Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 19

AJAST_(programming) – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Please consider restoring this page.

It happened that the only article regarding this particular programming technique has been removed.

This topic is not being covered in related wikipedia pages.

It was useful despite the term wasn't widely known.

We don't have better name anyway and this is alone is not good enough reason for deleting a useful article.

Content of this article hasn't been transferred/migrated to Ajax article as it has been proposed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AJAST_(programming)

Shouldn't we have more opinions for removing a page? I believe this one has been deleted too quick so it might be a good idea to give people enough time to object in order to prevent removing of something useful.

Thanks.

Endorse deletion We don;t go by what deserves to be notable, but by what already is notable. It's one of the basic principles of any encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per DGG. Tim Song (talk) 03:01, 20 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.

Category:Wii-only games; Category:PlayStation 3-only games; Category:Xbox 360-only games – Closure endorsed – NW (Talk) 00:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The CfD was closed with "no consensus" for a second time. The original attempt to not merge these categoires has failed, ie that they are routinely removed from the parent category in favor of the -only category which one of one core arguments for the first CfD. On addition, while discussing this CfD efforts independent of this CfD were also in heavily support in WT:VG at removing -only games from list pages because of its trivial nature and imo none of those people, for whatever reason, participated in this discussion, but rather instread only those who were on one side, save Miremare who had previously supported their merger. I therefore believe the interests of keeping the seperate -only categorizations goes against the more general consensus of the community as a non-trivial aspect. 陣内 _Jinnai 22:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there was no consensus there, so why should there be here? You need to redo it after attracting more interested people. Personally, I consider it relevant information for browsing, and would include it in both lists and categories. Notify me (& others) when you try again. If you want to make a general discussion out of it, try an RfC on the general issue. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. There was no consensus of any sort whatsoever. Tim Song (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While I would have agreed with the merge had I been aware of the cfd, I don't see any consensus of the people who did contribute. --Kbdank71 15:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse from evaluating any CFDs at the moment, since I'm not certain I can be entirely objective about them, but as a non-!voter I do want to applaud the "no consensus" closure after that discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; if anything consensus was against the merge. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (no consensus) for merge. Actually, the discussion looks more like a consensus for "don't merge". Why is DRV reviewing a failed merge proposal? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think they have to be on their respective category, example Category:Wii games, etc. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 02:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the problem. More people remove them on a daily basis than can re-add them.陣内 _Jinnai 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I think it's quite difficult to criticise this close. If anything, the "no consensus" result was charitable towards the proposal. A "no consensus" result implies that a future discussion can be appropriate, so DRV is probably the wrong forum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:20, 25 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.

Wendy Babcock – Deletion overturned. The AfD discussion focused mostly on the assessment of notability and is found here to tend rather towards keep. BLP problems have been raised, but not substantiated enough to make deletion the better choice than simply reassessing a marginal situation in due time, which is still affirmed here by most as the default procedure. – Tikiwont (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

