Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 August 3
2010 August 5 >

4 August 2010

[edit]

Note: I have been in contact with Blurpeace, and he has acknowledged his error in restoring the page in which I accept; this was a matter of a lack of communication. Apologies for wasting the community's time on what looks like an easy mistake. –MuZemike 01:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brian Quintana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting review of my own AFD close. After closing as delete (as I thought the rough consensus was pointing towards deletion), I userfied upon request of another editor. Then today, another editor went over my head and placed the article back into the mainspace without any further improvements that would have addressed the issues at the AFD. I consider this a challenge of my AFD close and hence is requesting the community review my close. –MuZemike 20:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • support the close was in line with policy and all I see here is an attempt to run around policy to keep this article. This is all very odd. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closing action. No evidence of WP:N was established and today's arbitrary action is an end-run around multiple AfDs. Kudos to MuZemike for placing this AfD at deletion review upon notification that the article had been recreated today. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original close-as-delete, the analysis of poor process in the recreation, and the delete-as-unimproved-recreation even if the process isn't relevant. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tough one. While I deplore the end-run around process, I remain of the view I expressed in the AfD:- the delete arguments appeared rather weak and forced to me, and I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't have a biography of this gentleman.—S Marshall T/C 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Restoring the exact same article that was deleted at AfD because it "seems to meet our notability guidelines" appears to be an oversight on the restoring admins part. Brandon (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close: I voted to keep in the last AfD and think the guy is notable enough for an article. I think he's another example of editors not wanting an article on someone they think is unseemly or not deserving, instead of based on whether he is notable. We sometimes flub our standards and apply them inconsistently in these cases where the press coverage is in a middling range. That being said (as a commentary on why the article is being fought over), the admin's close was consistent with the editor consensus as expressed in the AFD discussion. I don't agree that admins get a supervote in closing AfDs. I am not sure why this article was moved back into mainspace, but I don't think it was necessarily done by an admin who wanted to see the article remain but rather just be dealt it.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Unless there is more to this story than we are all missing, the close was unimpeachable and binds the fate of the article unless it substantially changes. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to argue the merits as to if it should have been reposted or not. I happen to feel the person meets the bare minimun of being notable. He has had at least two large articles done in national press (The Advocate one of them). Do a name search on him and he has numerious articles on him (all unfavorable). The article should be kept. Callelinea (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then may I ask why you didn't !vote "keep" in the AFD about a month ago? I mean, I'm trying to AGF as much as I can here, but I feel like I'm getting sandbagged and blindsided. There was a userfied copy of the page, and if need be (though if I knew it wasn't going to be improved, I would have moved it to the WP:INCUBATOR instead, but my crystal ball is in the shop undergoing repairs). All I ask is for somebody to let me know what is going on; I'm always willing to help if you give me a chance to. I don't like it much when somebody runs circles around me because they didn't like an AFD decision.
That being said, if any improvements come that establish notability, then I won't oppose it remaining on the mainspace. However, I will note that how this came about is not the way to do things. The key to basically anything on Wikipedia is open communication, in which the lack of I'm expressing my frustration. –MuZemike 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not vote on it, because I was in Cuba at the time. Additionally, I know the subject personally, and even if I was here not sure if my vote would of mattered. I don't care for the person, but that does not cloud my judgement on the article. But since I do know the subject, many editors would feel that I should excuse myself from the discussion.Callelinea (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know the subject? ----moreno oso (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was a friend of Pedro Zamora and am a friend of the Zamora family. I met Mr. Quintana when Pedro was dying during his visits there. And have maintained contact with him, the Zamora family and Judd Winick since then. Callelinea (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine; I was just wondering. Another "keep" rationale could have mattered, but I understand if you weren't around. –MuZemike 00:14, 5 August 2010 (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.
