Elizabeth Chambers (television personality) – Endorse. On the other hand, if at some time in the future, sufficient additional sources emerge, there's nothing to prevent somebody from turning the redirect back into a stand-alone article. If you want to go that route, the best process would probably be to write a draft and see if you can rally support for it on the article's talk page. If you find you have consensus, go for it. – -- RoySmith(talk) 23:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was an article about journalist Elizabeth Chambers that has been re-directed to her spouse. The AfD was based on the reason that the nom couldn't find coverage strictly about this topic. Not only was there no consensus to redirect to the topic’s spouse, but ‘’all’’ the abundance of coverage strictly about the topic, not the topic’s spouse, was found six days after the AfD began and one of the two "redirect" !votes occurred. [1][2][3][4][5][6] There was a strange straw man “WP:NOTINHERITED” argument when almost the entire article and the coverage of this person was strictly about her, not her husband. In the pre-redicted article here, as is typical in biographies, there is only a mention of the topic’s spouse buried down in the “personal life” section.
AfD closer Black Kite stands by the closing. --Oakshade (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She meets the GNG and has coverage that is largely about her. I'd have !voted to keep here. But I think both redirect and NC were within discretion given the discussion. When more sources pop up (ideally ones largely about her) I'd say you'd be okay with restoring the article. redirect results at AfD aren't overly binding if new sources pop up. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - there's enough sources here that the keep position is tenable, and the redirect/merge arguments are based on gut feelings about what "ought" to be notable, rather than what is. Keep has policy, redirect has headcount. There's also a real problem with enforcing systematic bias here that the closing admin has a duty to be careful of. WilyD 09:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure; those wishing to change from a redirect to a full article when the time is right can gather consensus on the talk page to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the closure, the 6 articles that Oakshade mentioned above, 1 of which isn't reliable (Hollywood Life), the E! article is about them having a baby and would have been written regardless of her because of who her husband is. The People article is hardly an article, it's a mention about why he wanted to get married. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was part of the problem of the AfD. Your rationale was there were no sources "strictly about her" when there was an abundance of sources strictly about her presented six days after the AfD began, and you're having issue with only a couple of those 6 sources (indicating the desire of the unusually high standard of "like 5 or 6" sources).--Oakshade (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a reasonable measure of the consensus of the discussion, though IMO deletion would have been preferable as there is only the barest of mention of her at the target article. Tarc (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to understand this rationale; Deletion of this topic would have been preferable because the article of another person barely mentions this one? --Oakshade (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfD Closer As I said to Oakshade, I didn't see consensus to delete or to keep (one of the two Keep !votes was particularly weak), and so opted for redirect (without deletion) as a way of keeping the history intact should better sourcing be found in the future. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually the point of this AfD. The better sourcing was found after the AfD started and the only person who favored delete (the nom) and a "redirect" !voter expressed their opinions.--Oakshade (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I believe this could actually be overturned to no consensus. The admin's close as redirect is understandable 3 to 2 in favor of redirects and no deletes. However, sources provided by Oakshade passes WP:GNG and appear to be reliable. His DRV highlights a lack of consensus both sides having policy based rationale. A relist should be the least controversial way to handle this. I would probably vote in favor of keep here. Valoemtalkcontrib 07:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Lady Lotus' assessment of the sources. Doesn't look like there's anything here to overturn an AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that is correct People, E!, and Hollywood Life are reliable. We cannot discount the E! because it "would have been written anyway" that is not policy based, Hollywood Life is subject to some form of editorial oversight. The other three sources are interviews so technically are not RS GNG, but its doesn't hurt when RS exists in some other form. The People and this source passes the muster so no reason not to relist. Valoemtalkcontrib 17:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We generally give tabloid/celeb-gossip type sources very very little weight here, and an entire BLP article hinging entirely upon such sources would be a dreadful idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may be misinterpreting Wikipedia:TABLOID if we cannot use those source we could delete half the encyclopedia as per Wikipedia:TABLOID these are focused on events. When a person receives significant coverage (as in coverage about her life) it overrides this, also this source is not tabloid. Valoemtalkcontrib 17:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