AfD was closed as no consensus, defaulting to delete. I don't believe there is consensus for such a close. Closing admin politely directed me here[1]. Hobit (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a request with the deleting admin to undelete the article while this DRV is active. GlassCobra 20:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I do believe we have consensus to delete for marginally notable individuals so endorse my own close. I have restored for the purposes of the DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Agree fully with the close. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. The AFD ended up with 6 keep !votes of various strength and 3 !delete votes of various strength. Although the nominator claimed BLP concerns, none were identified. The only issue was quality of sourcing. There are no privacy concerns; the subject is a political activist. There was no relisting of the article to develop consensus. If a 2-1 keep !ratio is going to default to delete, the process has become ridiculous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My particular concern isn't the !vote count. !votes not rooted in policy can be ignored (though in this case I don't see justification for that). The issue is that the subject has entire articles about her in significant publications. [2] from the Globe and Mail is probably the most notable. This person is way over any bar set by policy and so there is no reason to delete. Closing as no consensus, default to delete, is also contrary to policy and to the consensus of any discussion about this policy I've seen, including one that is currently active. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge anyone to link any discussion in which it was ever established that "no consensus" can default to delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'overturn to keep or to no-consensus, with a keep result until consensus is established. No consensus defaults to keep. Attempts to get it otherwise for blp have failed repeatedly, and if the closing admin does not know it, we can instruct them right here. If they want to change the policy on something as basic as that , they can try yet another general discussion when the community has patience for it. Even apart from that, i see a clear consensus to keep in the discussion, with policy based arguments. If the closer thought otherwise, he should have joined the discussion. If one thinks the article deletable, one can try again after a while DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep Closing admin erred, as 6-3 comments by thoughtful editors represents a consensus to keep, and, furthermore, even if it was no consensus, no consensus defaults to keep, not delete. I may have been out of it these past few weeks, but I do not believe that fundamental a point of wikipolicy would have changed without my noticing. Ray^Talk 05:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - I'm not seeing an issue with this deletion - Allie ^❤ 05:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - This close, on a BLP, was done correctly. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison and Coffee, would you agree that a major part of DRV's job is to determine whether a close was in accordance with policy?
The reason I ask is that, after reading Spartaz' post-deletion comments, I think this DRV may be being treated as yet another referendum on whether "no consensus" can default to delete; and I think DRV is a bad place to have that discussion, because I think our role here is to enforce policy rather than establish it. Changing policy is for policy pages and policy talk-pages, village pump proposals, or RFC. DRV should deal with policy as it is.
Would you agree that a vocal pressure-group has failed to gain consensus for "BLP defaults to delete" in other places, and is now seeking to establish policy at AfD and DRV instead? And if so, how would you answer the criticism that this is a case of asking the other parent?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a certain part of the DRV process is in determining whether a close was in accordance with policy. Would I agree about your comments re. a 'vocal pressure-group ...'? No, I wouldn't. Also, I'd comment that this is not a forum for making suggestions of there being any sort of "pressure group". Seriously! :) - Allie ^❤ 10:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For "pressure group", then, please read "a recognisable group of editors who are of one mind on whether BLPs should default to delete and are active on the Wikipedia Review and in the majority of discussions related to whether BLPs should default to delete, in almost any venue."
You didn't respond to my main point, so am I to take it that you see this as valid?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be going a bit far to assume that Alison not responding in the way you wanted is the same as agreeing with you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked rather than assuming. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep – Keeping in mind that AFDs are not votes and notwithstanding the BLP/AFD crapfest going on, I see a rough consensus there to keep the article. MuZemike 15:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Agree with MuZemike. Larger issues aside, looking at the merits of the arguements in the AFD I'm not seeing either a Delete or even a "NC-Delete".