Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 10

10 April 2015

Template:Maintained

Template:Maintained (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have reflected on and considered this all week; I still feel this close should be reviewed here, and so for the first time in nearly a decade on Wikipedia, I'm bringing something to DRV.

I believe there are two procedural reasons why this should not have been closed as a delete:

1. I cannot see much difference between this and the previous three TfDs, especially the other two (from 2007 and 2008) that were closed as no consensus. Pretty much the same arguments were made on both sides, in both previous TFDs, with about the same level of participation and the same spirited debate. What made the 2015 iteration different? If anyone endorses the close, I would be very interested in reading an explanation of just what, exactly, distinguishes this from the last two. And based on the remarks on the closing admin's page, I'm not alone in this confusion.
2. The original nominator this time said in his nomination that he'd be open to either deleting the template or rewriting it. I really think this sort of nomination should almost always be speedy closed as no consensus—if the nominator can't make up his or her mind, how should anyone expect the community to? We have enough of a problem with people listing articles at AfD who really want to force improvements to them. A deletion nomination should be an unambiguous statement that whatever is being nominated does not belong on Wikipedia ever again, not in any form.

   And here, as in the previous TfDs, editors on both sides indicated they'd be open to working toward rewriting the template. One, ATinySliver, even put possible rewrites on the page, which led one !voter to suggest that the TfD be immediately relisted with that goal in mind. That's farther than either of the other two went, yet this was closed as delete.

From the closing admin's talk page:

Extended content

The result of the discussion was Delete. That's odd, I just read through the entire discussion and there's clearly no consensus to delete. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC) For what its worth I agree with his closing in that most agreed it was misused and in need of clear off pages and rewriting. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC) I guess we disagree. I did not see any consensus or majority believing it had been misused. In fact, the overwhelming usage of the template shows little misuse. This kind of bizarre discussion and closing is why I try to avoid participating in any Xfd discussions. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)+1 to Virditas. I read your close and, really, it seems to me like it took me as much time to read that close as you took reading the discussion. I respectfully request you reconsider, or let another admin do it, for two reasons: Yes, many !voters cited ownership concerns. That is, facially, a valid reason. But despite my many requests for evidence of this, none of the delete voters felt like they had to provide any, or hemmed and hawed about me asking them. Some of them suddenly changed their position to "no evidence is necessary" or "the fact that we are having this discussion is evidence enough", neither of which are reasons to delete. In short, they did not make their case. To the extent that any consensus was forming, it was, as you acknowledged, over changing the wording. I supported that, and would have helped change it. Instead, you sent the page to data heaven. That's like demolishing your house when you decide you need a new paint job. In short, your close seems based on the most superficial reading of the discussion, a sort of get-this-out-of-here close for the sake of closing. Go back and take another look. Please. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Hi Daniel I assure you that I spent a fair amount of time on that close. It had been open several weeks, and was listed on the requests for closure board. I not only read several past discussions, but I re-read various policies as well. And I had some time today, so I closed it (and several other discussions). As I believe you know, my job as closer is merely to read over the discussion, and close based upon it and the broader community consensus and policy and guidelines. And, as you've been around awhile and have probably seen that I've closed large community-wide contentious discussions before, you know I don't count votes. If you like, I can provide some fairly clear examples. And as an aside, if I could speak for the community, I would apologize for the way you were sometimes treated in the discussion. It is a consensual discussion, and you are welcome to positively contribute to the discussion. You put forth your perspective there, several times. But, as you saw, that perspective was generally rejected by the community. It's not fun to be in that situation, I understand. I've had several proposals which I felt the community would support, but in the end, didn't. All that aside, as I said in the close, please feel free to start a discussion for maybe a different way to convey and show intent. I hope this helps. - jc37 05:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC) I second Daniel's request. The 'delete' side of that debate was superficial at best. It was basically a majoritarian gang all saying the same opinion, but not backing it up with anything. And that kind of result was supposed to be avoided when we stopped counting sheer votes, many years ago. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Overturn to no consensus or Overturn and relist Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus - it's a straight Monty-Python argument "This has ownership issues" vs "no it doesn't" with no real evidence either way. Given that delete is a really pro-clique, abandon new editors in the wilderness position, more than a good headcount but no argument is necessary. WilyD 10:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse - DRV is neither XfD round 2, nor is it for simplistic "I disagree with the result" stances. Unless actual administrator error or transgression is identified, a result should be allowed to stand. ("I have a different opinion about the strength of the delete votes" doesn't cut it) Tarc (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse- I think consensus to delete was pretty clearly established at this discussion. DRV is not for "I think people should not have voted delete" arguments. Reyk _YO! 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I limited my argument to procedural questions. Obviously I have complaints about the substantive nature of the TFD, but I can't raise them here. I really don't think "endorse because the person who started this DRV is upset that he was on the losing side" is an argument that should be taken seriously by whoever closes this, or any DRV. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus - per WilyD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:09, 10 April 2015)

• Endorse Admins have to make tough decisions sometimes, but I think he evaluated it well here. The theme of the discussion truly was, that in its current form, the template was an issue and could be misused. As was said in the closing, there is no objection to proposing new versions of the template at a village pump and gaining consensus there. Also agree with Reyk and Tarc's comments. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So ... this is the logic of how we close XfDs nowadays.

