Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 January 30
2011 February 1 >

31 January 2011[edit]

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

More sources added and article is neutral Indiey (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion Sources include notable publications, article is neutral, subject is an important name in his field.Yankeefan233 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion sources in the Google cache version of the article appear to be articles under his byline, not about him. I don't see how authoring piecemeal contract articles demonstrate his importance to the field. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
*Comment I'm not sure where the above comes from?Yankeefan233 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Reverse deletion' I can't find any evidence that any of these articles are under his byline. Do you have a screenshot or search string that would give proof of this? The articles look like legit 3rd party articles to me.Electrojet2008 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The G4'd version is considerably worse than the earlier AfD'd version. The sources listed are quite obviously not about Mr. Bonney, though they do mention him in passing. If new sources have been found which can establish Mr. Bonney's notability, feel free to present them here, but otherwise I see no point in restoring the article. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Despite the problems the creator has, this subject independent from that creator has reason to be worthy of inclusion. Once you've got a good article, you've got to overlook these problems with the creator and value the content over the person. If an article on the same subject were to be created by someone else, it would not likely have gone to Afd, and it could be improved through editing. Shaliya waya (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn For the same reasons as above. Seems people don't like the creator as opposed to notability of the subject. I'm also puzzled by Schmucky's odd assertion that the referenced media articles were written by the subject himself when this clearly seems not to be the case.Oceansummer87 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify Sounds like a case where someone ought to be working on a userspace draft for community appraisal. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And by userfy I sure hope you mean WP:INCUBATE. Userfy is where bad proposed articles go to die. Incubator at least mops up afterwards. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Overturn With regard to notability, I would like to point out that all the online references except reference 6(I couldnt check 6 because I'm not signed up to The Times) are directly about Jeremy Soul. If needed, I can post individual paragraphs and quotes from all the articles proving this fact. Like Shaliya said, the subject matter is worthy of inclusion into wikipedia, even if it were through compromise/editing of some parts. I do not understand why it needs to be deleted. Indiey (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - keep article Subject is definitely notable in the dating industry, the online references are verifiable, the POV is neutral, the article is factual.Damienp12 (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - as pointed out, the latest version doesn't address any of the issues raised in the original AfD; if anything it's even worse in that regard. Many of the "Overturn" arguments here have nothing whatsoever to do with policy, and are about the article's creator or simple assertions that the "subject is definitely notable". Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment So do the arguments to delete. The first two arguments to delete were 1) "the articles were originally written by him" of which there is no evidence (and seems especially outlandish to think Jeremy Soul is now a Times of London writer) and 2) the articles barely mention him (which is also not true given a cursory look at the articles). Let's get specific. What SPECIFIC issues with the article do you have? Just saying "doesn't meet criteria" is no better than saying "does meet criteria".Damienp12 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article Objections seem excessively pedantic and vague. I'm surprised this is even up for discussion; these are notable sources, written by third parties, about the subject. As a side note (which should not detract from what I just said), I am familiar with the 'pick up artist' field, which some might object to, and I can say with 100% confidence that the subject is indisputably notable within that field.Bossanueva (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Since the speedy deleted article is not substantially a copy of the article considered at AfD, criterion G4 is inapplicable. --Bsherr (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I do not see what is different to when this was at AfD. Then the coverage wasn't about this person, but about either the company he worked for or "pick ups". There were problems with the original article and AfD with sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and it seems that a similar thing is going on here, with 4 of those above having accounts registered on the same day. I would suggest an SPI if it wasn't so obvious. Quantpole (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closing admin correctly discounted the meatpuppet votes which (surprize, surprize) have returned to this discussion. Create a draft with the new sources and pay attention to our notability guidelines. When you are satisfied that they are met, come back here. ThemFromSpace 15:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Vague allegations of sockpuppets should be specific and provable/disprovable. Otherwise any WP:IDONTLIKEIT objections can kill any article by just muttering "sock puppets". Is everyone voting to overturn a sock puppet? That seems highly unlikely. People in the pickup field have fans, even over-aggressive ones, but like Shaliya waya said, the article should stand on it's own merits, issues with the messy creation process aside.Bossanueva (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I didn't intend it to be a vague accusation of sock/meatpuppetry, but a definite one. 4 of the accounts who have voted here were registered on the same date. Do you think that's just a coincidence? Given that there is a history of these sort of games with this article I hardly think it unfair to point it out.