--Cube lurker (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the discussion, it boils down to whether the (admittedly independent and reliable) sources amount to significant coverage. AfD is not a vote, but in this case there is no reason to discount any of the !votes. What we are left with, in my view, is in the middle between a clear-cut "keep" and a clear-cut "no consensus". In such circumstances there ought to be no occasion to delete. Overturn deletion. Tim Song (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus). Debates elsewhere have failed to overturn our default that no consensus defaults to keep. The !voters, in principle, and in this AfD, were able to, and did, consider BLP concerns. There was not consensus that BLP concerns warranted deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Wendy Babcock" story appears so notable, with so many sources, that it is silly that wikipedia wouldn't cover it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore -- an astonishing close, clearly wrong in regard to deletion policy. Even if the subject had requested deletion (no evidence of that), I would read that AfD as closer to rough consensus for keep than to no consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that the closing admin viewed this close as a "breaching experiment" and accepts that his decision was "not what policy currently says" [3]. As far as I'm concerned this is a clear violation of WP:POINT and we'd be better off if the closing admin reversed his decision immediately. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that term is a little too strong; I'd call it "testing the limits". They've been tested, and the consensus is clear that they remain where they were before. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per the above. Pretty clearly notable, pretty clear consensus for keeping, pretty clear closing against policy.John Z (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep. There is no such thing as "default to delete". What's next, "default to promote" on RfA? No consensus means no action to be taken. I don't know whether the closing admin is disrupting the project to make a point, or just imposing his own opinion and overruling consensus, but it is shameful behaviour either way. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure: Within the reasonable interpretation of policy, not just for BLPs but for the adequacy of arguments made on either side of the discussion. It's a discussion, and better arguments supersede poorer ones. Risker (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two quick questions. A) Which policies do you believe allow for a no-consensus close to default to delete? and B) Given that the topic does meet WP:N by a wide margin (entire articles on the subject, one of which is in the 2nd largest newspaper in Canada) how could the delete !votes be considered stronger? Hobit (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I believe this close is within the closing admin's bounds of discretion. Kevin (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as the close was out of process. There is no policy, nor consensus to change policy, allowing a "default to delete" on any article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at the moment. I'm torn. The article clearly falls into the category of "mentioned in news and other sources as a source or solely due to sole salacious personal detail", which I feel makes for uniformally bad articles (the bulk of the biographical details will often be sourced to the subject and the well sourced points in the article will often be records of media appearances). Its the sort of article that our policies should lead us to delete. And if I had made the close I would have been tempted to make a similar close. However, I tend to agree that this is a case of "if mom says no ask dad". BLP hasn't been altered to reflect that no consensus closes default to delete for BLPs, so some editors may make law by convincing admins to act a certain way. Such a strategy is not necessarily nefarious or unwanted. Concerted pressure eventually changes minds for good or ill. But it behooves us to recognize strategies for what they are. Protonk (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you get a chance to look at [4]? That's an article solely about her in the 2nd largest newspaper in Canada and contains a fair bit of bibliographic material. Hobit (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, endorse no consensus finding. The DrV for Human Disguise earlier this month Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_4 overturned the deletion with comment " 'no consensus - default to delete' - as far as I know unprecedented." If that's true, a no consensus finding should always default to keep.--Milowent (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion and restore article. This is an obvious one. No consensus defaults to keep and there is no consensus to the contrary. Not for BLPs, not for any other kind of content. This is perhaps even an instance in which DRV should not have even been bothered with, and any admin should have just reverted the close and restored the article. postdlf (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this discussion began, there has been another front-page major newspaper article about the woman, with her as subject rather than as source: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/729827--porter-we-can-all-benefit-from-wendy-babcock-s-fight. Certainly there are a lot more trivial articles on Wikipedia that are never contested or deleted. This one should be kep, not deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.57.16.15 (talk • contribs)
Endorse deletion - A valid close. No valid procedural issues. Endorse no consensus default to delete. ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on which policy? I'm unaware of any policy that supports that close. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy is what we do, not what is written. This is a valid close, within admin discretion, and there are no valid procedural issues. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So we can have large discussions with a massive number of voices, but all that can be ignored? What was the purpose of starting that discussion then if you felt it was already a fine thing to do? And aren't you in the least worried that we are deleting an article about a person that the two largest newspapers in Canada have written articles solely about (one apparently recently on the front page of the largest one)? You all are trying very hard to make policy through the back door when you failed at getting through the front. Hobit (talk) 05:22, 28 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.

