- Kirshenbaum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The rationale for the nomination (lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources) was not adequately addressed by the participants. Nardog (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete – although there were two keep !votes and one delete !vote (the nom), the three sources put forward for GNG each have only one mention of Kirshenbaum. These three passing mentions don't amount to significant coverage to meet GNG. All other sourcing in the article appears to be Kirshenbaum himself. While these sources may meet WP:V, they don't meet WP:GNG. If this is all the sourcing that's out there (and after two relists, it appears that it is), then this article should be deleted, despite the numeric !votes. Leviv ich 17:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess after the nom consulted with the closer, the closer has changed the close to no consensus without prejudice to speedy renomination, which basically moots this DRV. I now think this should be closed/withdrawn and the article can be renominated for deletion. Leviv ich 01:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @Nardog Per WP:DRVPURPOSE Deletion review should not be used ... (2) ... can you explain why this was not discussed (or attempted to be discussed) with the closing administrator first nor a reason for not having that discussion or results thereof presented at this DRV nomination. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djm-leighpark: You're right, I've started a discussion with the closer. Nardog (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The result has been revised from "keep" to "no consensus". According to the statement, the closer does "not believe these sources represent significant coverage". Nardog (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse discussion really could only be closed as NC or keep. Given book references etc (https://www.google.com/search?q=kirshenbaum+ipa), this seems like a notable, if not deeply discussed in independent sources, topic. Basically everyone just describes it and references the website. Seems like a reasonable topic for an article. Hobit (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit: Can you provide examples of the independent sources which you think discuss the topic deeply? Nardog (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, my point was that I couldn't find such a thing. But I am finding a number of quality sources that briefly describe it and then refer others to the website. Maybe all the ASCII transcriptions of IPA should be merged into one article, but frankly, I don't think that would help our readers. I agree notability, in terms of sources, is low. But A) the discussion didn't move toward delete and B) to me, this feels like the type of thing Wikipedia should be covering (rather than actors or random comic characters). Hobit (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I will renominate it as advised above. Nardog (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Stricken for the time being. Nardog (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Object to withdraw now its here Comment (See !vote below): I have issues with the closer and with this DRV so request remains open. I will detail issues in course. I would suggest the closer checks things with extreme care and says what he need to say here. The issue actual results from what I think is an error on my part. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djm-leighpark: So what is your objection? It's not clear here or on User talk:Scott Burley. Nardog (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djm-leighpark: Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to. If I'm misreading you then I apologize for the tone, but you need to actually make an argument if you want it to be considered. If I've missed something, please bring it up at the renominated AfD. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I observe two people who I believe may have made good faith errors in procedures are now rushing me. More seemly is whether or how WP:RENOM applies or whether a relist from this DRV would be endorsed. I think people who have a positive attitiude to the content and who might have to put in the volunteer effort to save what appears at first glance to be a good faith article. And this is not yet my argument I came across the WP:RENOM in passing for something else 10 minutes ago. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Right: I've had a change to look round at thing. I had a bad doi link in a cite and added and no-one seemed to pick it up. Ultimately that ref was essentially a passing reference but i've now fixed it. I've also cast my mind back 3 weeks ago .. it takes 8 hours to get stuff from long term memory ... when I'd look at that nom. in detail. I think at the time I noted the article had at most one (if any) primary references and I added 2 or 3 to it, of which one all but one were passing references however they supported the text, and I may have mistaken one for slightly more than passing due to fact IPA is not my geek scene .... its just something that get put and occasionally argued about at the start of articles ... (to me frankly IPA is first and foremost a drink). I remember at the time noting Nardog's contributions there seemed to be a great understanding of and passion about IPA. If I understand correctly the article in question here is one of the set of systems about International Phonetic Alphabet#ASCII and keyboard transliterations. It was not the first in this set, but its development through Usenet and its connection to eSpeak have some significance. But it is perhaps the availability of the document [1] on the HP website led to it being ab easy goto reference for maybe about 15 years. But while many were likely to give it a passing reference I suspect few would do it at the document was likely self sufficient. So while the article may be nice and verifiable it may ultimately not be able to satisfy the Wikt:Pharisees (figuratively but meaning no offence) so blood is to be had. Now there may be a clever defence, or there may be a reference appear out of nowhere or offline, but the fallback will likely be merge or re-purpose which will possibly be more ugly but the only method to retain content. Which is all a bit of a pain in the butt to look forward to in 6 or some might argue 2 months times at per WP:RENOM. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Its a solid keep as there is plenty of sources if a proper search is made using the real name of the technology as opposed to the person who is associated with it, Kirshenbaum . It is a genuine keep. The three sources represent the use of Kirshenbaum by two separate technologies and the are not related except through the use Kirshenbaum, and there is more there. scope_creepTalk 17:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @scope_creep I anticipate this this will be likely be renominated for deletion and I observer this DRV is out of procedure. As the other involved in the AfD I will support your preferred course of either accepting the withdraw of voiding of this DRV, endorsing the revised closer keep as no consensus, relisting or even endorsing the original straight keep and overturning the closer's revision as it was performed out of procedure. The reason for supporting in this manner is to let scope_creep have the lead over influencing of the timing of any future AfD nomination per WP:RENOM which may involve further input of scope_creep's time resource. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djm-leighpark: I wouldn't reopen it or recast a new Afd in future. As far as I'm concerned I think it is established technology and endorse for keep or NC. scope_creepTalk 18:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse: (original closer keep). Will also accept revised keep no consensus with concerns. This DRV may be striken but is to remain recorded on talk page record.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Keep or no consensus are the two acceptable outcomes, and no consensus makes more sense to me due to the limited participation in this AfD and the nominator's concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 08:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as SportingFlyer says, either Keep or No Consensus, or a Relist. No need to overturn. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Void close. I'm concerned about the comment by the closing admin, I do not believe these sources represent significant coverage. That's a really strange thing to read in an AfD closing statement. It's not the job of the closer to evaluate the quality of the sources. The job of the closer is to summarize the discussion. If you want to offer an opinion on the quality of the sources, join the discussion, and leave it to somebody else to close. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd point out the state of the closing discussion on original close was Old revision of Kirshenbaum and at that time that comment was not present. The DRV nom. raised the DRV and when challenged about not consulting the AfD closer the nom. then conversed with the closed outside of DRV the changes to the AfD result occurred with the comment given on the AfD. So all a bit mucky and out of procedure really.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