78209magazine.com is on-par with a blog. People and Hollywood life are tabloids that give brief mention to the subject, and only in context of her notable spouse
As for that one source, as long as it has editorial control over its content and is independent of the topic, it's acceptable per WP:RS and is even beyond the scope of WP:NEWSBLOG which would also be an acceptable source anyway. Serves a major metropolitan area too (78209 is a zip code for San Antonio). The other two go extremely beyond the "brief mention" claim and are completely about her and even entitled with her name. --Oakshade (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I see no impropriety on the side of the closer. Consensus was fairly determined. Policy, not votes, matter, and policy favors redirect. Tabloids do not grant notability, or let me create an article about my alien abduction last night. Also, I do not often mention WP:BLUDGEON because its overused but this is a clear case of repeated and unneeded responses to every little thing someone else says where they disagree with him/her. ―Padenton|✉ 16:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So many people here are completely ignoring and not addressing the passing of WP:GNG which was established six days after the AfD began. Not one editor here had addressed this. Sorry but WP:BLUDGEON is not meant to be a tool to silence those who have been active in improving an article and calling editors on faulty reasoning that completely ignores guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Nim (programming language) – No Consensus. The sentiment here is leaning in the direction of endorsing the AfD close but there's insufficient meeting of minds to call this a real consensus. In particular, I see some long-time and well respected editors making cogent arguments on both sides, which is usually a signal that the issue is fundamentally undecided. – -- RoySmith(talk) 13:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I was the nom for this AfD. In closing it as no consensus, Ymblanter stated, Everybody agrees that there are some sources which count towards notability (I think four sources have been identified). This is simply not true.
To establish notability under WP:GNG requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the topic in detail. Each of those words has meaning. I don't believe there are any such sources for this subject, I said that clearly, I said that based on carefully reviewing every source offered, I still say that, and it looks to me like there are 7 others who agree with me and said the same thing based on the same careful review. Most of those arguing for keep have been canvassed off-wiki and not one argument for keep was policy-based. To the extent they even addressed policy, most argued either that we should bend the rules (e.g., to accept a primary source as evidence of notability because Dr. Dobbs printed it) or that we just shouldn't have these silly rules because this is really important stuff. I appreciate that this has been a contentious debate, but an AfD is not a vote and it does not help to close the debate with a blatant misrepresention of the participants' positions.
When I approached Ymblanter on his talk page to suggest he should at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees there are sources lest it go to DRV, he accused me of blackmailing him.Msnicki (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added: Requesting that if the outcome is to endorse the no consensus, that the claim cited above stating that there is an agreement regarding the sources be struck from the closing remarks as clearly shown to be not true. If all of us !voting delete had agreed there were four sources supporting notability, I submit that every one of us would have !voted keep. Msnicki (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. And here we are again. Again, there does not appear to have been consideration for the numerous SPA issues and canvassing in this case. After discounting the meatpuppets that were canvassed at the links provided, the only keeps that remain are arguments using github, reddit, ycombinator, and the like as if they were WP:RS. The one Dr. Dobbs article not by the creator of the language, is a brief mention, not significant coverage, and therefore does not meet WP:GNG's requirement of 'significant coverage'. ―Padenton|✉ 14:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you're a hypocrite that cries "canvassed" when it suits him for a Keep vote, but doesn't care about canvassing when it comes with a Delete vote. The fact remains that any canvassing on IRC was unbiased. --IO Device (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was inappropriately canvassed at nim forums and nim IRC, which I found and reported to the AfD. Later, towards the end of the AfD, it was canvassed in Wikipedia's IRC channel. IO Device claimed that another user in the AfD (who voted delete) was canvassed to the AfD. I looked at his claim, and even went to the IRC myself to ask one of their opers about it. In my comments below, I told IO Device he/she is welcome to claim that the message was inappropriate canvassing through a biased message, but that more information is needed. As you can see below, my comments in responding to IO Device are completely appropriate, and I even invited IO Device to present more information on the IRC canvassing so that we could discuss it, but he/she has not done so yet. If any uninvolved admin finds fault in my actions here, I am happy to accept a block or a warning. ―Padenton|✉ 18:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpt from AfD regarding canvassing on wikipedia's IRC