Pet-Tao Pet Foods – Discussions that include disparaging comments about other editors rarely last long at DRV – Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Some of the world's foremost veterinary and animal science experts have helped establish Pet Tao Pet Foods and their products. The Chi Institute and Dr. Huisheng Xie from China have been instrumental in the formation of Pet-Tao Pet Foods, which combines both Western and Eastern veterinary and medical science principles. The company is helping animals live healthier, longer lives. This article deserves to be on Wikipedia. Dougmac7 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted multiple times as blatant advertising. I think the author strengthens that argument here; pretty obvious attempt at advertising. See thread on my talk page for more information. Tan | 39 17:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cached page strikes me as pretty blatant advertising, and thus would seem to qualify under speedy deletion. I have no arguments with its deletion. Also, User:Dougmac7 appears, on multiple occasions, to have recreated the article at a different spelling, as evidenced by his talk page (Pettao, Pet-Tao, and Pet-Tao Pet Foods, etc.), thus trying to circumvent the process. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Spam. GlassCobra 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's good news and bad news for you, Dougmac7. The bad news is, when an article is written in the first person plural, including phrases like "Our education, dietary innovation, credibility, and ultimately, the performance of our products, strongly support our mission...", it's very hard to censure an administrator for deleting the material as pure marketing spam. We see a lot of advertising material at DRV, and that was definitely it.
Wikipedia is not your free webhost. We demand that material is encyclopaedic in nature and has a neutral point of view, and if it doesn't comply we can and will delete it.
But the good news is, a G11 deletion is not a judgment about whether Pet Tao Pet Foods is allowed to have an article. All it means is that you can't have that article. If you write something that's neutral, non-promotional and sourced to reliable sources, there's no reason not to upload it.
I would advise you to ask an experienced Wikipedian to help you write it rather than writing it yourself, though. Try asking the people at articles for creation.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, an objective response. Amazing. First, I am experienced editor- more than two years on wiki. No one mentioned the article sentence which is not neutral, which I would have immediately taken out, and which should not have been in the original article. SMarshall, that is the only sentence like that; it was an oversight and should not be there. You make it sound like the article had other biased sentences. The only thing I have gotten is hostility, belligerence and lack of response, explanation and communication from the few people who are hostile to me and the article. They are not following wikipedia policy (deletion policy; see below), and who have been hostile to this page. There 67 pet food brands who have pages on wikipedia. Pet-Tao Pet Foods is more notable and noteworthy than many of the brands. Pet-Tao is innovative and actually revolutionary. I have no connection to this company. The company is helping animals live longer, healthier lives. Just like the other 66 pet food brands who have pages on Wikipedia, Pet-Tao deserves to have a page. I have fully followed all policies and the spirit and letter of the Wikipedia policy, mission and purpose. I have repeatedly been attacked, and my work has repeatedly been attacked against Wikipedia policy, which explicitly states there should be 7 days of discussion about article deletion, followed by a ruling about the article based on a consensus. This policy has not been followed, and I request that it is followed in this case. I also request that those who belligerent and hostile tone down their attacks and focus on the issue at hand. Thank you. Dougmac7 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, the only belligerence and hostility I see anywhere is from you. Tan | 39 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of other pet food companies (your competitors) that have articles literally does not matter. At all. And I can't stress that enough. Their articles are not written like blatant, obvious advertisements. The seven-day hold on deletion does not apply to speedy deletion actions performed by an administrator. --King Öomie 19:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in response to you touting the company's benefits over pet food products- Nobility is not notability. --King Öomie 19:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Tan, I apologize for any negativity. It was not directed at you. This situation is unfair and unjust. I feel strongly I am in the right. I now realize there are a small group of volunteers who make it their mission to 'win at all costs' rather than deal with the issues at hand. Life is too short to waste it on these people. Dougmac7 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may continue to feel that you are right, and everyone else (seven or eight editors, including several admins) is wrong. It is not our responsibility to change your mind; it is our responsibility as admins to ensure Wikipedia policy is upheld. I'm glad you so graciously accept the outcome, and are willing to move on - and not waste your life on us. Tan | 39 19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Reasonable G11. Tim Song (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in this discussion, there are two editors against, one for, one who has presented for and against statements (SMarshall), and one administrator involved. Of the two editors against, one almost makes no sense. Some others have come in late to endorse without being a part of the discussion. SMarshall brought up the only legitimate issue, which was agreed with and which can be easily corrected (neutrality). I wish you all the best. Please forgive me for any statements that have come across as negative. To all of you, best wishes and blessings. Dougmac7 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your claim "[s]ome others have come in late to endorse without being a part of the discussion," please note that this is the discussion. DRV is the forum where any community members may comment and share opinions on the validity of specific deletions. GlassCobra 20:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're classifying my arguments as "making almost no sense," but what I was trying to get at is that blatant advertising (which I what I deemed the cache version of this article) is not allowable. Blatant advertising is a condition for speedy deletion. Speedily deleted articles do not need to be discussed before being deleted--that is well established. I endorsed the deletion of this article because I thought it met the criteria for speedy deletion (blatant advertising). There could be 1,000 articles about pet food companies, and still it would not make any difference, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are discussing this article, not any others. In short, I based my endorsement of this deletion entirely on policy (as always) rather than gut feelings or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To me, it wasn't just "one sentence" that I considered advertising--much of it was, in my opinion. Hopefully, in writing this response, I am not showing "hostility, belligerence and lack of response, explanation and communication from the few people who are hostile to me and the article" --I always try to assume good faith, I hope other editors do, too. I'm merely trying to do what I think is best for the project, holding policies in consideration and as my foundation. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 20:16, 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.

