Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 November 14
2009 November 16 >

15 November 2009[edit]

  • The Storks – Deletion endorsed. This amounts to saying that CSD G5 actually represents a policy, removing the tag is an objection to its application in a particular case, but does not automatically prevent it, that AfD is not the only - and possibly not even the best - venue to discuss the contributions of a banned user, and that we now had a discussion here and elsewehre, with the application of G5 found to be valid. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Storks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedily deleted per {{db-banned}} despite removal of template at least once prior to ultimate insertion leading to speedy deletion. This goes against the policy articulated at Wikipedia:Deletion#Speedy deletion under "Renominations". I am not suggesting the pages be kept in the long term, but that it is totally inappropriate for such pages to be deleted without an AfD discussion or a centralized policy discussion given that there was not unanimity for speedy deletion. Requesting (possibly temporary) restore and list outcome only. Nomination also includes:

FWIW, the banned user is not suspected of introducing incorrect material into article space as far as I'm aware. Bongomatic 17:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my understanding is that the additions by the numerous socks of the banned user are sourced mostly from offline references and are difficult to verify. In general, if these articles are going to be restored, then the banned user needs to be unbanned. Wknight94 talk 18:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More discussion on this here and here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either User:ItsLassieTime is banned or they are not. If we are going to keep their contributions, unban them and let them run rampant with the 20-30 socks they had that were supporting one another in discussions (ANI and SPI about this editor). And yes the editor IS suspected of introducing incorrect material, at least by some. One or two have been verified. None of the ones deleted were the GA ones, as far as I remember. We cannot just randomly decide to let some banned editors contribute so long as it looks good enough, yet still call them community banned. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason for them not to sock, particularly an editor like this one who primarily does it just because he/she enjoys the accolades of DYK and GA, regardless of which account they are on. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theses are very reasonable—and maybe correct / compelling / garnering of community consensus—arguments. The place to raise them is in an AfD discussion. Bongomatic 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a speedy deletion criteria which applied very clearly to these - and others for that matter. I should really delete them all but stopped in order for discussion at the MuZemike's page to continue. But now we're here. Wknight94 talk 20:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is—and once one editor has removed the template, as in this case, it becomes inapplicable and AfD is requiredBongomatic 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like WP:PROD to me. Wknight94 talk 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) CSDs are not prods. There are no restrictions on retagging them if the CSD is removed, nor does it becoming inapplicable just because a non-administrator went through and mass removed them versus their being actually declined by a reviewing administrator, particularly when the pages WERE eligible for G5, despite your assertion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion a serial liar, creator of hoaxes and banned user socks, gets caught, and the unverified crap is deleted? Very good. Why are we here? Bali ultimate (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn a speedy is no longer valid after one editor not the contributor removes the template. the pages were possibly eligible for G5, but G5 only says they may be removed, not that they must be removed. One good faith editor objecting is enough to prevent it, as for any speedy. It is not permitted to replace validly removed speedy tags, for the same reason , and the admin who did so was totally out of policy. As Deletion policy says, challenged Speedys are taken to AfD. As for the issue, the contributor is banned, and should not contribute. If what they have done is good nevertheless, it would be foolishly counterproductive to remove it. As for being a deterrent, it doesn't seem to work. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a speedy is no longer valid after one editor not the contributor removes the template" - that is not stated anywhere that I have seen. You and Bongomatic appear to be thinking of WP:PROD. And if you're saying it would be foolishly counterproductive to remove banned users' contributions, then it is foolishly counterproductive to have them banned in the first place. You can campaign for that elsewhere. As long as they are banned, their contributions are reversed. Wknight94 talk 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Wknight94; DGG, you know at this stage that your feelings on several deletion policies are widely divergent from the actual policy, so please be clear when writing what is policy and what is how you think policy should be. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions" A good faith editor removing a tag qualifies in my opinion for such a dispute. As I said elsewhere, perhaps we need to make this more obvious, since some others do not see it as I do. If the feeling is otherwise, we'd need to discuss whether it applies to all speedies, or just this exceptional class. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Typically" would tend to indicate that there are some cases when this does not happen, and this seems to be one of those few. If others do not see it as you do, that may mean that it should be made more obvious, but it also may mean that you may need to revise your view of matters into line with what others feel. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions – if they were created by a person in violation of the ban, then we should not be encouraging that person to come back, evade ban again, and create pages again while still banned – which is the message we would send if we restored the pages. MuZemike 02:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bali ultimate and MuZemike make arguments that merit consideration. However, they are fundamentally arguments for deletion, not for endorsing a speedy deletion over the objection of an editor who is not the page creator. These opinions should be disregarded by the closing admin as unrelated to deletion policy. Bongomatic 02:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hair splitting aside, WP:DP#Speedy deletion states "Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not." In this case it does, whether you removed the tag or not. That is obviously what the endorsers are saying. If hair splitting is your thing, how about the word "typically" in that same line? It does not say "must" - that's WP:PROD. Wknight94 talk 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletions Our all-wise, all-knowing policies are unclear on this issue. G5 and reversion of banned editors' contributions is a "may", not a "must". There seem to me to be genuine gradations between policies of retaining some of a banned editor's contributions and of automatically reverting them all that do not make a mockery out of the punishment of banning. There don't seem to be real suspicions of hoaxing by the banned editor. Immediate deletion of existing articles good enough to avoid the other speedy criteria, by an author whose problems were more behavioral than content-related, seems to be a clear detriment to the encyclopedia. I would like to see a more explicit argument why and how retention will reward negative behavior and cause enough future damage to outweigh the present cost. So I think that the ruling policy here should be WP:AGF - I think that we should assume good faith of Bongomatic's removals, that he is to some degree vouching for these articles, and thereby making a genuine contribution to them, preventing another G5. John Z (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps for the first time in my life, I'm with Bali Ultimate on this one. Where we've got a disruptive user whose contributions are known to be suspect, I think it's irresponsible to let them stand.

    No objection to allowing an editor in good standing to create this content, of course.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • G5 is an discretionary CSD. Whilst perhaps it might not have been an abuse of discretion to let the content stand - though, as S Marshall et al. noted, there are verifiability concerns - it is certainly not an abuse of discretion to delete them. As such, endorse, without prejudice to recreation by an editor in good standing. Tim Song (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, since no evidence has been provided that would indicate that this content is problematic. --NE2 13:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - When a banned user -- particularly a banned user with a history of creating hoaxes and other bad content -- creates new content, that content is subject to deletion unless another user goes to the trouble of validating it. The "burden of proof" (i.e., the responsibility for evaluating and validating the content) in this type of case falls on the user who volunteers to rescue the content, not on the user calling for deletion. The only substantial edits to this article were by the banned user. --Orlady (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • People keep saying that this user has a history of creating hoaxes, but not providing any evidence. Can you show me where this was originally determined? --NE2 14:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The user has admitted to sockpuppetry and deception. I don't know of any evidence concerning hoaxes in articles, but I do not think it is very responsible to let a known liar's contributions stand.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know of many cases of content submitted by known liars that stands. (Exercise: am I lying when I say that? ) --NE2 17:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless any other editor is willing to take responsibility for the content. Users are banned for a reason, and until policy changes, edits of a banned user can be summarily removed. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. per above "As Deletion policy says, challenged Speedys are taken to AfD" that is, if not obviously adverts, hoaxes or spam. Our guidelines need to be equal and consistant regardless of the fact an editor is banned or not. We would not refuse a suspected thief legal defense and due process simply because he/she has stolen before? Shame on endorse voters. Turqoise127 (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flawed analogy. This "thief" is not suspected, s/he was convicted and sentenced months ago. Wknight94 talk 22:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing flawed about it. Do allow me to restate; We would not refuse a previously convicted thief legal defense and due process simply because he/she has stolen before?Turqoise127 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EVERYTHING flawed about a very bad analogy. Not a thief, a trespasser: no "trial" necessary to throw the bum -- and his belongings -- out. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure if it is funny or sad that this comment comes from a disruptive user who has recently been banned from posting to another user's talk pages...Turqoise127 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would strong recommend that you strike this comment. "Deletion review is explicitly a drama-free zone. Nominations which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias may be speedily closed." Tim Song (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if you mean my comment or the one above mine? If you mean my comment, I simply stated what I encountered on the talk pages of user Calton; there was a warning for disruptive behavior and a ban from posting to another user's pages. Why am I not allowed to state what I saw? I attacked no one, made no accusations and nothing of the sort. User Calton, on the other hand, calls another editor a bum, trespasser, and states they should be thrown out. Why did you not respond to that, editor Tim Song? I will not be striking anything, and you should be a little less selective with your repremands.Turqoise127 