Bonnie Bailey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Desire to recreate, overturning previous AfD per lack of consensus or evidence not fully considered. Administrative nomination per comments on article talk-page. DMacks (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse original closing action of delete. Fails WP:MUSIC then and now. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there were no reliable sources so there wasn't much to discuss about. The chart seems to be some compilation in a website, not an official chart; it doesn't make clear what data is being used and how, and it warns that it's preliminary data with errors. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, deleted for lack of notability, no sign that anything is different, no good sources either. Hairhorn (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as recreator) For the record, I would not argue that this article warranted deletion based on the state of the previous version. But this article has been completely rewritten from the version reviewed at the previous AFD which I think makes this review mute. I think the more fair thing to do would be to send it again to have another go at AFD in lieu of deletion review, and sorted into the music category where a new consensus can be reached whether this person passes WP:Music. As discussed on the talk page, I would argue this person passes WP:Music #2 - Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. There are not one but two references that state this fact and I believe them both to be reliable, i.e., http://www.everyhit.com/about.html state they are a nonprofit/nonadvertising "UK Top 40 Hit Database" (must enter "Bonnie Bailey" in name of artist field, and "contains the word"); and although unsure of this website's origin, http://www.zobbel.de/ have extensive statistics. Cheers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of WP:MUSIC is that they may be notable if they meet the criteria, not that they are, the criteria also goes on to state at the end for bands individual members aren't directly notable because of the band in this instance I would sugget that is the effect which would apply here. Additionally the notability guidelines are only one aspect, WP:V from WP:RS are others, the links to chart listings can only verify that fact and that fact alone. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, IMO, this discussion should be at WP:AFD where I could argue some of those aspects. This place is to dispute the original deletion of this article which is actually not disputed (save for the fact decision was based on the nominator + one comment). This is a recreated article, which is allowed given its new content, and being it is a new article discussions regarding notability and verification should be at AFD in the music category where more specialized peers can have a look at the new content. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless an update substantially addresses the reasons for deletion then a G4 would be valid, in my view these changes don't substantially address the original deletion for the reasons I outlined above. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've now restored the previously-deleted page contents into the article history so everyone can see the state of the article as of the original discussion and judge whether it's got substantially new content or claims to overcome G4. I actually would have speedied it outright at the time of its recreation (comparison of that with previously-deleted one) and I still think it meets that, so the primary question here (and why it's here) is whether there really is enough new claims here to avoid/overturn my G4 judgement. If there are no new substantial claims of notability, then it's a waste of time to re-AFD it, since previous discussion was presumably advertised in the usual places. DMacks (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2010 (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.
Bitcoin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn: Disputed decision by an administrator not involved in the discussions. Belief in consensus to keep. Article presently moved to User:Message_From_Xenu/Bitcoin. Two users (myself and Xenu) have independently motioned for deletion review. prat (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Query I read it that prat is trying to suggest he is an uninvolved admin who is now disputing my decision but it appears that he actually created the article in the first place [1]. Is this interpretation correct? not correct sorry Polargeo (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see why the "delete" was such an unreasonable close in that instance. The "delete" arguments seemed much better grounded in policy and much more in accordance with usual custom and practice, while the "keep" arguments did not seem in accordance with Wikipedia's main purpose; the "keep" side seems to have been under the impression that Wikipedia's deletion process is a democracy. "Delete" would certainly have been a typical outcome of such a debate and I don't see any arguments against that outcome that I find compelling.—S Marshall T/C 15:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. DRV is a place to express how the deletion process has not been followed, not a place to object to an outcome with which you disagree. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would note that it is commonplace to discount opinions which appear to be from single-purpose accounts or users who were solicited from outside sites.

Stifle (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Administrator correctly discounted barrage of opinions solicited outside of Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it a problem to involve the wider community, when quite clearly the strength of arguments rather than their volume is supposed to be the deciding factor? prat (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse weighing arguments and discouting socks/meats isn't just what closing admins are expected to do, it's what they're required to do. Close was correct, and this DRV is entirely baseless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand how can you believe that the article does not belong on wikipedia, despite the fact that it is a real system with demonstrably above-average media coverage for a software project at this stage of development, even after many users have spent time improving it and very similar articles exist, and real wikipedia users have requested it to be kept? prat (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct outcome based on discussion. i.e. ignoring bald assertions of notability, calls to ignore the basic policies, confusing use of the software with "non-trivial coverage", crystal balling etc. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to non-consensus. The admin deleted based on which set of arguments he thought the better supported. This is inappropriate. The most we admins should do in closing is to discard the completely non-policy based arguments--it's the community which decides which argument is more important, and better supported, & they show it at the AfD. A new AfD uncontaminated by spa's would be a good idea, and might lead to a valid delete opinion. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it may be your opinion that comments from SPAs/IPs should be given equal weight as long as they cite valid policies, this is not an opinion held by the community in general. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who decides who 'the community in general' is? If the community's opinion is desired, then canvassing should be allowed, but only arguments (not quantity of 'me too') should be considered in a decision. prat (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. If this article is deleted, I have lost my faith in Wikipedia and will resign as an administrator. prat (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Key arguments to keep were: 'its a real system', 'the system is at forefront of a field with significant academic research', 'real users have requested the page be kept', 'there are very similar articles that have not been deleted, such as Ripple monetary system'. prat (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've struck your additional bolded sentiment, as the nominator you've already stated your sentiment once, you don't get two shots. Your willigness to resign over this is of little or no bearing on the matter.