Delete I'm not really convinced by the SPA keep votes who were canvassed. I think it really fails GNG and it cites a lot of sources that aren't really reliable anyway. The deleters above have made a much more convincing argument. — kikichugirloh hello! 21:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is a result of canvassing in #wikipedia-en, and must be discounted for the same reasons noted in the comment. Or are we saying the canvassing has been unbiased? --IO Device (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you charge canvassing, you need to provide a link to the diff, please. Msnicki (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happened was someone came into IRC discussing this AFD, but in fact, they were more for supporting keeping of this article. Indeed, I was notified, which is permitted, but not canvassed, because that implies an inclination to make editors vote a certain way. No one asked me to comment in favor of delete on this AFD. I simply saw it being discussed and decided to voice my 2cents. I did not participate in the IRC discussion, I just saw it as I was going about my day. — kikichugirloh hello! 06:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, canvassing is often appropriate. In fact, any post on a noticeboard fits the definition of 'canvassing.' The reason the posting on the nim irc is inappropriate canvassing is that it was both off-wiki (see 'stealth canvassing') and a biased audience (see 'vote stacking'). We can argue whether or not the posting of it on the official wikipedia IRC is inappropriate stealth canvassing, but the nim IRC is certainly more of a violator on this front than the official wikipedia IRC due to its lack of transparency. I do concede that the message in the nim IRC is not a biased message (not 'campaigning') as the forum post originally was, though there were other postings to that IRC in the logs, but as stated, it has other issues transparency-wise and audience-wise. However, I did not see the message in #wikipedia-en. If it was in some way arguing for one view or another, that we can talk about. ―Padenton|✉ 15:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice attempt at spinning things to suit you. But make no mistake, your post is one of a selfish hypocrite, and this whole page is nothing short of an embarrassment. The day of Wikipedia are limited; it won't be long before it is surpassed by an automatedly-written alternative. Just you wait. --IO Device (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No spin here. You're welcome to read it yourself. As for an automated Wikipedia replacement, speaking as an AI student, I find that highly doubtful. ―Padenton|✉ 05:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The nominator says that "A fair appraisal of the discussion might conclude there was no consensus"[7] and that was indeed the conclusion reached by the closer. I did not see a consensus either. I think maybe the closing statement wasn't ideal but it doesn't indicate to me anything improper or incorrect in the way the discussion was closed. There can be legitimate differences of view when considering a non-independent author writing in an independently published journal but generally it is the independence of the journal that is considered relevant. Thincat (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by that is that I'm sufficiently open-minded to consider a cogent argument or a restatement if there is one. Lots of times I may disagree with an outcome but agree that it falls within the range I'd consider fair, based on the analysis offered. Perhaps I've missed something. Perhaps I'm too close to the issue. Perhaps we're talking past each other. I am always willing to listen to the possibility I'm wrong and I frequently change my !votes based on what other people say. This was not one of those cases. I stated my concern, I think I was pretty clear about it and I invited discussion. Let's not mistake my respectful approach for a concession that's not there. Msnicki (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, although I would still have endorsed no consensus even if you had said you rejected this outcome with no possibility of changing your mind. Thincat (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my other concern, Thincat. You claim it's the independence of the journal that's considered relevant. I don't believe that's true and I don't believe you can cite anything in our guidelines to support that claim. We routinely accept primary sources as WP:RELIABLE for routine facts. But to establish notability requires more than just reliable. WP:GNG requires that the source must also be WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT. The only significant source