AfD was closed as keep however no evidence was ever brought forward of non-trivial coverage by any kind of reliable third party publication. Several of the !voters comments actually amounted to "it exists" and "it is useful" which are the worst arguments I can think of to retain an encyclopedia article. Billions of things exist but that is not reason for inclusion. I am requesting a review of the closure and have notified the closing administrator. I feel this should be overturned as delete or possibly relisted with more careful eyes. JBsupreme (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the nomination.
Evil saltine interpreted the consensus correctly and implemented it. However, in this case the consensus was dumb. The editorially correct decision would've been "redirect to Comparison of file archivers".
Since that can be achieved without a deletion review, I recommend no action on DRV's part here.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 16:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is article about a file format which used by many software programs (and not just file archivers) and is not an article about a specific file archiver. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse First, I agree the closer could have closed no other way. We traditionally avoid acting as AfD2 but sometimes we do. In this case, the sense of the discussion was that this isn't a topic that is likely to have traditional sources but none-the-less includes information we should have. So pretty much it's a WP:IAR keep. There are some moderate sources [1] (English translation of the Polish). But I tend to agree this might be a good cause for IAR. It isn't a traditional file arciver per se, nor do I think redirecting to a page that has no information on the topic would be a good solution. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: a lot of other pages link to this one. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse At worst, this would have been a "no consensus" close, as there was definitely not a consensus to delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- There was zero consensus to delete. Closer closed it correctly. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse. While the word "delete" wasn't bolded, this comment was a "delete" argument. With that and the weak "keep" arguments, I can see no consensus being a possible close using "admin's discretion". Not that it makes a difference in the here and now but it would affect the issue of how long to wait before renominating. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see a problem with the close and it seems pretty obvious to me this file format is in widespread use by numerous software programs. It also isn't difficult to find a reliable third party publication that gives significant coverage to the file format but the nom clearly did not preform any sort of due diligence process before nominating the article for AfD or bringing it to DRV. Perhaps we should add these to the article: Wang, Wallace (2004-10-25). "Finding movies (or TV shows): Recovering missing RAR files with PAR and PAR2 files". Steal this File Sharing Book (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 164 – , 167. ISBN1-59327-050-X. Retrieved 2009-09-24. Wang, Wallace (2004-10-25). "The file formats: PAR and PAR2". Steal this File Sharing Book (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 126 – , 127. ISBN1-59327-050-X. Retrieved 2009-09-24. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of the nom, I spent 5 minutes looking and found only the Polish article linked above. Hobit (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh[2] Is this true, we allow forums now? JBsupreme (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JBsupreme, I dare you to try and correctly source about 80% of the minor software articles. We have hundreds of them, even high school software projects, sourced to blogs, forums, comments on download libraries, even paid review sites. If you have the temerity to suggest it should be deleted, someone at AfD will say "but I use this software, here are three more forum posts showing other people do too!", nobody else comments, and it stays in Wikipedia forever. Miami33139 (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try 1000s or even tens of 1000s. In many cases stubs that do not assert notability can simply be merged/redirected to larger Comparison of x or Glossary of x articles, although that isn't what you tend to do with them... --Tothwolf (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... so you're making my point for me, right? That we should not be bending our reliable sourcing policy just because someone likes something. We certainly don't do that for biographical articles, and actually this is the first time I've ever seen it done in any case. If you know of a Wikipedia article here which is about a non-notable high school project, let me know. Please. JBsupreme (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Context is everything. The link you objected to [3] is hosted on SourceForge as part of the parchive.sourceforge.net project. While the url may include the word "forum", in this particular case the forum software (which is available for all projects hosted on SourceForge) is being used to post an announcement (note the date on the announcement is 2001-07-03, over 8 years ago) and this particular link is not being used as a general discussion. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – there was no consensus to delete and if the nom's remarks are ignored there was a clear consensus to keep. Moreover Tothwolf's sources above look fairly solid. Occuli (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but try for Merge All of the 3rd party non-trivial sources seem to be about the Parity file, so the nominator should push for a merge instead. If that is unsuccessful, re-nominate in the future.--Otterathome (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at the time of the AfD, Parity file was redirected to Parchive. I unredirected it after I discovered it as a "parity file" is a generic concept which does not depend on the Parchive par/par2 file formats. Although it is a related concept (I suppose it is more of a parent article) it certainly shouldn't have been redirected. I could also find nothing to indicate that it had ever been merged into Parchive. I personally would not support such an article merger, especially as it was trivial to find a published, reliable source that has since been added to the Parchive article. The file format specification documents used as references in the Parchive article are also perfectly acceptable. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Drag Strip – Although it seems clear from this discussion that a redirect should exist, there is no consensus here regarding the target of this redirect. Such discussion should happen at redirects for discussion or the talk page. – IronGargoyle (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AfD was closed as a redirect to Stunticons, which is a page not even mentioned in the discussion. SarekOfVulcan's rationale seems to have been that the consensus was for a redirect to a Transformers-related article and that Stunticons was the most appropriate target, even if not specifically mentioned. However, my contention is that a redirect to dragstrip is most appropriate, as that's where drag strip redirects. We need very strong justification for having differently capitalized redirects leading to different targets, and I don't believe that justification was provided. PowersT 12:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While I think my closing judged consensus in the discussion correctly, it was a near thing, and LtPowers makes a good point above. If consensus is to overturn, I don't have a problem with that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the target of a redirect is a matter for talk page discussion; the redirect page is not protected. You don't need DRV. GRBerry 13:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Changing from one Transformer article to another mentioning Drag Strip would be a matter for talk page discussion. Changing it to a dragracing article would have the effect of removing the reference to the character altogether, essentially overturning the result of the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what hatnotes are for, and dragstrip even already has one - all you have to do is change it to the appropriate template variation and retarget to Stunticons: {{redirect|Drag Strip|the Transformers character|Stunticons}}. —Korath (Talk) 19:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it to be a bit unlikely that someone looking for info the race track is going to search for "Drag Strip" with a capital-S. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The target was novel to the discussion but it was the right one (the character is described there in its own section). I don't see any value to redirecting to dragstrip per Tarc. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek explicitly directed me here; I would have been happy to discuss it in a different forum were it not for that. PowersT 23:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Prob,s ND3 is a new page that is not widely known and its only an essay. SpartazHumbug! 09:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List at RfD Where this search term should point to should not be decided at DRV. WP:RFD is a better forum for this type of discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Deletion was contrary to comparable practice. I gather the article had been deleted before, but I do not know the actual reason, I am guessing it was at the request of the subject. However, a comparator article is that of Arthur Kemp. The subject disagreed with some of the content, but the matter was dealt with by the usual editing process and the article was not deleted. I do understand why this article should not be treated in exactly the same way RolandTravis (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that you need to produce a well sourced userspace draft for discussion before we will consider this. Also, given your mastery of wikimark-up perhaps you could disclose any other accounts you have edited under. SpartazHumbug! 11:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
undelete and send to AfD The version deleted now as judging from the cache makes a good argument for meeting WP:N. Therefore, this should probably be going to AfD with a note that the subject also requested deletion. The version in cache looks like it has minor POV issues but nothing so seriously as to by itself merit either deletion as an attack page or deletion without process due to a BLP concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a little more complex than that, JoshuaZ.
The subject originally used the account AlanHarvey (talk·contribs) to write an unsourced non-neutral autobiography at Alan Harvey, later stating on Talk:Alan Harvey "As far as I was aware the virtue of Wikipedia is that individuals around the world can add entries about themselves […]". That is what was discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Harvey, and deleted in 2005, again (re-created by AlanHarvey) in 2006, and again in 2007. The 2007 re-creation was initially a short stub written by someone else, but 81.77.175.210 (talk·contribs) overwrote that completely with a copy of the same text that AlanHarvey used in 2005.
The first 2009 creation was the first version of the article to cite sources, and was not a re-submission of that same autobiographical text. Nor was it the short-length and short-lived stub from 2007 that was so rapidly overwritten. But this article was to suffer an onslaught, by various IP addresses in the address ranges assigned to Orange UK, of being overwritten by the same unsourced non-neutral autobiography as before. I don't know what was in OTRS ticket #2009011110015794, but given that the edit summaries by 91.111.101.65 (talk·contribs) et al. were highly misleading (Re-overwriting the original sourced article with the autobiography content was deemed "Removing vandalism and replacing original version.".) I wouldn't be surprised if the OTRS ticket wasn't similarly misleading as well.
The second 2009 creation, by JHumphries (talk·contribs), again cited sources. This didn't suffer from repeated blanking with the unsourced autobiography, but it was challenged for accuracy by 91.109.255.117 (talk·contribs). There was discussion of article improvement on the talk page.
Given that the latest deleting administrator's explanation ignores a lot of this history, and important details such as the fact that the various deletions deleted different articles, and given that editors at the BLP noticeboard at least looked at this article (at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive65#Alan_Harvey) without calling for instant BLP removal, and given that this content has never been discussed at AFD, re-listing this content at AFD seems the best course of action.
However, I strongly recommend undeleting the JHumphries-created article (versions 2009-05-13 onwards) at Alan Harvey and sending that (immediately) through AFD, not the version by RolandTravis (talk·contribs) here at Alan D Harvey. The JHumphries version has had material that is contested as inaccurate by the subject removed, by the subject. The RolandTravis version has not, and contains that material. Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have no objection to restoring the Alan Harvey so that it can be properly evaluated at AfD. Will Bebacktalk 01:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. That is a complicated situation. Given that data, that seems completely reasonable. Restore that version and send it to AfD. Is there any sourced content in the version at D. Harvey that can be maybe added to the Alan Harvey version? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want to know about the OTRS ticket? Stifle (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the main question is whether there is anything in the OTRS ticket that would affect a decision to undelete Alan Harvey and send it to AFD. Will Bebacktalk 21:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted and request userspace version. I've looked over the deleted revisions at both Alan Harvey and Alan D Harvey, and though both of them have sources, they are a mix of reliable sources and non-independent ones. Because the claims are inherently controversial, there are serious BLP problems, and I don't think either version is undeletable. However, there certainly are enough reliable sources for an uninvested editor to write a proper biography; indeed, some of the cited sources in the deleted version are reliable (e.g., a couple of BBC reports, etc). So I think this could be done, but it should be done by presenting a userspace version, editing it down to what is verifiable, and then discussing it here again. Chick Bowen 01:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum in response to above discussion: it sounds to me like Uncle G's assumption is that anything not removed by the subject would not be considered a BLP violation. I can see the logic but I'm not entirely comfortable with it--seems to me, improperly sourced is improperly sourced. Chick Bowen 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
