Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 16

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

Administrator instructions

< March 15 Deletion review archives: 2009 March March 17 >

16 March 2009

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

I disagree that the article lacks notability. First, there is a false statement in the discussion page for the deletion of the article. The Softpedia article was mistakenly attributed to the software author. You can easily see that the review is written by SoftPedia's software review editor Ionut Ilascu. You can also see that the newest version of MyInfo has no editor's review yet and uses the software author description instead.

In addition, MyInfo has a number of additional sources, which were not found by the community, when discussing the deletion of the article:

There is a whole page devoted on this software in this book and there was an article and an interview with the software author in Wall Street Journal Online (which is available only to paid subscribers, I am afraid).

Although there are a large number of applications in the PIM software category, I think that the above sources are enough to qualify the article as notable. riot_starter (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2009 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.

I wish to recreate the redirect from List of songs to Category:Lists of songs which was deleted following this discussion. If it is wrong to redirect from a "list of" title to a category let me know because I have seen a large number of them which should all be deleted. An alternative would be to create a page called lists of songs (which would duplicate the function of the category but might be formatted more prettily) and redirect to that. Benefix (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in practice " Lists of songs " is probably the best way to deal with it. DGG (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2009 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Ashida Kim (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (5th nomination) which was closed and requested that it be taken to DRV instead. I am bringing it here because the closure of AFD #4 was not compliant with policy. As pointed out by several commenters, the "Keep" arguments did not actually provide any justification within Wikipedia policy or practice for why the article should be retained. Even these individuals admitted that sourcing was "tricky." The closer should have weighed the arguments rather than just counting the votes. Time after time, material from Internet forums (most notably Bullshido) keeps finding its way into this article - and without this material there would be nothing left. This article even cited itself for a while. I'm asking that the previous closures be overturned and this article be deleted on the grounds that reliable third-party sourcing has been requested for years and never provided. This is especially unacceptable on a BLP. *** Crotalus *** 16:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Four successive keeps before that, over a 3 year period, last in December 08. Any additional nomination of the article would seem pointy. Certainly not a mere 2 or 3 months afterwards. Rationally, the progression of time needed should increase arithmetically, if not geometrically--come back in 2 years, and consensus might have changed. Even if you are sure you are right, accept that there is one inadequate article out of three million. DGG (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as a good reading of a consensus based on WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – questionable material in violation of BLP have been removed, making the AFD closure as a keep moot. MuZemike 00:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Crotalus in that most of the keep !votes in AFD4 were poor-quality. However, when such a critical mass of users support keeping an article in spite of policy, that is how consensus works. The most that we can do is ensure the article remains BLP-compliant, and that is achieved by strongly questioning and removing uncited material. Reluctant endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sections of the article have been repeatedly re written after the AfD asking for input form various sides, the last time we waited a month before putting up the version on the talk page then it was deleted by Crotalus twice, without any comments on the talk page, plus no mention of this review on the talk page seems like a grudge. --Nate1481 17:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This being so I will now have a rant.. While I am not holding it up as a the the best source in existence, I would like to point out (for what seems like the 100th time) that the Bullshido refs are to articles on reporting investigations by member of the site that are then published there in an investigative journalism model These articles include some sources and the names of the authors. The fact that the investigation was conducted by volunteers and that the progress was reported on the forum should not be a flaw, especially where they are used as secondary sources of information available in primary source./rant
  • May I also point out that even if the Bullshido references cannot stay (and it's not like there hasn't been dialog on the talk page), then there was no need for Crotalus to remove other references at the same time. I echo the view that the naysayers have never stepped up to assist in improving this article. Several if us have made considerable effort to improve it, only to find it criticised out of the blue Thedarxide (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I would have !voted delete; the article is on a marginally notable person (at best) with crap sourcing, and presents several WP:REDFLAGSOFNONNOTABILITY. That said, there was no consensus to delete on the fifth attempt, which was only a few months after a prior Afd. This disruption is worse than having this article stink up the joint (a little more cynical paraphrase of DGG's comment). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I said take it to DRV if you had a problem, I didn't mean hold AFD #6 at DRV. This may need another AFD, but AFD #5 was badly timed and mostly rehashed the same ground as AFD #4. Sometimes, the only effective plan is to sit on half an argument until you come up with the other half. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:24, 19 March 2009 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Mitch Ratcliffe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was deleted over a U.S. holiday weekend after limited discussion and possibly irrational interpretation of notability of a widely published and quoted U.S. journalist. Davodd (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this international website, suggesting that deletion of pages should be suspended over a US holiday weekend is at best disingenuous and at worst patronizing. Now, it's usual (although not strictly mandatory) to discuss deletions with which you disagree with the administrator who deleted the page. Could the nominator please clarify:
  1. why he chose to omit that step, or if there was a discussion, point me to it?
  2. why this deletion review is being raised only now, over six months since the deletion took place?
Thanks in advance. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not entirely without merit. A lot of US holidays mean family visits and no time for computer-related things. What the nom didn't mention was that the discussion was open for the full 5 days needed. - Mgm|(talk) 12:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. In any case, the deletion process was properly followed. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a correct reading of the consensus. I think Stifle's right there, Mgm. Wikipedia doesn't stop for national holidays in India (which is the country with the most English speakers)—so expecting it to stop for the US national holidays seems misguided. And yes, that's why we have a five-day process.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I don't think there was anything wrong with the deletion discussion and the placement in your calender has nothing to do with me (if anything, don't people have more time to edit wiki when they're not busy working?). If anything, it attracted relatively much attention and discussion. The basic premise of the editors arguing delete was that the quoted sources were not about the subject but rather mentioned him, or a statement he had made, in another context. The fact that those sources considered him a valid source does not in and of itself make him notable. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse nothing out of process here. Valid arguments were made for deletion at AfD. Eusebeus (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Stifle. Challenge of deletion is US–centric at least and offends English–speaking Wikipedians from other countries (not to mention those American Wikipedians who choose not to follow such holidays) who do not follow said customs and traditions at most. Full disclosure: I am American. MuZemike 00:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The premise of this deletion review is incorrect. The AfD ran from September 7 through September 12, 2008. There was no U.S. holiday during that period. (Labor Day was on September 1, 2008.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing Admin's Comment As far as I recall this hadnt been discussed with me prior to the DRV being raised but, as always,I am open to reviewing any deletion on notability grounds if further sourcing is provided for discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 17:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion I'm not sure that there isn't enough sourcing (it looks from the deletion discussion like the close was a reasonable interpretation based on the sourcing). The claim about an American holiday is interesting. Obviously, Wikipedia is not US centric. However, the individual biography is of someone living in the US and so US editors might be more interested in such an individual. However, that isn't terribly relevant because there were many editors commenting so there was enough to form a consensus anyways. (I'm only aware of one other discussion about timing issues and in that case it had to do with the timing of a DRV. See the discussion in the Seth Finkelstein DRV here.). The primary issue was lack of substantial sourcing. If someone wishes to have this restored they should present additional sourcing to so that Ratcliffe meets WP:BIO. Finally, since when is Sept 11 a holiday? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Dec. 18, 2001. — CharlotteWebb 07:10, 18 March 2009 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:The Political Quarterly (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The deletion of The Political Quarterly was described in Dick Pountain's column in PC Pro -- here. This incident is described in various discussions on the wikipedia -- and perhaps off-wikipedia -- of how to prune cruft, without pruning perfectly valid material that the nominator and deleting administrator simply didn't understand. That is how I came to the article. But, after Pountain saw the speedy tag, and he placed his {{hangon}} notice, he placed an explanation on the talk page, explaining why he placed the {{hangon}}. When the deleting administrator had been talked into restoring the article he or she didn't restore the talk page. I think it is very important for the early edits to the talk page, prior to the deletion to be restored. I have been told that the deleting administrator is on a wikibreak. Geo Swan (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I contacted the deleting administrator. A friend of theirs, another administrator, did say he or she was on a wikibreak. I am sure you are correct that the contents of talk pages like this one are usually undramatic. But if the talk pages of article that are speedy deleted are usually undramatic the circumstances surrounding this one definitely make it a very dramatic exception. The last three paragraphs of Pountain's column, if accurate, are a terribly damning indictment of excesses of the wikipedia's speedy deletion process. In his column Pountain wrote:

In the NYRB article Baker explains how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation by the retarded frat-boy BRAAAAAP! brigades, but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight. This is such a strong claim that it needed checking, so I decided to attempt an edit myself.

The Political Quarterly article was Pountain's good-faith attempt to see for himself whether perfectly valid new material would be deleted "without mercy or insight". I think we can all now see that the wikipedia failed this test, that this article was tagged and deleted by two contributors who did not know that Leon Trotsky was the 20th century's third most important Bolshevik, and Benito Mussolini was the 20th century's second most important fascist dictator. Pountain was absolutely correct to criticize the wikipedia over the lapse of these two individuals. Not knowing who Trotsky and Mussolini is, is forgiveable. Some people are not good with names, or didn't pay attention in history class. But not clicking on the links Pountain provided to their names, prior to deletion? That is very hard to explain.
On the other hand Pountain did exaggerate. He wrote that the article was tagged within five minutes. The revision history says it was tagged seventeen minutes after creation. Pountain says he wrote an explanation of why the article shouldn't be deleted: "I was permitted an appeal, but it was disposed of in about two minutes and then the piece was gone." If I am reading the deletion log correctly the article wasn't deleted for another four hours or so after it was tagged. I think Pountain's defense of the article is extemely important. I'd like to read the defense Pountain offered after the article was tagged. I'd like to know whether someone discounted his explanation shortly thereafter. The deleting administrator was asked whether WP:CSD#A7 really applied. And they replied: I went back and reread the article and I realized I read it wrong, for some reason I thought it was about the man who created it. I went and restored the article as you are correct it doesn't meet A7, so of course feel free to go and improve. Sorry for the mix-up, Im an idiot sometimes :-) The deleting administrator's comment strongly suggests to me that they didn't notice Pountain's {{hangon}}, and didn't bother to read Pountain's explanation of the journal on Talk:The Political Quarterly.
I first went to look at the article after coming across a mention of it on another talk page that was discussing the need to reform how speedy deletions take place. I can see from the "what links here" that there are multiple talk pages where this embarrassing incident is discussed. I think it is important for Pountain's explanation to be restored. Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. A good rule of thumb about social breaching experiments such as Pountain's is that all of them succeed - simply keep trying until you achieve something you can describe as success (in this case, getting Wikipedia to delete something you can spin as obviously incorrect), then describe it as a success. In that sense, his explanation is probably not particularly important. However, if the subsequent discussion has been allowed to stand, with mere archiving tags, it's reasonable for the original talk page discussion to be undeleted. N.B., I can't see deleted revisions and have had no luck finding a cached version - if Pountain's original message is just a bunch incoherent attacks or similar content, the preceding of course does not apply. I trust someone will mention if that's true. meanwhile, it would be nice to have the contents for consideration. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2009 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Crossing the Rubicon (Ruppert) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please take a look through the users that voted to delete this page and ask yourself if the page would be 'Non notable' if it the book had other subject matter. Some users were deleted as sockpuppets, others have a history of attempts to delete reasonable articles of topics that present a non-mainstream viewpoint. As a book this satisfies notability. Icmtk (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse two-and-a-half-year-old deletion - the AFD was conclusive in its consensus to delete, and making the debate about the editors who voted against it does nothing to change that. If you think an article will stand up to consideration at this point in time, then feel free to write one in a neutral manner, and ensure that it's backed up with reliable sources to affirm its notability. Note - I fixed the headings for this request.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I question 'conclusive consensus' due to the accounts that voted. Aside from that, the reason given for deletion was 'Non-notability'. If I were to take time (possibly waste time, depending upon the quality of the original article - which of course I cannot see!) to research and write a new article then that would not affect notability of the subject. I would like to determine whether people determine the article meets that standard first. To list a few sources that reference the book:
  • Amazon (states book has rank of 15,185) and has the category rankings:
  • 4 in Books > Nonfiction > Government > Public Affairs & Administration
  • 5 in Books > Nonfiction > Politics > Reference
  • 7 in Books > Nonfiction > Current Events > September 11
Additionally it has picked up a few references on wikipedia itself, Neoconservatism, Criticisms_of_the_9/11_Commission_Report, CIA_drug_trafficking, 9/11_Truth_Movement, 9/11_conspiracy_theories. Icmtk (talk)
  • Deletion review is about the decision-making process, and you haven't given any indication of why you think the closing administrator made a mistake other than making vague claims about the other people who opined. It's two and a half years old. I really suggest writing a new article, based on the information you have here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an administrator you can see the contests of the deleted article. The rest of us can't. You seem willing to consider that the topic is worthy of coverage. What possible disadvantage could there be in userifying the article, and letting ICmtk determine what portion(s) of the first drafts is worth salvaging? Geo Swan (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My bar is met for notability; I've been spending some time looking at Wikipedia:Notability_(books). I maintain this book meets Criteria 1 (see sources above). I think it also may meet 3 (as a contribution to a political movement). Without spending a lot of time searching for sources, I point out that it has remained on a reading list for its three main topics of concern Peak_oil , 9/11_conspiracy_theories, CIA_drug_trafficking (yes, its a very poorly focussed book, but that is irrelevant), and probably should be removed if it wasn't one of the notable books in those fields.
It also has meets the threshold standards (ISBN 0865715408, 9780865715400, many library links (not bothering to list), catalogued by loc.gov). It is not self published, and I'm even interested to see what appears to be a french translated version with another publisher.
Disregarding all that, I think I will drop this. I am starting to suspect any content I took the time to create would be deleted very quickly on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Icmtk (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. That AfD showed an overwhelming consensus of low-quality votes that mostly made no attempt to disclose their reasoning, so the closer's hands were tied; but I think Wikipedia could potentially support a decent article with this title.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:33, 21 March 2009 (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/2009_March_16&oldid=1138435918"