was an article written by the author about his own work, published in Dr. Dobbs, making it clearly WP:PRIMARY. It wouldn't matter if it had been printed in the NY Times. If he writes his own article about his own work, it is neither secondary nor independent and I just don't see how you get around that. Msnicki (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No consensus. The users Msnicki and Padenton have repeatedly attempted to hijack rather than respect the review process, and have harassed numerous users. -IO Device (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If what you said is true, you should have no difficulty proving it with diffs. Let's see them. Alerting AfD participants to inappropriate canvassing WP:CANVASSING and tagging canvassed editors is completely within policy. ―Padenton|✉ 17:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn- I can see the arguments for no consensus. But some weight should have been given to the fact that, after the relist, the discussion was clearly leaning delete. There should also have been some weight given to the fact that the delete side inspected the sources and found them unsuitable, while the keep side was uniformly "Keepkeepkeep- ILIKEIT". ReykYO! 06:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We got hit right away with a flood of WP:SPAs that had been canvassed off-wiki. By the last relisting, that had died down and more of the new !votes started to come from our own community. Except for a couple keeps arguing that we ignore/bend the guidelines, all those new !votes were delete and all stated the same guidelines-based reason, that the sources simply aren't there to support notability. Msnicki (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse - headcount favours keep, though WP:N is very stretched here to make a policy argument, it's not quite to the point where headcount can be ignored. Temporal ordering of the !votes can only really be a factor when facts change during the discussion (which I don't see happening here). It's also simply not true to claim "authored by the person means its not independent" - the publisher is the main consideration, not the author. But it is a factor which weakens the source (again, putting us at "very weak sources, but not non-existent where you can just ignore two-thirds of the editors' appraisals). WilyD 09:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing reliable with independent. From WP:GNG, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. And from WP:SPIP, The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. These authorities appear to say you're flat wrong. Can you you cite anything in the guidelines to support your clam that only the publisher needs to be independent?
If we accept your argument, that all it takes to make someone's product notable is for them to write their own article and get it published in a techie magazine, I think we'll have completely gutted our basic principle that notability requires that other people people must take note, that they must actually write or say something. We'll also have gutted the requirement that it be secondary, that it must contain their own thoughts, because obviously it wouldn't.
It is simply not enough to argue that the editors at Dr. Dobbs must have thought this was notable because why else would they have published it and from there, make the additional leap that if they (maybe) thought it was notable, that's good enough for us, we don't need no silly rulz. That is, I think, what you're asking here. Msnicki (talk)
No, I'm not. An invited article (or whatever) is more like an interview - which involves the person, but where the decision to publish (which is the metric of notability) is independent. Neither of those are great sources, but they do go towards notability. If I write about my painting (or whatever), nobody will publish it, because nobody else gives a shit. If somebody else gives a shit - and so much of a shit that they're willing to spend their money to publish it in the expectation that people are so interested in it they can make their money back, that's notability. A literal and thoughtless reading of a couple guidelines that begin by warning you not to do that aside. WilyD 10:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The closer appears to have given more weight to the limited-quality sources than appropriate to do. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have preferred "delete", but sysops are rightly given additional leeway to use their discretion in cases where there has been canvassing. I can't say Ymblanter's close was beyond the pale. A "no consensus" outcome allows early renomination, and I'd suggest having another discussion in a couple of months.—S MarshallT/C 11:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to deleteUser:S Marshall's view is pretty close to where I am, what perhaps pushes me over the edge to an overturn is the closer's statement which in places seems at direct odds to the opinions expressed. Somewhat disappointed with their response to the enquiry, although I can understand how the request could have been read, I would have thought that an admin should rise above such and give due comment/consideration. Might change my mind to an endorse if there is a decent explanation from the closing admin. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least someone got interested in my opinion. Concerning the closure, I believe that I did take into account all arguments. There have been sources presented, and the sources DO create some notability. The discussion was whether this notability is enough to keep the article, and my reading is that there was no consensus for this point. I obviously noticed that there were keep voted canvassed, and this is in my closing statement. It is incorrect to say that the delete voters looked at the sources, and the keep voters did not; take for instance DGG who voted keep (not even weak keep) referring to the sources. I would personally vote delete myself, but I am not a voter, I was a closer, my business was to evaluate consensus and not to present my personal opinion. Concerning the request, I read it in the way "Either you change your closing statement to be it how I like, or I go to DRV" (even though it was ploitely formulated) . My response was go to DRV, well, this is not the way we should treat closers. This is great to see that delete voters are more persistent, but at this point I stand by my decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well here's my problem, looking from the bottom up Reyk and Stifle at least (I didn't read any further up) don't give any indication that they believe the sources "DO create some notability", the nominator here clearly doesn't believe that. There are many comments which don't even try to evaluate sources instead fall back on non-arguments (So maybe they do think the sources are helpful for notability or maybe they don't and that's why they avoid arguing on that front). So your view that it does create some notability and your closing statement that "Everybody agrees" doesn't align with my reading of the discussion. On the other matter I don't think that has a great bearing on the correct outcome here, but the whole point in anyone discussing with the closing admin is to avoid needing to come to DRV, I can see that it can be read as a threat (though since any admin can expect their decisions to be challenged from time to time, should be happy to have the checks and balances, and DRV isn't a punishment, then it would be rather misplaced as a threat), but I can also see it the other way. My point there was I'd expect an admin to rise above the bait and simply discuss rather than being apparently dismissive of it. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the original discussion is that they do create some notability. I do not believe any sane Wikipedia user can think that a subject with an article published about it is EXACTLY as notable as a subject with no articles published. My reading of the argument why the Dr.Dobbs article is not sufficient is that the source should be independent and this source is not independent. I am fine with the argument, and not everybody agrees with that. But nobody, as far as I see, is arguing that Dr. Dobbs's article creates as much notability as a facebook post. Concerning DRV, this is not my first closure by far, and not my first DRV (for the record, I have never been overturned), but this is the first time anybody approaches me like this. Well, DRV is within the policy, fine with me. If someone wants to waste community time, let them do it. I am not a mind-reader.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing disrespectful or threatening about my remark. I clearly stated my complaint, that you had claimed an agreement that did not exist, it's a substantive complaint and I merely suggested that I think you need to at least acknowledge the opposition rather than claim it doesn't exist if you hope to avoid having your close taken to DRV. What was truly unhelpful was your refusal to discuss your close or my complaint, contrary to WP:ADMINACCT which asks, Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.Msnicki (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain the agreement did exist. You are continuing to misread my statement, even after I have given very clear explanations. This is WP:IDONTHEAR.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was in that AfD and I assure you I did not agree and I still don't. I don't count? And what about the other 7 people who agreed with me and don't agree with your claim. You don't hear any of us? It's all well and fine to say you're satisfied by the sources but quite another to claim other people are satisfied as well when they are practically shouting that they don't. Msnicki (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote in my statement that everybody agreed smth is blue and you are shouting (first blackmailing me and then wasting the community time at DRV) that you disagree smth is green. Fine, I disagree as well. You have wasted 30 minutes of my time today, and it is quite a lot. Now I will have some sleep. I feel I provided enough explanations for the closing admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So much for admin accountability. And who knew that accountability was such a waste of time. Msnicki (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I thought and continued to think that the sources are sufficient, considering the nature of the subject. The rules at GNG are guidelines, subject to interpretation, and the place where we interpret them with respect to specific articles is at AfD. But that is a question for afd2, not here. If others disagree, the appropriate way for them to go about things is a second AfD., No