Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 November 6
2009 November 8 >

7 November 2009[edit]

  • The 404 Podcast – Keep deleted and protected until userspace draft shows a realistic potential to address the concerns that led to deletion at AfD. – Tikiwont (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The 404 Podcast (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Can we open this page up for submission again? I've created a legitimate article and would like to post it on the wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maynard_321/The_404_Podcast --Maynard 321 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unprotect. This is a wiki, and a user wishes to place a good faith article in that space; we should not stand in their way. I have not considered whether the userspace draft would survive AfD, nor do I think it necessary to consider that at this stage.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually agree with S Marshall, but this userspace version clearly fails to address the notability concerns raised at AfD. Therefore, keep deleted and salted as there is no point moving this to mainspace and then immediately speedying it as a G4. Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Tim Song, the user space article as present doesn't seem to list any third party reliable sources (let alone those providing non-trivial coverage), restoring at present to be followed by either a G4 or AFD seems pointless (and perhaps counterproductive). Part of the value (in my view) of DRV is pointing out the gaps which need to be addressed, issues of good faith etc. are often secondary to that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and salted. Per Tim Song and consensus rational stated in the Xfd. And the fact its clear copyright infringement.
The 404 podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The 404 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The 404 Podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 404
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_404_podcast
User:Maynard 321/The 404 Podcast
User:BlueCottonCandy/The 404 podcast
Maynard 321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
BlueCottonCandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Serial offender repeatedly Creating/Reposting of copyright violations[1]. content that would fail G4 or AFD. --Hu12 (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the material is licensed under the CC-BY-SA. MuZemike 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, checked and you are correct, I'll strike it out. --Hu12 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect. The podcast is much more notable than other wiki pages out there. The podcast is even mentioned on the following: Molly Wood, Clayton Morris, Natali Del Conte, Veronica Belmont, Alison Rosen, and CNET TV. And as of now, the show has done a total of 462 episodes. In regards to my previous copyright infringement. I had posted a Google Knol article which was licensed under creative commons, but the wiki copyright bot picked it up as "copyright material", so it got deleted and re-creation protected. Back then I was new to Wikipedia system, and didn't know how all this worked. I'm still learning the ways of the wiki, and would greatly appreciate it if you folks could reconsider.--Maynard 321 (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC) — Maynard 321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep deleted and salted for now. Having read through the AFD, the arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments for retention (which were mostly based on the other stuff exists premise more than anything else), and the closing administrator made an acceptable read of the consensus. As I noted above, the material doesn't violate copyright as it licensed under the CC-BY-SA. However, the notability issues must be addressed before bringing back into the mainspace. DRV is not AFD round 2. Also, Wikipedia is not Knol. Nobody owns articles here, like they do over there. MuZemike 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and salted per the above, viz N issues. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and salted per above. I'd welcome the article back to DRV if and when the article shows that the subject meets the notability guidelines. ThemFromSpace 21:17, 12 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.
Ray Joseph Cormier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article had sources that are solely about the subject in Edmonton Journal, Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, Kansas City Times and the Halifax Daily News. The primary argument for deletion was that even though the letter of WP:N was met, he isn't "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". As those newspapers did find him to meet that critera I don't believe it is our role to dispute their evaluation. Other !votes to delete were IARs arguments or were delete per arguments citing an IAR !vote. I'd be fine with deleting via IAR were the !vote clearly in favor of deletion. However, the count was 6 to keep and 7 to delete (including the nom who went with "Totally NN individual" as the entire deletion rationale) and the keep !votes made it clear that they believed the sourcing was sufficient. I believe this should have been a no consensus close. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, with some misgivings. To the extent that this was no consensus, I would be very concerned about closing as delete, in light of other recent discussions. But the subject of the article engaged in blatant canvassing, and only three of the keep votes came from people who weren't canvassed (and one of those was "weak keep"). I was surprised not to see this as part of the rationale. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I agree with Kevin that this was a difficult close. Kevin's job as closer was to evaluate the debate rather than the article, and as closer, by convention he has wide latitude to disregard canvassed !votes. He seems to have used this latitude here, and I can't see that there was a clear error involved.

