Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:35, 4 April 2008

< April 3	Deletion review archives: 2008 April	April 5 >

4 April 2008

Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam

Challengers offered several reasons to challenge this article. And counter-arguments were offered, and ignored. The closing admin's concluding statement (1) did not address the counter-arguments, (2). In particular, several challengers asserted the kind of sources the article relied on weren't "independent", and did not comply with the wikipedia's guidelines that articles should use "secondary sources". This is a question I asked for guidiance about on WP:RS/Noticeboard a couple of months ago, here. I realize we entrust administrators with the authority to use their own judgment in interpreting policy, or in areas they think policy does not address. But, IMO, open, accountable, transparent decision-making places an obligation on administrators to explain those judgment calls. I am concerned because it seemed to me that the conclusory statement in this AFD did not address, or even acknowledge the existence of, the counter-arguments to the reasoning the closing admin offered for deletion.

Yes, I know AFD is not a vote. But for those who care about such things, the "keep" and "delete" opinions were evenly split.

Yes, I did try to contact the closing admin before bringing this to DRV. Geo Swan (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Your assumption that "counter-arguments were offered, and ignored" seems at odds with the actual closing statement. It's not reasonable to ask the closer to address each and every argument put forward. Any time I've seen a closer attempt to do so, they were then accused of bias or debating the AfD instead of remaining independent in closing the debate. Guy addressed the policy-based arguments in the AfD, and I see no problem with the close. -- Kesh (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have to differ from your suggestion that the closer addressed the counter arguments. Closing admin wrote: "The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources." Whether these memos are secondary sources was addressed, in detail, both in the {{afd}}, and in the previous discussion on WP:RS. Geo Swan (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I think JzG summed it up very well. And there's no need to post below saying you have to differ, because I know you do. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prefix Magazine

Apart from the AfD being inappropriately non-admin closed, the deletion issues weren't addressed at all. No reliable sources exist for this site and there's been much better referenced articles than this that ended up deleted. This wasn't speedied because the number of articles that links to this page could've suggested notability. But there's no sources out there suggesting this site meets WP:WEB. Spellcast (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, not at all inappropriate for a non-admin to close a unanimous AFD. DRV is a place to explain how the deletion procedure was not properly followed, not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the close was incorrect because none of the reasons for deletion were addressed and the keep arguments weren't supported by WP:WEB. I've yet to find one reliable source out there and that's likely because there isn't any yet. Although it's linked to a lot of pages, the article doesn't even pass WP:CSD#A7. Spellcast (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist to generate a more thorough consensus. Only the first !vote addressed policy issues, and the source mentioned is still a bit dubious. Not a strict overturn, though. -- Kesh (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boston Bruins-Montreal Canadiens playoff series (closed)

Tangled Up Tour

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangled Up Tour A few members have tried to recreate this page, but it has been deleted due to "recreation of deleted material". I would like to bring the debate here, because I feel that the page is Wikipedia-worthy. If the page had more references from various news sources, would it not be just as worthy as the pages on any other pop tour? I feel that this was the main issue, as well as some bias due to the fact that Girls Aloud are widely considered a "pre-fab pop group", as one Wiki user put it in the AfD. I would gladly find sources for the page. BambooBanga (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Recreated page did not address the arguments articulated at the AfD resulting in the deletion; if anything it was a step backwards. A new page can be created and if it does address the AfD arguments, it is not subject to WP:CSD#G4. That means that you, BambooBanga, are free to create this page in a better form, i.e, with citation to reliable sources and with material that is substantially more than a list of venues and dates. I strongly suggest working on it in a subpage until you are ready to "go live".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - good advice above. A tour by Girls Aloud is self-evidently going to be notable so it is a matter of reliably sourcing. I suggest starting with this since the bit about the non-split adds some external context. BlueValour (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living dinosaurs (closed)