      • DRV is not afd part 2, so there is no need to restart the original arguments but to response. (1) "its a real system" - the threshold for inclusion is not existance (2) "the system is at forefront of a field with significant academic research" - that may make the field in itself notable, but you don't get notability by association. (3) "real users have requested the page be kept" - and real have opined it should be deleted (4)"there are very similar articles that have not been deleted.." is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I'm quite suprised that as an admin you can't see how weak and non-policy based these arguements are, particularly as the "Key arguments". --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, sorry I'm not too familiar with this process as I've never had to deal with it before. I guess essentially I am an inclusionist ... this rings a bell ... how anyone could be against including significant content is beyond me. The extremely similar Ripple monetary system article I mentioned is not even as complete as Bitcoin! This is the problem with deletionist sentiments ... what do you want to do, suddenly weed out all software articles based upon some abstract criteria of notability that's based on mainstream / physical media coverage? This makes no sense. Sometimes it's worth taking a step back instead of trying to pretend that we have an all-encompassing set of rules that is going to always resolve a situation correctly. Even Jimmy Wales has admitted this, see peer reviewed journal: "The crux of the battle between ‘inclusionists’ and ‘deletionists’ is over what subjects should be considered ‘notable’ for purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia … I would not say that the policy itself is really part of the problem. Rather, it is open editing policy and the ‘consensus’ policy, and how they are administrated, that I identify as the more likely culprits [he means the instant and anonymous editing of articles] … . Wikipedia’s governance is so diffuse and dysfunctional, that even they don’t know how to describe it … I was interested to see that Jimbo Wales [nickname of Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s founder] effectively admitted … that Wikipedia’s policies were essentially made up as they went along." prat (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • To the above I would also add the following quote which IMHO hits the nail on the head: "There’s also a lot of bluster and bullying goes on when the deletionists crop up. Throwing acronyms around sends a signal to newbies that they’re not welcome. If you Twitter about a deletion debate, you’re accused of canvassing and booed off. Anonymous accounts and new users are often regarded with suspicion as potential sock puppets (NOTE: this happened to Bitcoin). Most people find it hostile and intimidating, and perhaps even a bit childish, but the deletionists don’t care. They’re so obsessed with making Wikipedia what they think it should be that they’ve completely lost sight of the end users." prat (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are making a big assumption as to what my (or others opining here) sentiment actually is, personally I wouldn't label myself with either a deletionist or inclusionist tag, I don't find either particularly useful or compelling. I suspect the vast majority of wikipedia editors also wouldn't label themselves with either, they frequently seem to be used as a pejorative to label others. There are certainly times I believe a topic/thing to be worthy of inclusion but the sources etc aren't up to scratch or whatever. I have several options (1) find better sources etc. (2) be happy in my belief it warrants inclusion and know that it won't take long for the world to take note (3) Open a broader discussion on the general merits and attempt to get the guidelines/policies changed - ignoring them on a case by case basis isn't helpful it means we are constantly having the same debate. Finally I also believe that there is a need for an inclusion standard/criteria without it and any old crap getting into wikipedia damages it's credibility and usefulness as a resource. Experience tells me that simple rules are the best, those which require huge amount of interpretation, loads of nuances and expections etc. are generally problamatic and please no one. However simple rules also don't deal with the edge cases very well. I also accept that wherever we place the line someone will be unhappy as to why it isn't an inch further back and arguing for such movement. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good points. I am all for simplicity, too. Deletion should be a last resort for things that clearly ARENT encyclopedic. Deletion should not even be a potential outcome for articles such as Bitcoin which describe real world systems. prat (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2010 (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/2010_August_4&oldid=1082338344"