    I might have closed that as "no consensus", simply because it was a third AfD after several previous "no consensus" closes and people should not be permitted to keep on AfDing the same material until there comes a time when the "keep" !voters fail to show up; but equally I would tend to think Kevin was within his discretion.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll point out that the closer got the result by while specifically disregarding the canvasing (see his talk page, my recollection is that the closer doesn't have an issue with canvassing). Further, I believe those notices might be friendly notices (they want to pretty much everyone who worked on the article other than the AfD nom I believe). In any case, the closer disregarded the canvasing... Hobit (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. I was less concerned with how editors got there than what they said. And I know you (and possibly others) would have made it there anyway. Kevin (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closed well within reasonable discretion given the assorted AfD opinions. RMHED (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think this was in the range of latitude of this administrator to make the call. I too am surprised the canvassing wasn't considered but that too is within their discretion. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Looked like the closing admin made an appropriate assessment of the arguments. I don't think the recent BLP-related controversial AFDs had anything to do with this one, nor was this one determined in the same fashion. MuZemike 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - nothing out of process here. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Definitely a close call and not probably not how I would have closed it, but within administrative discretion. ThemFromSpace 21:21, 12 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.
  • ConceptDraw articles – Decision Endorsed. The result was no consensus defaulting to "decision endorsed". Although there were more supporters of endorsement than overturning, the balance of arguments was roughly equal as most of the endorsement arguments were actually misplaced arguments to delete and many focused on character of the editors who created/edited the articles not on the content, let alone the application of policy by the closing admin which is the only item at issue. The arguments to overturn were somewhat stronger, focusing on the position that the deleting admin may have over-read GS11; however, they were not strong enough by themselves to establish a consensus. The great volume of repetitive argument by the deleting admin was particularly unhelpful and was substantially disregarded; although clarification of why the deleting admin interpreted policy the way he or she did is useful, it is not generally necessary for the closing admin to !vote to endorse his or her own decision. The pages have been userfied by another admin as a matter of standard practice by request. Userfication was to an independent (of COI in the underlying articles) editor and this DRV is without prejudice to the creation of a spam-free version therefrom; particularly since initial deletion was under a speedy deletion criterion. If anything results, merger into one article is anticipated. – Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ConceptDraw Office (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
ConceptDraw MINDMAP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
ConceptDraw PRO (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

These pages were deleted by Hu12 (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD G11, after CSOWind (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked for spamming. The articles, however, do not appear to be blatantly promotional, but generally descriptive of the softwares. Especially given the no consensus close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw Project, I believe that there is a substantial chance that the articles will be kept at AfD. DRVs brought by CSOWind evading their yesterday were speedy closed by JzG (talk · contribs) despite DGG's and my !votes to overturn. After discussing this with JzG I was minded to let things stay as they are for a while, but apparently those deletions are now used to justify deleting an article that has already survived an AfD. Therefore, as I consider the deletions here to be improper under G11, I ask that they be overturned and send to AfD. Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No compelling reason to undelete these particular articles. Furthermore, the project was kept as "no consensus", making it unlikely they are sufficiently notable to have articles on their individual products. Furthermore, it is clear that these articles were created for promotion. Triplestop x3 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the main "project" is ConceptDraw Office; ConceptDraw Project is a software in that "project". Promotional purposes aka WP:COI is not a reason for deletion. Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either way, it is clear they don't merit 4 separate articles. Triplestop x3 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then they can be merged. Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note: I'm withdrawing my vote after reviewing the articles themselves. I still don't see why we should have any obligation whatsoever to keep these spam articles. Triplestop x3 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ConceptDraw PROJECT, was a recreation of a page that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConceptDraw_PROJECT. To ignore that fact intentionaly(in nom above), yet base a multi-article DRV on a "no consensus " XfD is not very compelling rational to undelete. Additionaly, the term "Promotional purposes" does not imply "aka WP:COI", nor is "COI" a reason to keep, particularly when the deletion rational wasn't COI.