• A lot of people make votes one way or the other based on a primarily emotional misreading of policy or some other specious logic, and refuse to provide factual evidence for the bad feeling they have about this, or, when the failings of their arguments are pointed out to them decide defiantly that no evidence is needed.
• There are some real issues that could be addressed without resorting to deletion.
• The XfD is closed as delete because there were so many of these !votes, with the consolation prize that we're all free to reinvent the wheel that was easily reparable without smashing it all to pieces.

I know this is often how it's done in software development, and the German Wikipedia

By the way, EoRdE6, you just implied again by using "in its current form" (a misnomer now, since the template has been deleted and has no current form) that the issues could have been remedied without recourse to deletion. Can you at least concede the issue that your nomination was half-hearted? It looks like you and I (at least) are going to have drop whatever else we're doing for a while and spend at least next week working night and day to create a new template that will replace this (and all the other similar templates you've been hunting down and nominating for deletion), so we might as well start getting along. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse. I didn't actually "!vote" in the last one, but I'd like to make a comment. I found the constant badgering of those who supported deletion in the original discussion to be less than desirable. Now to see another editor categorizing people as "pro-clique" who "abandon new editors in the wilderness position", well that just brings a "sigh" to my lips. That these things are done by administrators is very sad IMO. Don't get me wrong - I'm not "anti-admin", in fact some of my best friends are admins. Still, there seems to be a lot of "WP:I don't like it" going on here. (I could blue-link that - but that might be a bit of a dick move.) — Ched :  ?  14:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• endorse. No valid rationale for overturning given. re (1) It is not the job of the closer to evaluate previous discussions to see how much has changed, but to evaluate each discussion on its merits. Even if the discussion is broadly similar things change: consensus changes, things get older and so more out of date, other things are developed that partly or fully replace the item up for deletion. re (2) It was not speedy closed. That editors continued to discuss it in good faith on both sides of the debate shows people were happy with the parameters of the discussion. You cannot now undo all that, and say the discussion should not have happened, because you don't like the result.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the previous discussions should have been considered substantively (although, yes, I did allude to that). I am arguing that they were no different from this one save for how consensus was judged.

If this was closed as delete, why weren't the earlier noms closed as delete, then? Consensus can change, to be sure, but we cannot change consensus, or at least the way we read it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• point of order. The second reason for overturn offered is The original nominator this time said in his nomination that he'd be open to either deleting the template or rewriting it. This doesn't seem to accurately describe the nomination. Kanguole 15:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah I was going to mention that. My nomination said nothing about rewrites, this is really just grasping at straws. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, you didn't say it in your nomination, but you did say as muchh shortly before. I see no effort on your part to seek out people who might have been willing to collaborate with you on a rewrite before you went running off to make your nomination. Please stop trying to have it both ways. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Natter Social Network

Natter Social Network (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From the closing admin's talk page:

Extended content

Hi Drmies. I don't think there was sufficient discussion of the sources to determine whether Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline was met. I posted nine sources. One editor spoke negatively of two of the sources, said "I'll come back to this" to two of the sources, and did not respond to five other sources I posted at the end of the discussion. The other five "delete" editors did not comment about any of the nine sources. Your assessment of the sources as "lacking in both breadth and depth" (which I disagree with) would be reasonable as a vote but not as a close that summarizes the discussion. I am discussing this with you per WP:DRVPURPOSE #2 ("Deletion Review should not be used when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first"). Cunard (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC) (stalking)I can't remember why I came here this morning, but having seen Cunard's track record at saving articles per WP:HEY before (eg: this), I had a quick look around myself. As well as the sources already noted there's this this TechCrunch piece - though that dismisses Natter as yet another SFW Chatroulette clone and it's over four years old, so I'm suspicious of a "wait and see if it's notable" approach. Maybe there's enough in the sources for a short article, maybe there isn't. I'd personally close it as "No consensus", but then there's a reason why Drmies wields the mop and bucket and I don't, so I'll leave you all to have your easter eggs in peace now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Well, Cunard, I was trying to assess the commentary. If you think I read too much into comments like "I see enough references to write a story in Wikinews about doesn't meet GNG for an article in wikipedia" (granted, the grammar's a bit crooked too), I can't fault you for that, and you are of course welcome to challenge the decision. On a personal note, I am sorry to disagree with you. Ritchie, "no consensus" is a possibility but the numbers (yeah yeah numbers aren't everything) are quite overwhelming, which makes Cunard's zeal even more admirable.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources mentioned in the AfD:

Extended content

Russell, Kate (2014-12-04). "Webscape: Alternative social media sites special". Click. BBC. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03. Kate Russell of BBC notes: I am constantly being sent press releases about websites that claim to be the next big thing about social media but Natter wants to be the next small thing, serving up a Twitter-like platform with a limit of just three words. It's fun coming up with creative ways to express yourself with such a tight deadline or reading other people's posts. I can't see this becoming a platform people have actual conversations on them. Jordan, Chris (2014-10-07). "Startup Profile: Natter – the three-word social media platform". Tech Spark. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03. According to http://techspark.co/team/WebCite, Tech Spark has editorial oversight. Barnes, Laura (2015-03-02). "How I broke new social media site Natter in 120 seconds". PCR. NewBay Media. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03. The article notes: PCR deputy editor Laura Barnes shares her views on the new social media website that's just secured a six-figure investment. ... Described by its developers as a nano social networking platform, ‘Natter.com was conceptualised as a three word networking service to allow friends to connect through short and snappy messages offering a new social experience’. ... “Natters tend to fall into one of three types: deeply considered and thought provoking three word statements, often with a sense of mystery, a simple check in such as ‘in the pub’ or those looking for the challenge and fun that comes with sharing their views in just three words,” comments founder Neil Stanley. According to http://www.pcr-online.biz/info/contact-usWebCite, PCR has editorial oversight. "Natter.com Receives Six-Figure Investment". Business Matters. 2015-03-02. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03. The article notes: Natter.com, the three word social network, has today received its first investment in the company as business ‘Angels’ have invested an undisclosed six-figure sum to help the tech startup continue to grow. "Trio launch website to fill social network gap". Bath Chronicle. 2011-01-27. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04. "Consultancy now provides training". Bath Chronicle. 2011-08-18. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04. The article notes: A social networking website launched by a Bath company in January has introduced new features as it seeks to attract more users. Natter.com is one of two social networking sites run from The Tramshed off Walcot Street. Natter is run by former banker Neil Stanley, while Whisbird is run by the team that is also behind the Xcetra brand agency. Natter's aim is for people to make new friends around the globe by allowing them to converse via a webcam in a safe way. The only tools they need are an internet connection, a webcam and a genuine Facebook account. Visitors to natter.com are asked to select the sort of person they are interested in meeting. Having found a Natter user, the two people can then talk, initially for just one minute. Once the minute's up, the users then decide whether they want to continue their chat, and can decide whether to add their new friend on Facebook. At the end of every successful one-minute chat, both users receive a 'Natter point'. Collecting as many of these as possible benefits the Natter user in the future by indicating they are polite and friendly. Lamkin, Paul (2011-01-18). "Natter your way to new Facebook friends". Pocket-lint. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04. There is editorial oversight according to http://www.pocket-lint.com/info/who-are-weWebCite Smith, Mark (2011-05-05). "Fancy a natter with the new network boys?". Western Mail. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04. The article notes: TWO entrepreneurs are following in the footsteps of Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg after launching their own social networking site. Phillip Harris, 25, and housemate Tom Fide, 25, are hoping their latest creation, Natter, will be the next big online phenomenon – giving people from Rhondda Cynon Taff a safe and exciting new place to find new friends. Natter, which encourages “friendly and polite” webcam chatting, has been described by Mr Harris as “a form of online speed-dating” – a market untouched by the larger internet corporations. It has the backing of CEO and co-founder, Neil Stanley (ex-Goldman Sachs and Lombard Odier). "Natter completes funding round". Newsco Insider Limited. South West News Service. 2011-04-07. Retrieved 2015-04-04. {{cite news}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help)

The closing admin erred in interpreting the "delete" comments as applying to sources they had not even reviewed. When information surfaces late in the discussion, it should be considered. This article from Bath Chronicle, this article from Western Mail, and this article from TechCrunch provide substantial coverage of the company. The company was covered in Kate Russell's Click programme on BBC in 2014. After I posted these sources, a "delete" editor responded, criticizing two of the sources and saying "I'll come back to this" to two others. No one else reviewed the sources.

Overturn and relist.

Cunard (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist That's quite a lot of sources to dismiss so blithely, and there was almost no discussion in the AfD of those sources. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus - I'd almost say keep, given a plethora of sources where presented and not refuted, but given the earlier discussion, a no consensus makes it easier to relist if someone really wants it deleted, but I see no reason to relist it unless we can find an actual person who thinks it should be deleted. WilyD 10:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)