop culture has been discussed I would not be at all surprised if one could write a decent separate article on Wikipedia's pop culture. (The short little bit here definitely would work though)JoshuaZ (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC) weak endorse per observation by Hatless below. I still don't like Snowing things where the majority of people are favoring keeping. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is such an article, it can be found here. The fact that this is such an obvious place to include the XKCD reference is exactly why SNOW is being invoked so much here. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I didn't know about that, although it seems that Sceptre is now trying to make that into a redirect even though is has over 20 sources... Sigh. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ITHASSOURCES is not a reason for keeping. None of the sources discuss Wikipedia's effect on culture. It's a glorified trivia list. Sceptre (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of all there is nothing inherently wrong with well-sourced' trivia. Second of all, one can easily supply additonal secondary sources. See you at the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - we have a serious articles regarding this subject - wikipedia in popular culture and popular culture studies, and the deleted article was a self referential joke. PhilKnight (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, correct application of Wikipedia policies. Suggest you go and work on Bureaucracy in popular culture, a sadly absent article. --Stormie (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse That closure was kind of ballsy with the !votes as they were, but if we think the article doesn't have a chance, if doesn't have a chance. This DRV nomination (correct word?) only references the comments at the AfD, not the article's probable outcome, which is the operative decision rule. I see the objections raised on the talk page and their subsequent refutation and they don't convince me that this page (IPCIPC) was anything more than a lark based on the xkcd comic. SNOW doesn't apply to the number of comments on a nomination but that nomination itself, so in judging it we have to access whether the article has a chance in hell of avoiding deletion. Does anyone think so? (Also, filibuster doesn't mean Mr. Smith. More than one person can mount a filibuster) Protonk (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. These "battles between online communities" (in this case, Wikipedia vs. the xkcd fandom) are never helpful. Partisanship, partial knowledge of policies, and a vague, shared objective (to disseminate an inside joke) all set the stage for a schadenfreude-encouraging wikidrama that does not serve the interests of anyone involved. I am a huge fan of xkcd, and the reaction of its fanbase at large to this situation is distressing. This isn't something cool; it's not mailing Richard Stallman a katana and then attacking him with ninjas; it's not fusing sand into a glass necklace using lightning; it's not even geohashing: it's vandalizing an Internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The policies in this case are clear. Let's end this silly war by shutting down this last remaining battlefield. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I commend Luna Santin for bravely weathering this inevitable storm. Feezo (Talk) 05:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn - I would oppose the premature closing but I think the AfD would result in 'delete' anyway. For anyone who cares, let me explain a little of my logic. First of all, this does not violate Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Please read that guideline more closely and pay special attention to the heading Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid#Writing about Wikipedia itself, which specifically allows for "Articles about Wikipedia." (Of course, such articles still must be notable and supportable with sources.) Moreover, the phrase "in popular culture" is not just a Wikipedia thing, it is common in titles of articles across various mediums, as I have shown here on Luna Santin's talk page. I personally believe a good article could be written on the phrase and how it has become a genre of article, not just on Wikipedia. As Luna pointed out, however, the sources I gave discuss various topics in popular culture, not "In popular culture" articles themselves. As I admitted, I doubt there is currently an article out there about "In popular culture" articles themselves, the one I propose writing would probably be the first. At which you may cue the cries of "WP:N!" and "WP:NOR!" and I can't really disagree. Still, believe it or not there were some of us who supported the article who were not simply xkcd fanboys, and I think it was not an appropriate use of WP:SNOW. ~ FerralMoonrender (T • C) 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have such an article as you describe, and it already treats the XKCD comic with exactly the treatment it should have, a mention as a notable joke, but not an article in its own right as a joke. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, of course. Process or not, there was never a wood chip's chance in hell this little piece of self-referential trivia would have become a legitimate article. In fact, it could legitimately have been speedied from the start. Nice joke though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Endorse. The original article should be undeleted so we can see just what it is we're discussing. However, even without seeing it, I'd be surprised if it were the kind of topic one could make an even remotely Wikipedia-worthy article out of. If it was indeed a joke-in-serious-clothing article with no future on Wikipedia, it should have been speedied, and Luna was right to have closed the AfD per the "snowball's chance in hell" rationale. No amount of "keep" !votes can justify keeping a total dog. Still, was it a total dog? I can't see it. Would someone please undelete its history?--Father Goose (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can view the cached version here Feezo (Talk) 19:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yep, endorse. Half navel-gazing, half xkcd in-joke. Not an article. Would have been a legitimate speedy.--Father Goose (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion this was only created as a result of xkcd and there is no hope in hell that the article would have survived AfD or that it would have ever conformed to policies and guidelines. Hut 8.5 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now I'm waiting for an admin to snow close this debate. That would be awesome. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn deletion being the subject of that particular comic is possibly acceptable as reason for an article-- I am not sure of my own views on the article itself. If there were valid bona fide objections raised, snow was inappropriate at afd and equally inappropriate here. How can one close an afd on a rather unprecedented topic in 2 hours as snow in the presence of opposition from established editors. Truly awesome disregard for deletion policy and for letting other editors speak for themselves. Perhaps after being restored and relisted for 5 days the consensus may be quite otherwise. Consensus does not mean consensus of the first few people to respond at 6 AM UK time. The nominator for the afd understood the situation quite properly when he listed it, saying "I really don't know if this article should be kept or not, but I did want to make sure that there were as many eyes on it as possible to make a decision." He reasonably wanted full exposure, not hiding in the snow. DGG (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I think the article is questionable personally, but clearly there was no basis for speedy close. Per DGG, essentially. — xDanielx T/C\R 09:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Snow is to be used when there is no chance of any outcome other than the one chosen, which this obviously was not. This clearly isn't that situation. We currently have a redirect in place, I think a disambiguation page (Popular Culture, Popular culture studies, Wikipedia in culture) would be better. GRBerry 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD seems an odd forum to discuss turning a redirect into a dab page, if that's what you're after... – Luna Santin (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, and commend the closing user for correct application of policy. WP:SNOW does not require that one solution is supported by a supermajority of users: it requires that there is no plausible possibility ('a snowball's chance in hell') that anything other than that solution will be reached, and that was the case here. I strongly believe that if this article was relisted at AFD, or had been given the full five days' discussion in the first place, the result would have been exactly the same. It quite clearly fails Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, having been essentially created as an in-joke - not in such a way that speedy deletion could have been applied, perhaps, but nonetheless it was not an encyclopaedic article. While there are some grounds for relisting here, when the outcome of such a discussion is not in serious doubt, I just don't see the point. Terraxos (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW is not a policy with "requirements;" it's an idea that encourages people to be bold and close discussions early when they think it will save time because there is no possibility of a serious alternative option being supported. Since we are still debating this five days later, and some might say that other options have at least been proposed (whether you consider them serious is entirely your opinion,) no time has been saved, so the use of SNOW was clearly not helpful, and as it has created controversy, not appropriate. Put another way, "[Be bold...] but do not be reckless." ~ FerralMoonrender (T • C) 08:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, the use of WP:SNOW has generated discussion (actually intelligent discussion compared to the "keep it because it's funny" comments that filled up most (not all) of the AfD) and thats is one of the plus sides to being bold (similar to a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.) ~ FerralMoonrender (T • C) 08:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Even if it was technically factual, does anyone doubt that the article was created as a joke? One mention by xkcd does not make something notable. If In Popular Culture had more than a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, something is wrong with Wikipedia. 67.187.76.80 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IMAGETEC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

blatent advertising 12.107.120.242 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a reason to delete the page, not restore it. Can you please clarify whether you want the page deleted (which it is) or restored, and in the latter case, please explain why? Stifle (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the conversation at User talk:Kylu#Imagetec, I'd assume restored. Or at least unsalted. I am curious why it was salted so quickly, but I might be missing similar articles at other titles. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this and [1] might indicate why salting was found reasonable; an alternative capitalization was deleted 4 times in one day, then salted - causing the page to be created at a new title by a new username. GRBerry 21:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that'd do it. I guess I've got nothing to do except endorse the salting, then. Perhaps unsalt in a week or month, since 2009 is a little excessive, but nothing wrong with it for now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Overturn Delete and Salt I have reviewed the Google cached version of the article and I do not see how this company is not notable. The article is well referenced, and the fact that it was named to the Inc. 500 should be enough notability alone (I would think). Clearly the article needs improvement (removal of non-neutral language that is unsupported). I am assuming that the nominator indeed is seeking restoration of the article even though the user is not clear on such. Perhaps I am missing something here? If so, someone inform me and I might reverse my vote. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • inc.com profile for imagetec #4,628 - It's in the top 5000 privately-owned companies by profit percentage, not top 500, according to inc.com. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This note is intended as a possible correction to the quoted facts, not as an opinion of notability. Kylu (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the deleted versions of IMAGETEC and Imagetec, I'd say that they both have the unfortunate appearance of advertising articles for a company that is on the edge of being notable. IMAGETEC claims a few references, but almost all of them are just links to the main pages of various websites. The Inc. reference is for "500 fastest growing private companies", and has no prose. It may be that there actually some newspaper or other reliable sources on the company, but I can't see that the industry websites for Toshiba, Konica, etc. count as reliable third-party sources. So I think the deletion was OK, but if someone can dig up some somewhat independent, reliable sources then recreation would be appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The INC 5000 used to be the INC 500 and when it was the 500 Imagetec was in the top 500 (#219) http://www.inc.com/magazine/19971015/1487_pagen_2.html. ALso it is hard to find sources when dealing with small to middle size companies...the article was modeled off a smaller similar company,impact networking look at that article becuase if that company is notable Imagetec is for sure seeing that it is older and larger. 12.107.120.242 (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Restore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.120.242 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cached version is a copyvio of [2] Endorse deletion. Corvus cornixtalk 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_8&oldid=1138287390"