Child marriage in Judaism – Yes, please follow the advice at WP:ND3 this is the best guidance we have for these cases. This is moot since DRV cannot overturn a merge – Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I dispute the closing admin's claim of consensus to merge. He himself states that the difference between the support for keep vs. that for merge was marginal. Therefore it is my view that the correct closure would be no consensus. I believe this dispute to be significant because as a result of his actions the article has an afd-merge tag on it stating that the afd said to merge. Yet the lack of consensus requires further discussion - which he himself states; the tag undermines that further discussion by presenting the proposal to merge as a fait-accomplis. I don't have the authority to remove such a tag, and he refuses to do so. He suggests I list the matter here.

Therefore I propose that the so-called result be overturned and changed to no consensus. Newman Luke (talk)

Speedy close. No deletion for us to review, and no overturn to delete was requested. In such cases the proper venue is the article's talk page. See WP:ND3. Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erb. I would like to see some policy/guideline on exactly what to do with these. The essay Tim cites is not unreasonable, but probably should be hinted at in policy somewhere. So endorse including the part about figuring this out on the talk page of the article. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 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.

GMapCatcher and OKTECH Profiler – Overturn as not covered by WP:CSD. I'll propose them for deletion, allowing for a message on the still red talk pages of the creators and for everybody to look for sources before a possible listing AfD. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