consensus does not exclude that, so I would normally say there is no reason to bring a non-consensus close here, unless the reason is that the closer has made such a gross error that it must be corrected for the benefit of closers in general, and for their own benefit in subsequent closes. If you disagree with the close, there is in this case nonetheless no such gross error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Endorse, but renominate in a few months: The consensus for notability seems to be that it's not yet enough or it's just borderline, without the canvassed votes (one-third of the votes). If editors disagree over the notability of the article itself, a second AfD would be more appropriate. This is a no consensus result, so it should be nominated a few months later if the notability is challenged. Esquivaliencet 02:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, with a sense of weariness that we're here again. The original nomination relied on some rather subjective interpretations of what was notable and what wasn't, and even after removing the meatpuppets there is still clearly no consensus on those questions. I also believe that the "Delete" side used some rather creative interpretations of WP:RS that were not universally agreed with, and not refuted by anything stronger than an "is not!". Finally, I can't really fault the closing admin for not getting into an extended discussion here, since it was patently obvious that nothing short of complete capitulation to the nominating editor would stop the discussion from ending up here anyway. Lankiveil(speak to me) 10:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Please, there's no reason to make this personal. This is not my first AfD, nor the first one that's gone against me. I lose all the time and walk away. But Ymblanter claimed in his close that there was an agreement that four sources contributed to notability. That is simply not true. Several of us believe there are NO such sources and I think we were very clear about it. Pressed, Ymblanter explains above, I do not believe any sane Wikipedia user can think that a subject with an article published about it is EXACTLY as notable as a subject with no articles published.
Here's my problem with that: It's an opinion and it's not supported by the guidelines, which state a more technical definition for notability than we use in common language. Here, it's not enough that a subject seem notable, but that others not connected with the subject actually took note and that they did it in reliable sources. An article in Dr. Dobbs by the author of the product might make it seem like the subject is more notable. But under our guidelines, it does not count. A primary source can't be almost independent and secondary any more than a woman could be almost pregnant.
What a good primary article does do is make it more likely that others will take note. This is why, if I find a good primary article (and I concede, this one was good), I'm more inclined to keep looking harder for some secondaries because I think it's more likely I'll find them. But I can't find what's not there. This time, there was no there there.
Ymblanter is welcome to his opinion and would have been welcome also to contribute it to the debate. But he is not welcome to introduce it in his close, especially when he does it with the false claim that everyone in the AfD agrees, apparently based on the view that anyone who disagrees must be insane.
I approached Ymblanter respectfully, I stated a valid complaint and asked that he revise his closing remarks to acknowledge the deep disagreement. I can't say for sure (because I have no way of knowing what he'd have written instead), but if he had done that, I think I'd have had to let it go. Think about it: He'd have answered the one complaint I stated. Anything else would be a judgment call, which is a lot harder to complain about at DRV. Yes, AfDs do get overrun by SPAs from time to time. I know this happens. It's not the end of the world if we keep an article we shouldn't.
But Ymblanter wasn't willing to revise his remarks. Instead, he refused (and continues to refuse) to acknowledge that his claim that everyone agreed there were four sources contributing to notability is simply wrong. And he told me to take it here. Msnicki (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, solid closure and excellent judgement from Ymblanter to not make supervote to delete. I actually closed the AfD earlier under the same rationale I am glad to see I have some agreement. While no one believes there was universal agreement everyone should at least agree that based on the debate there was no consensus, reviewing those sources such as GitHub and Dobb some believe including myself that a few sources pass the muster, others disagree thankfully we have no consensus as a option in these situations. Valoemtalkcontrib 18:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer exercised reasonable, good faith judgment, so there is no basis for overturning. -- Jibal (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I cannot comment on the validity of the closing conclusion, but there was no longer a debate going on at the AfD page when this was closed, so a closing was indeed appropriate. I am also disappointed that Wikipedia's processes allow a page to be in limbo for this long. The following is the timeline for this deletion attempt:
26 March 2015: AfD started after speedy deletion declined.
21 April 2015: AfD closed as no consensus.
21 April 2015: "Deletion review for improper non-admin closer."
21 April 2015: AfD reopened.
26 April 2015: Afd closed as no consensus.
26 April 2015: Deletion review requested and started.
This deletion attempt has now been ongoing for 35 days, with no signs of stopping any time soon. If Wikipedia cannot decide what to do with the article at this point, then the processes have failed. Philip.wernersbach (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The campaign by certain parties to delete this page has actually been going on for years. -- Jibal (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Ymblanter is entirely correct in the statement that no consensus was reached. The quality of the argument for delete, meatpuppet name calling asside, was very much a futile exercise much like this discussion. There appear to be no valid arguments that Ymblanter lacked understanding, used bad judgement, or missread the consensus. Very reasonable people agreed that the sources cited were notable. While I am not a seasoned editor of wikipedia my arguments citing wikipedia editorial policy were ignored and unanswered. The argument for delete felt more like a vendeta then an editorial review.
I would also ask that if Nim is going to be recommended for deletion in the future that Msnicki and Padenton refrain from submitting the article for deletion or participating in the discussions going forward Itsmeront (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Notability: "An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:
There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (e.g. it is at least well known in a community)."
WP:IMPORTANT.
It appears that this criteria was lost when IMPORTANT was replaced by Notability. During our discussions on NIM the verifiability and reliability of the content in the article was conceded, but the focus of the people arguing for delete have stressed the lack of notability. I have presented evidence of notability by citing coverage in NEWSBLOGS and BLOGS by experts. Those sources I have cited previously clearly meet this criteria for Importance. Given that the content of the NIM Programming article is reliable, the hurdle that remains is Notability. The article meets that criteria based on the original definition of WP:IMPORTANCE and should not be deleted. The low importance tag should also be removed from the nim talk page. Itsmeront (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[WP:NSM] this subject seems important enought to bring up to a larger audience. Itsmeront (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a reference to a presentation on the language at the Strange Loop conference, which is one of the best conferences on programming languages, and would help address the perceived problem of notability. I am not an editor, or well-versed in Wikipedia policy, but I find it bizarre that any editor would try to delete this article. Nim is an exciting new programming language, and new programming languages that have captured the interest of the community of programming language enthusiasts should be notable by default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.54.218 (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. I rarely call for overturning any result at DRV, as closing admins IMO have a wide latitude in determining consensus, but this just wasn't right all. There are a pile of single-purpose accounts andand even a few established editors piling on and making personal, yammering about slashdot, reddit, and such. There are "keep it's useful", "keep because I found other articles on programming languages" and such. AfDs are not straw polls, the closing admin has to evaluate the arguments made. The calls to delete argued that the drdobbs.com article was invalid because it was written by the Nim creator and that the Infoworld blurb was just that, a brief paragraph in a Best-Of list. These arguments were never sufficiently refuted by those wishing to keep. The IP editor above who added a link to strangeloop.com is just linking to essentially a presss release of a confernece, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you can call the frontpage inclusion of Nim on Slashdot, and Reddit yammering. Please feel free to submit articles to either and get them on the front page without providing content that is notable. We have been making valid arguments about the importance of Slashdot and Reddit as newsblogs, with editorial control, which is mentioned as acceptable for consideration in Wikipedia policies, but all we get back from you is we are yammering. No Wikipedia editor has stated why front page coverage is not notable. In the field of new software language design, coverage is scarce. A number of experts in the field have also included Nim in their blogs, and a number of sites that cover programming languages have included Nim. We have shown that the adoption of the new language by users in GitHub also indicate notability. Dr. Dobbs publishing an article is, and should be considered, proof (in this environment of scarce coverage) that Nim is notable. Conferences that cover Nim, including both O'Reilly's OSCON and strangeloop IS an indication of notability. How many people do you think would come to a conference with sessions on just another programming language by some guy? People that are experts in this field are telling you that the Wikipedia editors are wrong, but instead of providing valid arguments