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is patently inappropriate to bring in issues concerning other editors that are totally irrelevant to the matter at hand, even if truthful. It is relevant whether the author of the article is banned. It is totally irrelevant whether a commenter is subject to an editing restriction that has nothing to do with the subject matter. Tim Song (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with "sad", to be seeing such evidence of intellectual bankruptcy. Yes, it's tempting, when one doesn't have a leg to stand on, to resort to desperate attacks on the messenger to divert attention from one's shortfalls. But cheer up, I'm sure you'll do better next time! --Calton | Talk 08:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. If a single editor in good standing supports the retention of the articles, then they should not be speediable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that editor should click on those redlinks and get started right away if it's so important. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Banned user? Let'em come through the front door if they want to continue. And if the contributions are so all-fired important, they ought to be easy enough to someone to actual click on those handy redlinks and have at it. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty depressing to see an administrator sarcastically denigrate content in this manner. Not all of these articles are "so all-fired important", but neither is much useful content here. Take a look at Little Claus and Big Claus and you will see a well-researched, encyclopedic article on a topic that meets inclusion guidelines. Bongomatic 19:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denigrating content in the least: since it's so important to you, starting clicking those red-links and starting adding that valuable content right away! --Calton | Talk 08:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there seems to be the argument that deleting this will discourage socking. But that it would most likely to be deleted was known prior to this and it didnt work in this case, nor has it worked in many others. The argument is that this is an exceptional case where the articles are worthwhile. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Bali ultimate and MuZemike. G5 was properly utilized. GlassCobra 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The outcome should always be the same for banned users; their articles get deleted. The mechanism they get deleted is that somebody notices that the article was created by a banned user or one of their socks, and then gets it deleted somehow. An admin could delete them without even applying any tags or allowing any discussion. Presently I have a prod tag waiting on an article by a banned user, because I don't care how fast it gets deleted; I am happy that it eventually will be. As for the "useful content" argument, if a topic is crucially important, it will be recreated quickly. If it is not important, a longer period of time will pass. On a couple of occasions I have recreated articles that were deleted for copyvio or other problems; it's not hard, nor is it a burden on the vast pool of editors looking to increase their article created counts. People need to trust in the process, and and in the work ethic of Wikipedia's ordinary editors. Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is not the place for "should"s of this nature. Policy does not say that such content must "always" be deleted, so speedy is inappropriate when disputed. There is no policy basis for Abductive's point whatsoever. Bongomatic 23:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no policy basis, then how can the {{db-banned}} tag exist? A speedy deletion tag can be removed, true, but such removal (seems to me, by consensus and frequent usage) based on a dispute about whether the tag is telling the truth. If this was a {{db-copyvio}} case, the article gets deleted unless somebody says it's not copyvio. I've seen copyvio tags removed based on people making the (false) claim that it is not copyvio, and then seen the article get deleted without a tag even being reapplied. Now that these articles are deleted, it's tough titties. If you think the topics deserve an article, rewrite them or farm out the rewriting. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to distinguish the article from the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, consider that an AfD will result in these articles getting deleted anyway. So all that will accomplish is a delay in rewriting them. Abductive (reasoning) 23:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would an AfD result in delete? Judging from the ones not deleted, there would be several snow keeps in there. Without a draconian position on speedying and a wildly optimistic one toward future rewriting, it seems that deletion is causing a delay, not retention. Almost all speedies and G5's serve to eliminate junk. These articles aren't.John Z (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the point of deleting articles of banned users is to take away the only thing they care about. It is impossible to prevent them from returning as socks, right? They (and in particular this user) takes pride in their work being on Wikipedia. So the draconian solution is to take their articles out and shoot them in the back of the head. This policy is designed as a warning to others that if they push the community hard enough, even if they come back as a sock, their legacy is gone. Why else have a speedy deletion criterion for this? Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is valuable and well-reasoned. However, see my next comment, a policy-, not opinion-based, explanation of why your argument needs to be made in a different forum than endorsement of an out-of-policy speedy deletion. Bongomatic 01:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD may not "would" result in their deletion, per precedent and policy. Hence the deletion on speedy grounds should be overturned and you will have an opportunity to argue that they "should" be deleted in this instance. WP:BAN (at Enforcement by reverting_edits) is explicit that reversion is not automatic or necessary. This is not a case of splitting hairs—the policy goes out of the way to make the distinction. You may disagree that these articles are well-sourced and encyclopedic, or that the creation of well-sourced and encyclopedic articles is (as stated in the policy "obviously helpful", but that disagreement means that AfD is warranted. Bongomatic 01:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't see the point of having a special speedy deletion category for articles by banned users. If the banned user created hoax or non-notable articles, then they could be speedy deleted as vandalism or A7. But {{db-g5}} must exist to delete good articles. Abductive (reasoning) 01:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your view of the purpose of the speedy deletion process is very different from mine, and in my experience (often on the frustrated side wishing differently) consensus. Speedy deletion is for uncontested deletion of articles that fall in specific categories. Where (a) it is contested whether an article falls into a category or (b) an article in a category's deletion is contested, it doesn't apply. That doesn't mean that the speedy deletion criterion is useless in any way. Bongomatic 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that deletion via the {{db-banned}} tag is fine if nobody contests? That is the most important thing to me. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just spend 20 minutes rewriting one of the stubs from scratch. All the remaining articles could take maybe 5 hours. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes--as you can see from the DRV request, the problem here is that an editor acting in good faith (me) removed the {{db-banned}} tag prior to its reinsertion and later speedy deletion. I don't contest the category of speedy deletion at all. As per Wikipedia:Deletion#Speedy deletion under "Renominations", the convention that an article goes to AfD after any category of speedy tag (even copyvio, which is obviously more problematic) is removed once. This is not a strict policy (as it is for {{prod}}), but there's no reason not to accede to the requests of editors in good standing to get a community view through an AfD whether an article created by a banned user is an "obviously helpful" edit that should be spared per the explicit possibility mentioned in the policy. Bongomatic 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Well, I would prefer to recreate these articles myself. Going blindly by the sources and then looking at the cached articles in Google, I have ascertained that the banned user created stubs on works by a long-dead author that somehow managed to garner factual accuracy tags. The banned user created stubs that seem to make claims about the works that I could not corroborate online. The online sources analyse the works differently than some of the banned user's stubs. This is worrisome to me, and the solution is to just rewrite the articles. Abductive (reasoning) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From scanning one of the older sock's talk page, the person has a lot of trouble with WP:OR and WP:NPOV, among other things. Wknight94 talk 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given that editors who rewrite the article have read the work of the banned user, and continue to have access to cached material, the banned user must be given some attribution. Overturning the deletion for an editor in good standing to rewrite is the solution that my reading of the GFDL calls for. The misbehaviour of an editor does not relinquish our continuing copyright obligations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please compare the two versions of The Two Baronesses; I created the replacement before looking at the cache. They are as different as they can possibly be. Abductive (reasoning) 04:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability requirements for books are a weak point for me. If anybody feels like merging The Two Baronesses to anywhere, I won't complain. Abductive (reasoning) 07:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no attribution requirement arising from that, only if there is verbatim copying. Samw wat y that many editors here in order to meet WP:V are reading outside works, if that made the works here some sort of derivative (which would for the GFDL or some CC require attribution) then we couldn't license the work here under the GFDL or CC anyway. Relaistically such a chain of having read something now requiring acknowledgement of the original writings, would end up as a close to infinite list --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse CSD G5 states "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others." Removing a db tag is not a substantial edit. Triplestop x3 21:10, 19 November 2009 (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.
BS.Player (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Download.com's editors have given the software five stars (see [1]), thus it is notable and should not be deleted. RekishiEJ (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse All policy-compliant AFD reasons were delete. I suggest that RekishiEJ find reliable sources detailing the notability of this product, write an article from scratch in his userspace, then come back to DRV. Hipocrite (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already suggested that to him. Twice. [2] [3]. RekishiEJ (talk · contribs) seems to have ignored that suggestion, and come here, instead. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Download.com is a reliable source, and since the software was once awarded, it is notable. I suggest that once a software was given five stars by a particular noted download website or magazine, or reviewed by at least two independent media, it is notable (the reverse is not true, though, as they are other factors making a software notable).--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability guideline covering this is the general notability guideline which says no such thing, if you want to try and propose a new standard then this is not the venue. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reading through the debate, I must begin by endorsing Cirt's closure. The closer's role is to evaluate the debate, and it could not have been closed in any other way. It is possible that the consensus itself was in error and the software is indeed notable, but admins should not need to take any shit from DRV when they have closed a debate in accordance with the consensus.