These were speedy deleted even though it didn't meet any speedy criteria. It was admitted by the deleting admin that he deleted them per his own belief of what should be speedy deleted or not. I would like these to be restored and taken to AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn both and send to AfD. As far as I know, "not yet notable" is not a valid CSD, and we do not have a policy that permits admins to substitute their own judgment for that of the community and delete articles on their own determination as to its merits. Otherwise, we might as well dispense with the set of deletion processes altogether, and the poor non-admins can simply sit down and watch the fireworks as admins delete and undelete about every article that at least 1/1701 of the admin force decides to be unworthy, but another 1/1701 of the admin force finds worthy. No. Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse DS has an idiosyncratic way of using the delete button but I would have deleted OKTECK as a G11 for sure Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am tired of admins leaving lousy, ambiguous deletion summaries, and these are definitely pretty bad. However, looking at the articles themselves I don't see an assertion of notability, even a modest one. Are these products notable, Joe? If anyone can make a case for them, then OK, but I don't see the point of undeleting pretty clear A7 articles solely because of the deletion summary. Chick Bowen 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Software articles don't meet speedy deletion criteria (which I already said). I don't know if they are notable which is why I said restore and take to AFD. The same admin deleted an article of mine with that reason and it was restored, taken to AFD, and the result was keep. Joe Chill (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The second point is irrelevant (we don't judge admins here, just individual deletions--and that's one of the most important principles of this page). The first depends on the content of the articles. It looks to me like these describe ongoing software projects, not completed software. Am I wrong? If so, then yes, undelete. If not, then again, I don't see the point. Chick Bowen 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My searches show that they are completed. [5] and [6]. I wasn't trying to judge the admin. Joe Chill (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with Chick Bowen about very much of what he's said, here. First, we never have judged admins, so far as I can recall, and it would almost never be appropriate to do so, but I do want to leave open the possibility that DRV could, in the case of very extreme behaviour, on its own motion open a RFC/U, refer a matter to Arbcom, or even petition a steward for summary desysopping. The fact that circumstances have never arisen in which we need to do this does not mean that to do so is beyond DRV's power. (It would be beany to mention specific things that could lead to these outcomes but I can envisage them; while we normally assume our admins have good judgment until proven otherwise, the fact is that there are children and self-confessed drug users among our admin corps and we need to admit the ~~inevitability~~ possibility of a serious lapse at some point in the future.)
Second, it seems very peculiar that Wikipedia could demand that other things are finished before they are notable. Wikipedia itself is a clear example of an unfinished but notable thing.
Third, I do not think it appropriate to retcon deletion decisions at DRV by deciding "Oh, well, it must've been a G7 (or 11, or whatever)". Admins are entrusted with the "delete" button on the understanding that they will only use it (a) where there's a clear speedy deletion criterion, (b) where there's an expired prod, or (c) on the basis of community consensus. A corollary is that the admin will be able to explain which deletion ground applied, and why, on request.
We are a collaborative encyclopaedia that relies on good faith contributors, and in cases like this, where there's a good faith nomination from an established user in good standing, we should provide FairProcess on request.
I offer no opinion on the merits of the articles in question because I don't need to examine them to see that we need to overturn on principle here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I did not endorse the deletion, and I have no problem with these articles being recreated if someone wants them to be; I simply asked whether anyone knew whether these projects were, in fact, completed and notable. It is true that, in general, I am not in favor of deletions overturned on principle when the content is not wanted, which strikes me as counterproductive. I know that some people disagree with that position. But yes, you and I disagree, quite markedly, about whether consideration of overall admin behavior belongs on this page. It is for considerations of individual articles. This is not the right venue to discuss a particular admin's use of the delete button in general. Obviously, though, conversations about the general purpose of this page belong on the talk page. Chick Bowen 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you're quite right about that conversation belonging on the talk page, I'll reply there. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn per S Marshall. Hobit (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per SMarshall and TSong. "It won't survive AFD" isn't a justification for speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I disagree with Chick, and think we very much ought to overturn all speedy deletions which do not meet a speedy criterion, regardless of the ultimate acceptability of the article. Otherwise us admins will never get it right. From what I know of individual admins, I do not know of any correlation --positive or negative--between age or substance use and doing bad deletions. As for judging admins, we don't do that here, but we do find information on how admins do deletions, and if a pattern emerges, anyone can act on it. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - violation of the procedure. - Altenmann >t 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn WP:BURO needs to be taken in context, and weighed against the harm or effect on Wikipedia. There is nothing more alienating to a newbie (or even a veteran editor) than to have an article they created get summarily deleted. The greater the potential danger and harm, the more careful we have to be to show fairness, which in this case is embodied by the care with which we adhere to our rules. Those rules were not followed here - in this case, the articles themselves are not the point. The point is showing fairness to editors and encouraging admins not to exceed the community's mandate on a very important criteria. Ray^Talk 06:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deadlines are not around, and if there is any chance thgat an AfD would not show delete as proper, the speedy should be overturned. Where in some cases we have seen a new editor ger his userpage deleted and himself blocked all within a grand total of 8 minutes (a current example), it is clear why WP needs to examine the speedy deletion and block policies. Collect (talk) 14:32, 24 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.

Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's letter – Deletion endorsed. The article had hardly any original content apart from the letter, and we tend to err on the side of caution in such cases which is certainly not a sign of lack of due diligence. The current redirect seems to be fine and does not stand in the way of expansion if warranted. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Speedily deleted with the reason stated: "This page is a copyright violation--as a letter from him personally, it is not a work of the US government, and it is far too long to be a fair use quotation" the page is not copyright violation: only the complete text of the letter is. Therefore the reason of CSD is invalid. The article, however brief, must be judged by its own merits: the letter gained much publicity and certainly a notable one among other Reagan's correspondence, since it declares a major change in his life. At worst, its content may be merged somewhere. Please see also the discussion about an attempted deletion of the photocopy of the letter in commons for further considerations. - Altenmann >t 00:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, firstly I can't see how this isn't a copyright violation as it was written in a personal capacity and even extracts should be protected by copyright. Secondly, if this were free, it still belongs at wikisource and thirdly, its down to you to demonstrate that it is free and you haven't actually provided any grounds to accept this - just an assertion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you see the article? I am not talking about the letter itself.- Altenmann >t 21:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Trying to argue that the deletion rationale is invalid because it only contains the text of the letter is... mind-boggling. Obvious copyvio is obvious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure about the nom's rationale - is that (1) the text of the letter is not a copyvio or (2) there is non-copyvio content on the page in addition to the letter, such that the page is salvageable, or (3) something else? Tim Song (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- {(1) Please read it again: "the page is not copyright violation: only the complete text of the letter is." (2) yes, there is content in addition to the letter. (3) I don't care whether it is salvageable or not. My intention was to point out that the speedy deletion was inapplicable. The proper approach was to delete the text of the letter and then proceed thorough AfD. - Altenmann >t 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deleting admin: immediately after deleting this, I requested comment from other admins; that discussion (albeit brief) is here. There are two larger questions here: one is whether the letter is copyrighted. Please note that a discussion at Commons is not binding here (and that the one you link is still technically open--the earlier discussions should not have been transcluded into it, and it is basically a separate debate with a majority of people arguing to delete); I don't believe (as others say above) that its not being copyright has ever been established to our standards, and the burden is on proving that something is free, not the other way around. The other question is whether there is sufficient content aside from the letter that it shouldn't have been deleted. I don't see how that makes any sense, since all content other than the letter duplicated material in the Ronald Reagan article. Please note that if anyone would like to write a new article about the letter, rather than simply copying the letter onto Wikipedia, there is nothing to prevent that and a DRV is not necessary to allow it. Chick Bowen 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you say that the other content is already in Reagan's article, a proper solution would be a redirect there. - Altenmann >t 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Copyvio question aside, the correct place for this is Wikisource. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the place. Did you see the article? - Altenmann >t 21:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the nom: <Shrug>. Obviously you neither read the deleted page nor rationalle in my nomination. I was not questioning the copyright issue. My point was that instead of deleting the whole article, rather the text of the letter could have been deleted from it. Whatever. My intention was to pay respect to the original author by restoring page history. Since I see lack of due diligence here, I will simply try to write a new article, with reliable secondary sources and stuff, if there is enough things to write about. (google gives almost 2 million hits for reagan+alzheimer's+letter) Have a good day. - Altenmann >t 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S From this it is seen that the letter is indeed copyrighted. The reprinter sought the permission from the Associated Press, so I guess AP is the copyright owner. - Altenmann >t 18:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not quite. I doubt very much RR gave his copyright on the letter to the AP specifically. Claims of publishers to own copyright are often mistaken. Many other responsible sources, such as the Alzheimer's Foundation have published it with their own copyright on the page and without ascribing any permission from anyone, DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close We've got a redirect up that the nominator suggested, and I think we can all agree that the letter, even if its copyright status as a source permitted reprinting doesn't belong in its entirety on Wikipedia, but on Wikisource, as Stifle mentioned. per WP:BURO, I see no reason for this discussino to continue further, does anybody else? Ray^Talk 23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Risker (talk) 05:39, 22 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.

19 November 2009[edit]