- Pyrrho (RDBMS) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Inappropriate application and due diligence in use of WP:G11 by nominator and deleting administrator with failure to follow G11 Field guide guidelines. Guidelines suggest use of Speedy G11 is only appropriate in unambiguously blatant cases. I suggest this has been an abuse of the speedy delete procedure ... possibly in good faith. Possible also deleting admin may have suggested DRV to get a precedence example Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find this in a Google cache anywhere. Could we get a temp undelete? Hobit (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, list at AfD G11 Field guide is an essay. The policy is at WP:G11, and differs is some significant ways. For example, the essay talks about an article being unsalvageable, but the policy only talks about the need for it to be fundamentally rewritten. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but it seems like the essay is applying a higher bar. The text in the essay dates back to April 2007. We've gotten more stringent in the past 11 years, in response to ever-increasing abuse. That being said, this doesn't seem like classic G11 material. I doubt it would survive WP:AfD, but G11 seems like quite a stretch to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It could have been A7 also — I think it does need to be fundamentally rewritten and the sourcing is basically non-existant, so improvement is not likely. I think those factors, taken together, would meet the requirements of even more conservative admins. But since we're here I think it would be helpful if Djm-leighpark could address the issue of whether he believes this article would even survive AfD — if the answer is no, it could also have been non-controversially deleted as an A7.Seraphim System (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles about software aren't eligible for A7 deletion. This isn't even close. —Cryptic 21:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I do stand by the G11 nomination in any case, the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten. I think it would be easier to do a little more work so it meets basic standards, instead of blaming editors for good faith efforts trying to maintain those standards. One giveaway of a promotional article is that it doesn't contain any content that doesn't serve a promotional purpose.Seraphim System (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, I never understood why WP:A7 only applied to specific things (people, animals, organizations, web content, events). If people and animals, why not software? If web content, why not books, movies, newspapers, etc? It all seems rather arbitrary. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We are here to discuss possible procedural misuse of WP:G11 in the first instance, and maybe we all learn something ... me especially as I've missed the footie highlights being here ... and because one man's attempt at objective description of key facts (without going WP:ORIGINAL) can be another's unambiguous advertising ... and of course I will blame User:Seraphim System for the speedy, but appreciate his work in general. I'd agree the sources are right at the bare minimum to survive AfD, but in my opinion are enough: the sourced European Commission project likely needed an Optimistic concurrency control (OCC) conventional RDBMS for that project and Pyrrho is one of about 2 or so examples of that to my knowledge, Mimer SQL being the other clear one. The fact it's in the significant Connolly/Begg book is another one. Improvement contributions to the article are of course welcome.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn speedy I don't see how it's hugely promotional. It has some sense of "this is why you want to use it" but it's pretty barebones. Not sure it would make it at AfD (can't tell how independent the coverage is) but it isn't a G11 (or A7). Hobit (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- List At AfD. Borderline G11, not offensive, these should be easily undeleted and listed at AfD based on any reasonable objection. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to Afd--Per SmokeyJoe.I, for one, (like RoySmith) has never understood the restriction of A7 but that's suff for another day...∯WBGconverse 07:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I'm not voting here, but I actually don't think it should go to AfD, because it may survive AfD and it should not be in mainspace until it ready. I see hundreds of low-quality articles while working through the backlogs at AfC and NPP, and the response is often complaints about deletion, or not passing AfC and comments like "improvement contributions to the article are of course welcome". Hundreds, with hundreds more waiting review — AfC and NPP don't have the resources to rewrite every single one. If they are allowed in mainspace, most are not improved, and they stay that way for years. What I look for is "Is it trying to sell something" and "does it contain content I can't find on the company/product webpage" — This article doesn't give any (sourced) information that you can't find at Pyrrho's own webpage. I would support moving it to draftspace, but absolutely not keeping it in mainspace until it's ready. Seraphim System (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at AfD It's probably not notable, but it is also not particualrly promotional.I can't see the point of sying "it shouldn't go to afd because it might survive AfD" == thhat'sactually a good reason for listing it at afd. That's where we test notabillity. Personally, I think it should have been written as a draft, but if someone wants to try AfD, and hope for the erratic keep
leep result, they have the right to do so. DGG ( talk ) 13:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not cleanup, which means articles that are not ready for mainspace can't just be deleted through the AfD process if the underlying topic is notable (though that doesn't stop editors from trying sometimes). Most often, they just end up staying in mainspace unless someone else does the cleanup — which I do prefer to deletion, if it is something I can fix like improperly formatted references — but in this case, there are hardly any accessible sources, so that wasn't an option. Seraphim System (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:DGG, “erratic leep result”?? Should have been written in draft? You may be interested to read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace. This bit of software should never be in draft, in draft, in AfC, it will only waste everyone’s time, the author’s, the reviewers’. It is either suitable for mainspace or it is not, and no improvement will change the decision. And draftspace is not the place where help is received. Only by linking to similar topics, through categories. Through wikilinks, things forbidden in draftspace, will the author of this, and editors interested in similar topics, encounter. It should be in mainspace, stand-alone, or merged, or it should be deleted, and AfD is the place for that decision. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing leep -> keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- corrected. And if written in draft, might have turned out to be expandable and given a chance to improve. I gather, SmokeyJoe, you don't think drafts ever get improved, but my experience there is that, of the 9/10 that get declined at first, about 1/5 of them do improve enough to be moved and kept in mainspace. It might be higher if more reviewers there offerred practical advice, instead of using the over-general templates. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think unsubmitted drafts never get help, and when submitted, they get less help than a new article in mainspace gets. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont restore as everyone seems to agree it’s crap that shouldn’t be in the encyclopedia, I see no point in having this exact same conversation with the opposite outcome for a week. No reason to waste community time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not crap, it is just a pedestrian NSOFT problem. The time wasting is what’s happening here, it should have been speedy restored and AfD-ed on the reasonable objection. There may be Merge options, evaluating notability and merge options is the job of AfD not DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It used to be standard practice that a contested CSD was automatically turned into an AfD nomination. Then there was some big (and, IMHO, silly) todo about what we shouldn't do that anymore. So, here we are. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I don't think there is an NSOFT. My understanding is that software is currently covered only by WP:NPRODUCT which is part of WP:NORG — the A7 wording exempts "creative works" like software, but would it exempt run of the mill products too, like a type of tire? It doesn't say.Seraphim System (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. You don't think there is an WP:NSOFT? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I know about the essay, but the only guideline is NPRODUCT, based on what I've seen in other discussions. I support turning NSOFT into a guideline, but there are some points of disagreement, for example the part about informal sourcing for FoSS software would seem to directly implicate the independent sourcing requirement.Seraphim System (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also confused. Why are you bringing up A7 in relation to WP:NPRODUCT at all? —Cryptic 14:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So I know for the future - are you saying NPRODUCT is not covered by by any of speedy criteria? I guess ideally I am hoping someone will link me to a previous RfC where this has been discussed, because I am still relatively new at NPP. Products are probably not creative works so why would they be excluded on a technicality?Seraphim System (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