    On the matter of whether to overturn the consensus itself, I would like to point out that Download.com is one source, and our policies require sources, plural. Five stars is not quite the same as a notable software award.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But given five stars by a particular medium is essentially the same as being awarded. Also it is mentioned non-trivially by others sources [4]. By the way, I think that now English Wikipedia is becoming more and more deletionist, and it can heavily narrow its coverage thus making it less useful to many users.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Softpedia is open for anyone to submit software to. i.e. it is little more than a directory, inclusion there indicates very little. (download.com also is basically for anyone to submit, so mere inclusion there is also meaningless). Five star reviews are given out fairly liberally, they aren't equivelant to a small amount of awards issued on a periodic basis. Five Stars is also a meaningless measure, what criteria were used? what comparison is being made? is it point in time or "forever"? etc. The general notability guideline is the measure. Have multiple indepedant reliable sources written about it in a non-trivial way. i.e. not directory style listings which merely repeat the authors own blurb, or blogs etc. The download.com might pass that bar (I'm not convincded being it's all of three pargraphs) but as above the notability requirement is for multiple independant reliable sources, and the place to argue about notability issues is the AFD, DRV is not AFD round 2. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* I do want to agree with RekishiEJ that the English Wikipedia is becoming more deletionist. It's an old and deep-rooted trend, that. The concept of a cost/benefit analysis in which we try to decide whether an article might be helpful to end-users has largely evaporated in favour of a near-obsessive focus on coverage in reliable sources. That trend's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does bear watching.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree (or disagree for that matter), the number of articles has steadily risen so you'd exprect the number of deletion discussions to rise also. As to if the proportion of delete/keep decisions has changed, I'm not sure there is any reasonable data on that. The aim has never been to merely include articles which are helpful to end-users, stuff like reviews of websites are potentially useful but it's not what wikipedia is about, and the basic standard for inclusion as the general notability guideline has remained the same as has the verifiability not truth requirements. Debate over those who want to label deletionism and inclusionism have been going on for years and I expect continue for years, I would also suspect the average wikipedian would not label themselves as either. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Allow me to disagree that the trend is more deletionist. In most AfD, an editor will come up with two reliable sources, they can be as small as one sentence mentions, and then there is a pile-on trend to keep. The term significant no longer has meaning towards notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miami33139 (talk • contribs)
        • Actually, most editors do anything but provide sources, i.e. try to actually explicitly refute the nominator's(s') rationale for deletion. MuZemike 00:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. However one prefers to put it, a single review does not establish notability. Tim Song (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per S Marshall. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Toasters still get reviews in print consumer magazines and we don't create articles based on that. Miami33139 (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Anyone can say that a something is "VERY popular"[citation needed]; anyone can say that something has "xx million users"[citation needed]; anyone can say it's good and place a 5-star rating on it. Notability is asserted via coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic; that is, one should be able to build a reliably-sourced article using said sources and that is neutral and free of original research. None of the rationales (mostly by single-purpose accounts, mind us) for retention address any of that. MuZemike 00:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, since this software has been given five stars by Download.com, this time we can apply IAR to ignore limitations on WP:N.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, let's change the rule. If a software has been only reviewed by a reputable independent medium or person once, but awarded five stars, editor's choice or equivalents once, then it is notable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, DRV is not AfD round 2. GlassCobra 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was entirely correct based on the discussion. The new information provided here is at best grounds for userfying the deleted article so that more sources can be added, which does not require DRV. --RL0919 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2009 (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.
