Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 February 18
2010 February 20 >

19 February 2010[edit]

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

Deleted with only five !votes? Doesn't sound like much in the way of consensus to me. Also, bear in mind that delete !votes were in the minority. jgpTC 22:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - the opinions in favour of deleting made sound arguments in line with deletion policy and notability guidelines. The basic argument that there is a lack of independent coverage was not answered by the users who thought the article should be kept, one of whom in fact stated "It is probably not very notable yet, but it is in very active devellopment" - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In all I think the decision to delete was a fair reading of the discussion and within administrative discretion. Guest9999 (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I had nominated this article for deletion, so I'm not going to !vote here. I suggest a userspace draft if you think it's going to pass WP:N shortly, but do not move it to mainspace before that happens. You could also merge some of the information to WebKit, the engine on which this browser is based on, as suggested by some during the AfD. Pcap ping 02:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article's sources were either not independent or didn't help establish notability. They were [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Thus, the "delete" recommenders, who said there were no sources that established notability, seem to have had the better argument in the AfD discussion. However, the article should be allowed to be re-created if notability can be established at a later date. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It's not the number of !votes which count; it's the arguments presented. The arguments to delete may have been in the minority, but they all pointed to the lack of reliable, independent sources establishing notability. The arguments to keep the article were mostly along the lines of, "But look at how many pretty features it has!" —Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - three editors quoting policy to explain why it's notable vs two editors who think the features are really cool and that it might be notable someday. I can't see how the closing admin could have judged the consensus differently, A userspace draft is probably the way to go - I've had some hopefuls in my userspace for months waiting for that notability barrier to be broken . . . --otherlleft 13:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge/redirect To be clear: I agree with all of the above commenters regarding the substance of the debate in this AfD. The arguments presented in the debate by those seeking deletion were indeed stronger, as they were rooted in policies such as WP:DEL and WP:CRYSTAL and in our notability guidelines. Meanwhile, one of the "keep" votes essentially amounted to a listing of the subject's features and WP:ILIKEIT, while the other admitted that the subject was "probably not very notable yet." However, the latter vote should not be completely discarded, as it made a valid point: The subject may achieve notability rather soon, and there is a reasonable merge/redirect target. It is Wikipedia policy to preserve information that "might have some discussion value" and to consider alternatives to deletion. In this AfD, Honeyman recognized that this subject have its own article was inappropriate, but also realized the value of merging or redirecting to preserve information and the revision history of the article. Therefore, while there was a consensus to no longer have an article about Rekonq, it would have been most pragmatic (and policy-compliant) for the closing admin to have taken Honeyman's suggestion and merged or redirected. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin. Just to clarify, User:jgp' s statement that "delete !votes were in the minority" is incorrect. There were three delete !votes, two keep votes, and one "Merge/redirect to WebKit?" Those arguing for deletion made guideline-based arguments. One of the two arguing to keep said "It is probably not very notable yet, but it is in very active devellopment." That's not an argument that an article should currently exist. The other basically said it has lots of neat features, so should be kept. That's not a strong argument to keep it either. Jayjg (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse the delete !votes were stronger. I've done some looking and I found a few sources that would help a little, but not enough to keep an article in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. When deletion and keeping "votes" are roughly balanced, there is a duty on the closing administrator to investigate whether arguments were based in policy, and give higher weight to those that are. Bzhb's argument, in particular, was a good argument for deletion despite that it was prefixed with a bold "keep". Stifle (talk) 17:29, 21 February 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.
Individual server rules in Four Square (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

temporary review so we can copy content to community website I would like to request a temporary review of Individual server rules in Four Square. I am a member of Squarefour, a Four square league that meets in Boston, and we would love to have the 300 or so deleted rules and variations on our website. I have tried in vain to recover the material from Google Cache and Archive.org's Wayback Machine. The material and work that went into it is otherwise lost.

We would really appreciate it if someone could either have the article restored to my userspace, or emailed to me at my username at gmail, whichever is easier for you.