--Hu12 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article was userfied and subsequently restored to mainspace after improvements by MuZemike (talk · contribs), who closed the first AfD. There is nothing improper here, especially when a later, well-attended AfD revealed no consensus to delete. The fact is that the text of the articles, though created for promotional purposes, are not blatantly promotional to be speediable. Tim Song (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Either way, this DRV is WP:NOTINHERITED, or should it be based on some other article's "no consensus" Sockpuppeted XfD. It would be a bit misguided to do so, as it suggests that Wikipedia has some inherent obligation to host innapropriate spam articles, which of course, we all know, wikipedia is WP:NOT.--Hu12 (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sockpuppeted? Please list an example of votestacking during that AfD. I just reread it, and found none. WP:INHERITED is good and all, I cite it myself; but an AfD on the Mindmap software was closed as keep over notability issues - not the most stellar of debates, I'd admit, but that's indication of its notability nonetheless. And a software suite containing multiple pieces of notable software is likely notable. We certainly do not have an obligation to host spam - but IIRC, except for WP:CSD G5, dealing with banned editors, we do not delete an article because of the identity of its creator, but let the article stand or fall on its own content. My position is that speedy deleting apparently neutrally-written and verifiable articles on notable subjects simply because their authors wrote them to promote the products is against WP:CSD, which is policy, and our ultimate goal here, which is to build an encyclopedia. Tim Song (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all and merge I've !voted on some of these before and I believe there is plenty of notability for an article. I don't think we need 4, or 8 or whatever, but 1 should do. If after that someone wants to send them to AfD I've no objection, but it will clearly meet WP:N in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion.These are non-consumer software packages aimed at a very small technical market with "limited interest and circulation". Even if merged theres only trivial and paid product reviews, which won't be enough to establish notability. Obvious self-promotional creations and all are Spam.--Hu12 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion at this time. These articles are admitted by the creator and his numerous "friends" to be the work of people in the company. The intersection of genuinely notable things, and things which are not documented on Wikipedia until their company comes along to create them, is as close to the null set as you can get. Also I am strongly opposed to rewarding spammers, especially block-evading sockpuppeting spammers. At the very least this should be left until someone provably not connected with the company can come along with a new article that is not the work of people with a conflict of interest. Did I mention that I despise spammers? Guy (Help!) 09:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you admins start to follow the bloody procedure now, please and thank you?

    The "delete" button is there for you to use when there's (a) a valid speedy criterion, (b) an expired prod, or (c) a rough consensus to delete at AfD. It is not for use just because you feel like it, and the sheer number of recent DRVs involving cases where admins are deleting material on their own authority "because it's obvious it should be deleted", is beginning to worry me.

    Send it to AfD where we can have a proper discussion lasting the proper amount of time so this material can be deleted properly, thoroughly, and finally. Out-of-process deletions cause unnecessary drama and they end up taking more of your time than in-process ones.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is a truly disturbing case involving 15 WP:SPA accounts, actively 'gamed the system' through the use of Meatpuppetry and Sockpuppetry, for the sole and primary purpose if using wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion for "ConceptDraw" software related products.
log
  • 05:16, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Office" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
  • 07:48, 23 September 2009 . . CSOWind ←Created page
  • 13:56, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Office" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
  • 10:08, 11 September 2009 . . NaumenkoSvetlana ←Created page
log
  • 08:21, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: "Computer Systems Odessa" Using Wikipedia for advertising purposes see spam case)
  • 08:40, 23 September 2009 . . CSOWind ←Created page
  • 13:53, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of :http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/mmforproject/main.php)
  • 12:45, 3 September 2008 . . Gi-ant ← Created page
  • 00:26, 12 June 2008 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)
  • 15:19, 22 February 2007 . . Jusperstb ←Created page
  • 20:53, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)
  • 11:00, 25 May 2006 . . CSOWind ←moved
  • 07:54, 25 May 2006 . . CSOWind ←Created page
log
  • 12:01, 8 August 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MindMap" ‎ (R1 applies - content was: 'db-redirnone #REDIRECT ConceptDraw MINDMAP')
  • 11:00, 25 May 2006 CSOWind ←moved
  • 08:36, 24 May 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MindMap" ‎ (content was: 'db-copyvio|url=http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/mindmap/overview.php')
  • 07:36, 24 May 2006 . . CSOWind ←Created page
log
  • 05:19, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PRO" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: spam)
  • 11:37, 15 September 2009 . . Danilsomsikov ←Created page
log
  • 05:21, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