against notability they say things like we are yammering. Again your arguments against notability ring hollow to people that work in this field and it makes the editors look extremely unqualified to judge notability in this field. But again we have had this argument already and here the question is was the discussion closed inappropriately or did the admin misread the arguments and again I say that the reading was valid the closure should be endorsed. I also agree that we can continue this argument again the next time if Nim is again submitted for deletion, but I would hope that next time someone take our arguments seriously. While I fully agree that Slashdot and Reddit articles can be submitted by anyone, and being included in those sites should not be considered notable, getting to the front page is not the same as just being included. Itsmeront (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're not sure? Here, read through WP:RS and related policy & guideline pages that link from there. Then you'll be sure what is and what is not a reliable source, and understand why slashdot and reddit do not qualify, why the Nim creator penning his own artcle do not qualify, and why a short paragraph-length blurb does not qualify. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have already made the claim that a Slashdot article that makes it to the front page should qualify as a reliable source under WP:NEWSBLOG. I have read your WP:RS link carefully. How do you think I found that both NEWSBLOGS and BLOGS CAN BE used as reliable resources for notability if there is editorial control, which I claim the firehose process and promotion to the front page qualify, and that blogs posted by experts in the field can also be considered. I've made this argument already MORE THAN ONCE in my YAMMERING. Coming back and saying "just because" and giving me a general link to WP:RS DOES NOT answer my question. Please make a cogent argument that the front page of slashdot does not qualfiy as a NEWSBLOG with editorial control and even more important why the front page of Slashdot DOES NOT qualify for notibility. Itsmeront (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wasting our time with ignorant arguments. WP:NEWSBLOG was written to address reputable reliable sources that host their own blog or blog-like sections, e.g. the NY Times Blog Directory, WaPo's Blogs & Columns and so on. Slashdot ain't that, it does not and will not count as a reliable source for this or any other article. Period. Tarc (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are absolutely wrong in your judgment of Slashdot. In this field of new programming language development, Slashdot is our newspaper. The articles that make it to the front page are written by experts, reviewed by experts, commented on by experts. Your own policy does not say NY Times only, nor does it claim anywhere that Slashdot does not qualify. It does say: "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." and "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". I have already pointed out blogs by experts that should also qualify. Articles written in slashdot that make it to the front page, are considered notable by experts in the field of new language development. You might claim that you own the complete understanding of editorial policy in Wikipedia but I'm saying you are absolutely wrong. Again you go and publish something that makes it to the front page. You show me something about new programming language development that makes it to the front page of slashdot that is not notable in this field. Your inability to grasp my argument is astounding. Your only argument is name calling and waving your hands. For this field where coverage is rare Slashdot should be considered a NEWSBLOG and can be considered based on your policies. One thing we agree on. Arguing with you is a waste of time. Itsmeront (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unable to grasp the very straightforward WP:RS guideline, then I'm afraid that the Wikipedia just isn't the project for you to become involved in. The amount of people on social media who like a product is irrelevant. The number of upvotes a buddy of yours got on Slashdot is irrelevant. The Wikipedia does not accept either when discussing the notability of a topic. Tarc (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who retardedly enough continue to see Wikipedia as an exclusive elite encyclopedia, even if this means artificially making it less useful than it can be for the public good. I wonder if they stop to think whether encyclopedic limitations even make sense. Alas, the two groups shall never reconcile, and it makes me wonder if Wikipedia is even an appropriate platform for the presentation of useful information. --IO Device (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. I don't often call for overturn but I don't think this one was quite within admin discretion territory given how poor some of the arguments were. If for some reason this ends up being endorsed, I do recommend a renomination in a month or two when passions have cooled down and discussion can start fresh (with the opportunity in he interim to improve the article & sourcing, of course). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I was pretty surprised to see it nominated for deletion! Ask any programmer who keeps current about the new systems programming languages, and they will name Go, Rust, and Nim (probably in that order). Thomasmallen (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