Comparison of church management software

I do not believe that this page qualifies under WP:CSD#G11, as from what I remember about this page it was not blatant enough to qualify. Furthmore most of the arguments in the "debate" seemed to center around Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF or easily correctable issues WP:OR. Furthermore, the article had seemed to have plenty of sources (not sure they were Reliable) NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 03:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Might be a good idea to rewrite your reasoning here, and explain it a bit better. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion - unlike other software lists such as comparison of wiki software, none of the entries on this list had articles (link to nativity is a dud). This plus the massive amount of external links makes it deletable per the spirit of G11 and A3. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~ Overturn and relist - This seemed to just be a pile of external links, with some original research tying things together. (For example, "Easy to use" -- as determined by whom exactly?). Seems unsalvageable. However, it's not blatant advertising, and doesn't seem to fit another CSD category. Relist or invoke the snow shovel to jump straight to the probable conclusion. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - CSD#11 is for pages that exists solely to promote some entity. The fact that the page lists several competing products means that the criteria is beeing severly stretched in this case. It's extremely worrying that the admin took it upon himself to carry out a speedy deletion with no prior nomination. So relist or delete per WP:SNOW rather than G11. Taemyr (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "The fact that the page lists several competing products" could also mean that they are all being promoted. G11 does not demand exclusivity of a single product (as if promotional tone wasn't bad enough already!). Phrases like "Extremely easy to use and learn" and "[training:] Yes, Contact us for pricing." are typical phrases in a marketing brochure. They are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, and it should be stated that we can only judge based on what is written, not on the intent of those that wrote it. If an article clearly has an advertising-like tone that is clearly not appropriate for an encyclopedia, it is the purview of G11 and can be speedy deleted as advertising, even if the person who actually wrote the article has no affiliation with the company/product being advertised. We have no way to read the minds of people, so we cannot judge intent. We can only judge content... And has been noted, G11 is nto limited to advertising single products. An article that advertises multiple products is still adverstising. And deleting an article is not killing it in perpetuity... if someone were to come along and write a compliant article with the same title, then that would be fine. However, this article, as is noted in G11, is beyond rescue, which is why I endorse its deletion... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm, I read entity as different from entities. But my point is that the page lists several competing products. The problem with the page is poor sourcing, which leads to personal opinions such as "Extremely easy to use and learn", or copying what the vendors have to say for availability of training. Rescuing this list, that is turning it into a useful comparison, does not require a complete rewrite of the page. It requires secondary sources. Taemyr (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The article should have gone through the proper AFD process, since the speedy deletion criteria didn't really apply. I don't know if WP:CSD G11 should really apply to articles that are advertising more than one product from more than one vendor. (And "advertising" is sort of a stretch here, too. It appears to be a subpage from Church management software.) At a regular AFD, arguments could be made that the material isn't encyclopedic and that Wikipedia is not a directory, but that really should be determined through AFD and not through speedy deletion. Having said that, I probably would have submitted a delete vote at AFD. I'm mainly concerned about the process of applying speedy deletion criteria. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can always be brought back (or merged) with sources if such a comparison is deemed notable by editors. Endorse deletionOverturn and relist Looking at the cache, this was not a narrative article, but a standard comparison chart of over a dozen software programs. This was not blatant advertising and I would think it a stretch to call it advertising at all. There may have been notability or PoV worries but this was not a G11. My mistake, I didn't see the "contact us for pricing." Stealthy G11. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Boderline advertising - it had text like "Yes, Contact us for pricing" and "Churches just getting started should phone for information" and clearly unencyclopedic - articles like this are commonly deleted. This should have been closed under WP:SNOW rather than been speedy deleted once there were more than two delete votes, but I don't see any point in re-opening the AfD so it can run for a few hours before being a clear WP:SNOW case. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. It wasn't blatant advertising; we shouldn't bite the newbies simply because they don't know how to properly contribute. If consensus is to delete, then it will be deleted, but a chance should be given for that to develop rather than having a sd tag inappropriately slapped on it like this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - not a clear G11 so the AFD should have run its course. What has happened is that there has been a poorly judged content split from Church management software and the result is OR by synthesis. A merge back of those bits that are sourced may be a pragmatic solution. BlueValour (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon_Bruce

changed bio here Sarahmckem (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC) (link added by Pegasus «C¦T» 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: deleted by me twice as copyvio. New version does not satisfy WP:MUSIC as written presently - he does not appear to be signed to any notable record label. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. We do not overturn deletion of copyvios unless shown it wasn't. There has been no deletion of this articles on "the merits", i.e., by consensus measuring whether the subject should have an article at all; just a speedy deletion that was profoundly within policy. Nothing in these past deletions stops you from creating the article in a form which does not violate anyone's copyright. Please note, however, that any new article that is not verified and does not show bases for establishing notability is likely to be deleted on separate grounds. Please review WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Userfied version still has a promotional tone, and no independent sources to verify the information presented. -- Kesh (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Userfied version has insufficient independent sources, too many non-free images, fails to be in a neutral point of view, and links violating the external link policy. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 *'''Endorse deletion''' - Your assumption that "counter-arguments were offered, and ignored" seems at odds with the actual closing statement. It's not reasonable to ask the closer to address each and every argument put forward. Any time I've seen a closer attempt to do so, they were then accused of bias or debating the AfD instead of remaining independent in closing the debate. [[User:JzG|Guy]] addressed the policy-based arguments in the AfD, and I see no problem with the close. -- [[User:Kesh|Kesh]] ([[User talk:Kesh|talk]]) 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Sorry, I have to differ from your suggestion that the closer addressed the counter arguments.  Closing admin wrote: ''"The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources."''  Whether these memos are secondary sources was addressed, in detail, both in the {{tl|afd}}, and in the previous discussion on [[WP:RS]].  [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
+*:Sorry, I have to differ from your suggestion that the closer addressed the counter arguments.  Closing admin wrote: ''"The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources."''  Whether these memos are secondary sources was addressed, in detail, both in the {{tl|afd}}, and in the previous discussion on [[WP:RS]].  [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Endorse deletion'''. I think JzG summed it up very well. And there's no need to post below saying you have to differ, because I know you do. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 ====[[:Prefix Magazine]]====