As a fellow contributor, thank you for your attention, time, and continued service. -kslays (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Super Obama World – Closed; disputed keep closure was made over a year ago, so renomination at AFD is the correct step rather than listing here. – Stifle (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Super Obama World (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Game is non-notable. According to WP:VG/GL, "Articles on video games should give an encyclopedic overview of a game and its importance to the industry." This article does not do that. Yes, it did get some coverage from the BBC and a few other places around election time, but what makes this Flash game more notable than the hundreds of other Flash games about Obama? Yekrats (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse per default since the request does not argue why the AfD closer assessed consensus incorrectly. DRV is not AfD round two.  Sandstein  14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion was ended prematurely. I don't know if that carries any weight. -- Yekrats (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was clearly to keep. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, the AfD was closed after only one day, I suggest you ask the closing admin to reopen the discussion to allow more time for other views. J04n(talk page) 14:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On third thought...I was a bit of a bonehead on my last response forgetting what year it is. Agree with Metropolitan90 below on bringing it back to Afd. J04n(talk page) 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep but allow re-nomination at AfD. The AfD was more than a year ago, so there would be no point in re-opening that particular AfD. However, if User:Yekrats believes that there is a good reason to delete the article, they should feel free to re-nominate it, providing a detailed explanation as to why the decision in the prior AfD was wrong and why the sources in the article are inadequate to establish notability, even though they may appear to do so. (Keep in mind that the hundreds of other Flash games about Obama may not have received as much coverage in reliable independent sources as this one did. I don't pay that much attention to Flash games myself, so I wouldn't know from personal knowledge.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist In hindsight, the closing was irregularly premature despite the obvious non-notability of this article and time has made this article even less notable.--The lorax (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just renominate it and close this DRV. Tim Song (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried, but User:Guest9999 said I must list it here. Sorry, I don't fully understand Wikipedia protocol. -- Yekrats (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what User:Guest9999 said. The issue was that you tried to use the WP:PROD process which is for uncontested deletions, since it's been through AFD before it would seem unlikely it would be uncontested. What User:Guest9999 suggested was to bring it here or relist it at AFD by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. Many here are suggesting the latter also as being the best and quickest way forward, since it is extremely unlikely that this process will overturn the old decision and the only two other options are to either endorse the original keep or to relist it at AFD, if it's that relisting which occurs it will be after 7 days here. You don't need to wait that 7 days follow those instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion and list it now. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, guys, I'm not familiar with some of the TLAs! I thought this was what I was supposed to do. I don't mind rescinding this process and relisting as AFD! -- Yekrats (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a separate note, if you do list it you may want to consider your deletion rationale. The WP:VG/GL isn't an inclusion criteria it's more about trying to reflect the content scope of the article, it's also wikiproject based and wikiprojects don't get to set/override the rules for the encyclopedia. The likely inclusion criteria to be used is the general notability guideline, if it meets that then inclusion is almost certainly warranted in one form or another. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. DRV is not AFD round 2. jgpTC 22:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Open a new AfD if you think it fails WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NTEMP. The AfD challenged here was over a year ago. Pointless DRV. Pcap ping 02:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse previous close- its been a year, go ahead and re-nominate if it bugs you that much. Just let me know, Based on the sources from Time Magazine and The Economist, two pretty reliable sources, I'll be voting to keep based on meeting the WP:GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There was a clear consensus to keep the article at the AfD. However, the fact that the use of the snowball clause has been contested means that this was probably not a great candidate for early closure under that clause. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:23, 20 February 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.
User talk:Spartaz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Following what appears to be a dispute with others, Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted and protected his user talk page. I undid this deletion as out of policy. Spartaz has re-deleted it and labeled himself as retired. Since people do not own their talk page or any other page, I ask that the page be undeleted and unprotected. If Spartaz feels that it ought to be deleted, he may nominate it for WP:MfD. WP:RTV#How to leave states that user talk pages "are generally not deleted unless there is a specific reason that page blanking is insufficient. This specific reason needs to be established by nominating it via Miscellany for Deletion."  Sandstein  07:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow deletion. It seems odd to comment here for something like this, but if a user truly wants to retire from Wikipedia for some reason, any reason, they should be able to delete their talk page. RTV. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, the RTV policy explicitly does not extend to talk pages. Talk pages are required to communicate with users. They may also contain content of relevance to other users.  Sandstein  08:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that, but there isn't much to talk about if the person has legitimately left the project. Ideally, we should delete this talk page (leaving it as it is) and remove the administrative privileges from the account. JBsupreme (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the deletion history of his talkpage, he's misused deletion in this way before. He gets mad, "retires", deletes his talkpage, and comes back. It's not an acceptable use of the delete button, and it needs to stop. Scottaka UnitAnode 08:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. The delete button isn't to be used in a fit of anger, as it was here, and deletion policy doesn't allow for deletion of usertalk without extenuating circumstances. Scottaka UnitAnode 08:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see what purpose this DRV serves, and what positive effects it may achieve. Without voicing an opinion on the merits of the deletion, speedy close. Let's drop this for now. When everyone involved is no longer caught in the heat of the moment, it may well be the case that a DRV would be unnecessary. Tim Song (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per Tim Song. The 1st person to !vote here for an overturn is the guy whose block caused all this kerfuffle. Not a good idea. Pcap ping 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and unprotect (note that I have reversed my speedy closure as the admin in question has now escalated matters by protecting their talk page). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Spartaz has now undeleted and unprotected the page (thanks!), I think this can now be closed as moot.  Sandstein  13:23, 19 February 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_February_19&oldid=1080450723"