  • 11:38, 15 September 2009 . . Danilsomsikov ←Redirected
  • 09:38, 15 September 2009 . . CSOWind ←Created
  • 18:49, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
  • 14:10, 21 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (Delete to make way for page move content was: '#redirect ConceptDraw V')
  • 17:11, 26 April 2006 . . Csodessa ←created
log
  • 06:23, 12 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw V" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
log
  • 06:23, 12 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw 7" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
  • 08:31, 30 May 2007 . . Master-zzz41 ←Redirected
log
  • 10:28, 10 July 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw 8" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G11, was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something. using TW)
  • 10:27, 10 July 2009 . . Kozovaya ←created
As documented, Multiple instances of sneaky recreation attempts to circumvent Wikipedia policies and procedures, Use of tricks in creating NN Spam articles, creating a titles as a redirects, Creating a seemingly legitimate articles then changing them around in order to avoid and curcumvent legitimate deletions. Allowing confirmed sock/meat puppets to activly evading blocks, create DRV's, and to promote their own agenda is "Gaming the system" and an abuse of process, which is disruptive. These are nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article.--Hu12 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. We do not reward astroturfing spammers. Miami33139 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of those matters makes it so urgent to delete the article that it's necessary to disregard due process?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions – If someone wants to recreate the articles in a neutral, non-advertorial way, then please go ahead and do so. Otherwise, I have to agree with Miami here in that overturning them would encourage such spamming in the future. MuZemike 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, merge, and watch. Alternatively, someone else remake & take responsibility for them, DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No undeletion without a userspace version by someone not connected to the company. This company and its main product line probably do pass our notability threshold (barely, although as pointed out elsewhere by several people including me, the question of whether a few product reviews consitutes significant independent coverage is debatable). As DGG hints above and says outright in the November 6 debate below, one article on the whole line would make a lot more sense. But I do believe we have to err on the side of being draconian when someone is gaming the system to advance their own interests--we simply cannot allow CSOWind's tactics here to stand. If someone else wants to take this thing over, genuinely and neutrally, fine. But as they stand, these articles violate our policies because they constitute astroturfing, regardless of the notability of the products. Chick Bowen 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'd be willing to merge the articles if they are undeleted and survive an AfD, and take out any residual hints of adverty-ness, but forgive me if I'm unwilling to start working from scratch when there's a neutrally-written version to start with; and when they may turn out to be non-notable in the community's view. I'm unwilling to devote my time to something when it may well be an exercise in futility. Tim Song (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks. I've userfied these to User:Tim Song/ConceptDraw PRO, User:Tim Song/ConceptDraw MINDMAP, User:Tim Song/ConceptDraw Office. As you say, you should retrict your efforts to what you feel willing to do, keeping in mind that there has never really been a hearty endorsement of all this. On the other hand, I think a single article would be more likely to stand than the individual ones. Chick Bowen 18:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, this is not endorsed nor is there any appearence of consensus for userfication at this point. Particularly when stated explicitly "I'm unwilling to devote my time to something when it may well be an exercise in futility.". The move reasoning of "userfy per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 7" is contradictory. I would advise reverting the move untill consensus for such action is determind.--Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I don't get this, Hu12. We normally userfy on request. You're certainly right that there's no consensus that this should exist in article space. But it would be unprecedented not to allow someone to work on a draft in userspace. If Tim doesn't want to work on it, that's his business, and if this DRV endorses it's deletion, that's their business. Chick Bowen 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm willing to help Tim with this. It would be all the easier, Hu,if you joined in also, It can hardly take much more work for all of us together to do an article than to engage in all the parallel arguments. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Chick, I just don't see a request, I see a comment. I'll assume the request was elswere. DGG, I do hope to work with you or Tim on something wothwhile, sadly meatpuppeting for astroturfing spammers isn't one of those times. Some things just don't belong in an encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Chick Bowen - thanks. DGG - it would be an honor. Hu12 - I'd appreciate it if you at least refrain from referring to me as a meatpuppet. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - unacceptable spamming and astroturfing. Eusebeus (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion spamming should not be tolerated here. ThemFromSpace 21:24, 12 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_7&oldid=1140763388"