  • Following a discussion on the closer's talk p, I have reverted this premature closure. No evidence of bad faith in bringing it here, so it needs sufficient discussion; 11 hours is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
his closing message was: "Nothing to see here, move along please. Article deleted correctly, no apparent process problem and it's not clear what needs to change. – Guy (Help!) 17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adamantius (journal) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Page was first deleted by Juliancolton after an expired WP:PROD. Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) chose to unilaterally recreate the deleted page. It was nominated for AfD by Crusio, and I closed that as delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal)). Instead of first contacting the deleting admin, or starting the deletion review process, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) again acted unilaterally, to restore the deleted page. I deleted it due to G4. Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) has chosen instead of engaging in polite dialogue, or partaking in proper site process, to issue threats [5], so this now comes here. Thank you for your time.Cirt (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep delete. As an editor who voted in the above-mentioned AFD, I voice my opinion that the article has insufficient notability for english wikipedia. As an administrator, I don't understand why an article was undeleted after a closed AFD without a community discussion. Perhaps I'm missing something? Materialscientist (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (to OP) What? This seems a bit of an unusual DRV request. The article is currently deleted, and you seem to be asking for it to stay deleted? Why not just salt it and get it over with? Deletion review is usually undertaken to reverse a current status quo. It is highly unusual to start one with a request to maintain a status quo. --Jayron32 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you think I should salt it, I will. Any objections or reasons why I should not? Cirt (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just salt it. I can detect nothing improper in either the close or the G4. Tim Song (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already salted, by Jayron32 (talk · contribs), and I agree. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please hold this open for a while. This journal is ranked "A" (second highest) in the Excellence in Research for Australia ranking here in Australia. Since the article is now salted, I would like the opportunity to investigate whether an adequately sourced article can be written. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um I did not think that the purpose of DRV was to repeat the AFD process again, but rather to determine if the AFD was closed properly. Cirt (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but if it turns out that the journal is notable after all, DRV can still unsalt. Tim Song (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject after searching in five different research database archives. I found none. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best left salted for the moment, unless reliable sources are provided. I've found a few sources in Italian, which I am still working through. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep delete. The article has already been through the process of WP:PROD, and was deleted. It was again deleted after discussion at WP:AFD. The subject fails WP:NOTE, it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Further, it appears from above that users Materialscientist (talk · contribs), Jayron32 (talk · contribs), and Tim Song (talk · contribs) found no fault with the processes involved by which the article was deleted. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse, since I participated in the debate, but I want to say that my position remains as it was in the AfD: if it can be shown that the magazine is peer-reviewed, then I would be in favour of permitting an article, but if not, then I would prefer that it remain deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I took this to AfD after the article was re-created virtually without any change after the expired PROD mentioned above. There were several argumented delete votes and a few comments from editors who abstained from voting. The closing appears to have followed consensus in that debate. It should be noted that Alastair Haines was properly informed of the AfD, but did not participate in the debate. If information would be brought forward that the journal is notable after all (and reliable sources can be found), I have nothing against re-creation, but up till now I have not seen any such evidence. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deletion reviews is a proper place to discuss this: a close must be reasonable, and an incorrect close is not reasonable. Thus any mistake made in the decision can be considered a process mistake, because an admin is supposed to close on the consensus of reasonable opinion. As an analogy, appeal courts usually do review in some manner the facts of the case, and an unreasonable verdict will be overturned--except that in US criminal matters, a verdict finding the defendant not guilty cannot be reversed. But normal civili disputes can be and often are sent back for another hearing. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete (I did not partici[pate in the first AfD) It's a newsletter, not an actual journal . Whether something is technically peer-reviewed is not always the determining factor--any journal can claim to be peer-reviewed while still accepting anything it gets sent, and some very reliable publications are actually simply published on the basis of an editor's sole decision. And a edited professional magazine under strong editorial control of a major professional body can also be notable, as Chemical and Engineering News. But this is simply devoted to publishing whatever he members of its group should send it, as group newsletters commonly do; to quoting in abbreviated form from its home page: (1)information about the projects and programs of the Research Group and about the work in progress of its members (2) it records the members' publications, (3) reports on conferences related in some way to the research field (4)provides an up-to-date list of the members (5) contains lists of the biblical passages mentioned in the newsletter. (It also seems to contain book reviews). This does not make it a peer-reviewed journal, or a well-controlled professional magazine--just a newsletter of a research group. With respect to Excellence in Research for Australia, I've always had my doubts about its methods, which are essentially based in the humanities upon whether a few academics in the field recommend it--that it includes this publication in a high category certainly confirms my doubts on its validity. The proposed WP Journal Notability guideline, as I understood it, is intended to make it clear that publications such as this are below the notability level. (and that even for peer reviewed journals, to make clear that by no means all of them were notable). I've been sometimes called a little too inclusionist on this score, but the reason I did not participate in the AfD, was that I thought this publication so totally non-notable as to be an obvious delete and not worth the argument. this journal is not included in any theological or historical indexing service--and there is no reason why they would, as it includes no research level contributions whatsoever. The sponsor of this article is usually very reliable, but I think this time he's mistaken. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing here suggested the deletion process hasn't been followed properly — keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2009 (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/2009_November_15&oldid=1140764219"