You are right that the article should stand on its own merits, but I don't see what those merits are. When this was at AfD there were sources but there wasn't enough specifically about this person (more being about picking up women in general or love systems). I don't see what has changed since then. Quantpole (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not just on the same date; four of the accounts voting to overturn the deletion were created within 20 minutes of each other, and all have made under 50 edits. Note to closing admin - there's obviously some sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going here. The original AfD was also plagued with this. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, either you've opened a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI, or you haven't. Unsupported ad hominem arguments aren't helpful here. So have you started a sockpuppet investigation? --Bsherr (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why I should have to jump through hoops when it's this obvious. I have better things to do with my time than waste any more of it on those playing such games. Quantpole (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had already opened a sockpuppet investigation before you commented. Unsurprisingly, Bossanueva and the four other accounts turned out to be sockpuppets. This was a classic case of WP:DUCK, and there was no need to make people jump through hoops, just because all the sockpuppets happened to agree with you. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
FastCode (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

We were in discussion of the close with Spartaz when he went on vacation. So we are apparently going to skip that step. I will say that the difficulty of getting a page listed has completely surprised me and raised my respect for WP. That said, I thought the delete discussion was going well and pretty much everyone had reversed their delete vote when it was closed. I think this deletion should be reviewed. Blwhite (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, we'll happily review it. The deletion review is a great deal more likely to go in your favour if you will kindly provide a list of the sources you intend to use for this topic, including at least two that are not blogs or any other form of user-submitted content, are fully independent of FastCode and any associated people or corporations, and provide non-trivial coverage of the subject.—S Marshall T/C 17:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appeal to the closing admin is here. Many of the sources in the article were either self published, not third-party, or only passing mention. The only two that I think really worked toward establishing notability per wp:GNG are below. Unfortunately they are not available online. When I saw them, I withdrew my delete !vote because I felt like this might be enough to satisfy gng. Spartaz apparently missed it before closing, and after getting a chance to read them thought that it still wasn't enough; you can see this on the discussion I linked to above. Here are the sources:
    • Long, Brian & Swart, Bob, "Borland Developer Studio 2006 Reviewed", The Delphi Magazine, Issue 124, December 2005
      This devotes a few paragraphs to explaining what fastcode is and how some of its projects were included in the new version of this product. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A new release product overview, is naturally going to be summary in nature. But note that even though Delphi 2005 is generally considered the buggiest version since Delphi 4, the FastCode additions got more attention than the more than 1000 bug fixes. Blwhite (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gabrijelcic, Primoz, "To Manage Memory", The Delphi Magazine, Issue 126, February 2006
      There is a half a page talking about what fastcode is and how it works in order to introduce a memory manager that came out of the fastcode project. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be fair, the whole 8 page article is about FastMM and why it is better than the existing allocator from Borland, including how it grew out of the FastCode challenges. For those who are not familiar, FastMM is now the poster child of the FastCode project. But it was not the origin, or initial purpose of FC. FMM came as a natural result. Blwhite (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The GNG wants significant sources in addition to third party sources. Neither "a few paragraphs" nor "a half page" are significant. No other coverage in five years? I'm guessing they also don't show anything about how Fastcode is extraordinary not WP:MILL. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • The rest of the discussion is where is the boundary for being an independent source. All the rest of the sources are familiar with the situation, and are therefore being counted as not independent.
To clarify, it is as if an open source group started a project and wrote an installer intended to replace the MSI installer from MS. This new installer is compatible with existing MSIs and can be used directly. Having blogs and other sources from Borland advocating and recommending FastCode routines is the equivalent of MS engineers coming out and saying, "this new installer is better than anything that we can come up with. We recommend using it." I can't imagine that anyone would say that the MS sources weren't independent, as no one at MS was involved in the project. Yes, they benefit from it. And yes, they are biased, but the other way! It would be only natural to resist admitting that these open source guys can do better. In my mind, that makes it all the more impressive when they come out in favor of it.
So it is in this case. There had been many attempts over the years to suggest improvements to Delphi and even to submit code changes to Delphi itself by the Delphi community. By and large, these were met with stone cold silence. FC itself, at first, received the same reception from Borland. So we see the inclusion of FastCode routines in Delphi as a major win for the project members, and the community as a whole. Conversely, we are confused by the finding that references to FastCode and FastMM from inside Borland are not independent.
So yes, we have several references. But I want to get this question of whether Borland references count as independent resolved first so that we don't flood you with a bunch of useless information. For example, Steve Trefethen worked on incorporating Fastcode stuff into Delphi 2007. That is, he did not work on the FastCode project itself. In my mind, he is like the MS installer engineer excited about replacing the MSI installer.
HTH. Blwhite (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the Trefethen source is a little too self-published to do much wrt GNG, even if it is deemed fully independent. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Sources were added after the Afd started, and from then on, all comments were in favor of keeping. This reflects the more final consensus. Shaliya waya (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn In addition to the references listed above, FastCode is also explained in Marco Cantu's book, Mastering Delphi 2005, p. 157. The closing admin's comments, both on the AfD page and on his personal user page, consistently misrepresented the discussion. E.g., on AfD he stated that providing sources "doesn't appear to have happened" and on his user page he said that sourcing "wasn't discussed." Clearly, neither one was true. Although I don't think that AfD is the best way to request sourcing for an article, it did have the effect, in this case, of getting verifiable citations, and more were being added throughout the process. Because the close appears to have been based on factually incorrect assumptions and because WP:GNG was being actively addressed, I think this should be reconsidered. --Craig Stuntz (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Subject appears notable, citations appear legitimate, what's the problem?Oceansummer87 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The GNG is careful to avoid saying what is meant by "substantial". I consider it to mean anything more than routine identification, rather than a fixed number of words or sentences. Certainly many articles and reviews about computer software & the like, even of clearly notable products, tend to be half a page or so. Merely the fact that something is chosen for such write up is notability, because most are not. Borland refs are not totally independent, but there's no reason not to think they are objective--that a major manufacturer includes something in its product is relevant, and its description is good source. Spartaz usually makes good decisions, but for a few of the most recent ones, he seems to have ignored improvements in sourcing during the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I agree with Craig Stuntz's identification of the problems with the close. The reliability of the sources ought to be assessed, though, going forward. I'm not convinced the article is proved yet. --Bsherr (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Phillip Greaves (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A couple of weeks ago, this deletion review was closed as changing from Delete to redirect. That is some progress, but still not the desired outcome. But one thing that really bothers me was the decision to protect the namesake page from all editing. This is yet another act of administrator abuse, one of the very issues that was brought up during the previous DELREV. There is no reason this title should be fully protected. There was never any edit warring or anyone going against the consensus and changing this title back to an article following the afd, and there was no consensus or even a single suggestion to protect it prior to this action. There is nothing in Wikipedia's page protection guidelines calling for this page to be protected. Shaliya waya (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the last DRV reached the right conclusion: protected redirect to the most suitable page for covering the single thing notable about this person. I see no case to be made for "administrator abuse", and it is very bad form to toss the accusation around lightly.
  • Endorse redirection.
  • Endorse protection of the redirect.
  • Allow any interested wikipedian in good standing to develop a userspace draft to be presented at DRV so as to demonstrate that a suitable WP:BLP can be written, but noting that the community has little tolerance for such things lingering in userspace, once you start, do it promptly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, but not before 6 months, per Jclemens, is a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, with a six month moratorium on any further discussion of the matter or associated userspace drafting. If, in six months, he's still in the news, or if in the intervening time the community decides to revisit this and vacate it because he's managed to do something different such that BLP1E no longer applies, then and only then would a revisiting of whether or not he needs his own article be in order. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Protecting a redirect is not unusual in cases like this and it's certainly not "administrator abuse". --Mkativerata (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it is. An administrator is being abused.  ;)—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV is not DRV round 3. There has to come a point where finality is reached in the deletion chain. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you want it unprotected, Shaliya waya? I mean, I've read your nomination. But what I want to know is, what would you do if it was unprotected? Would you restore the content, despite the previous consensus about it? Would you encourage someone else to restore it?—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe more about this subject will appear in the media soon. It is only a matter of time, as there will be an inevitable trial that will receive publication. By then, all will agree the subject is notable and deserves a standalone article. Even now, I believe most do - the delete decision was made initially against the virtual unanimous consensus to keep. Shaliya waya (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I believe more about this subject will appear in the media soon". Then why rush this now, to the annoyance of your peers? I do not agree that the subject is notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Trying to see the good faith in someone dredging this up again so soon, but it is rather difficult, as a consensus was reached at the last discussion. And "DRV is not DRV round 3" is MY line, buddy. ;) Tarc (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Does not appear to be administrator abuse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeefan233 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abuse the administrators more! NW (Talk) 02:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I'm mistaken, WP:RFPP also does unprotect requests. You might have better luck there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not much point in that, without an existing consensus (here) solidily against that. NW (Talk) 03:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I concur with Lifebaka that the remedy sought, unprotection, is not one that DRV should offer. --Bsherr (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If it's going to notable "soon" then we don't have long to wait, do we? Sounds like a bit of time will solve this whole issue.Electrojet2008 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2011 (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/2011_January_31&oldid=1086104720"