Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by (aeropagitica) (talk | contribs) at 21:47, 16 October 2006 (→[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alix Rosenthal]] Review: response and '''delete''' vote.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 15 October 16 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

16 October 2006

template talk:Uncyclopedia

This has been deleted 3 times by overzealous admins in order to silence uncyclopedians. The GFDL says you can't delete pages like this, this should be a record of anti-uncyclopedian bias and censorship in Wikipedia. I'm not asking for template:uncyclopedia to be undeleted, only for the record where it is discussed.

Openbravo

The Openbravo entry has been deleted. I have made an effort to explain why it should be keep it and I only got a personal message saying "this article had been deleted by proper process, it should not be recreated. Herostratus 12:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)".

I'm not aware of the content that was published under the Openbravo article in the first place (I did not write it) but I do not see why my article is wrong since it describes an open source project like many others.

Thanks in advance. Jordi,

  • The reasons the nominator gave on that talk page are:
    • This page describes a free software/open source project like many other pages at Wikipedia - Inclusion is not an indicator of notability.
    • OpenBravo, like Compiere and Adempiere is a free ERP. All of these projects release software regullary, have their communities behind them and are used by many users and are commercially backed. I do not see why Compiere or Adempiere can be in Wikipedia and Openbravo not. - See above, but if the software has enough users to have received third-party coverage from reliable sources, or otherwise meets WP:SOFTWARE, then we may be able to consider that.
    • This page already exists in the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedias were it has been never considered for deletion. See WP:INN again, multiplied by a factor of five, as the various Wikipedias operate more or less independently of each other.
  • So, keep deleted unless compelling evidence to overturn the AfD is presented. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Openbravo has been listed in the top 15 projects at SourceForge for the last weeks - Jordi Mas

That's an indicator of development activity. It really doesn't do anything for notability. If that were downloads, maybe. Can you find anything that meets the guidelines that Sam Blanning pointed to? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Openbravo. While short, it seems decisive. Since then, it has been deleted twice as a recreation with substantially identical text. The solution is to write a new article, showing why Openbravo meets Wikipedia:Software or WP:CORP; both, if possible. If neither is possible, we don't want this article. Septentrionalis 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Myg0t

I noticed the talk page was protected after it had been cleared a few times, so I figured that I would list it here, since talk pages aren't supposed to be protected, I believe. The talk pages are supposed to be used to discuss recreation and to gather evidence to use in arguments for an article's recreation. As far as I can tell there's no reason to protect a talk page except to keep an article permanently deleted despite any new evidence that might come up. It seems like this could be a distinct possiblity, since this article is about an active group.

Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this. --LifeEnemy 08:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, the talk page was being solely used for pointless trolling, mainly from the subject - most of the weight behind attempts to recreate this are, despite protests, predominantly vanity. We've gone through this enough times that further discussion of recreation is pointless without compelling new evidence. That leads us to the "gathering evidence" claim, and I would suggest that Myg0t will never do anything notable, ever. If they ever do it will have to be so clear-cut that it can just be brought straight here to WP:DRV - any evidence not compelling enough that it needs to be stored and gathered with others before being DRV-ready is probably going to be yet more passing mentions and unreliable pseudosources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted It's common practice to delete talk pages of deleted articles, and this one was mostly used for lame trolling anyway. We're not here to give people a place to troll or even just to chat, there's thousands of message boards out there if that's what you want to do. As far as the "gather evidence to use in arguments for an article's recreation" bit, well, Mygot has failed DRV more times than any article I can think of, to the point that any future efforts would probably be speedy-closed unless extremely substantial new information is included, like several cover stories in mainstream magazines. As Sam points out, that's unlikely to the point of near impossibility. Bottom line: the issue has been discussed, again and again, and each time there has been unanimous (or near-unanimous) consensus not to have an article on Mygot. Further discussion would be pointless and simply a waste of everyone's time. There has to be some point where we all admit it just isn't happening, and move on to other things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per above. Naconkantari 21:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Relationship rules

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground rules relationships

A previous version of this article was deleted on the grounds that it constituted original research. Consequently, care has been taken to ensure this new version of the article conforms to each of the three "content-guiding" criteria of Wikipedia articles:

WP:VERIFY Use only verifiable sources

The Relationship rules article meets the criterion of verifiability.

  • All major ideas in the article are cited.
  • Every rule listed in the article comes directly from a cited source.
  • The large majority of citations in the article are either articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals or chapters in books written and edited by Ph.D.'s with expertise in the field. Wikipedia explicitly recognizes these as verifiable sources.
  • All but four of the remaining citations come from books published with editorial oversight. Wikipedia usually recognizes these as verifiable sources.
  • The four citations that refer to Web pages are simply examples readers could use to see the topic of Ground Rules can be found on the Internet. Web pages are not verifiable sources. However, these four citations are not used to verify any specific relationship rules or any major ideas about relationship rules.
WP:NOR No original research

The Relationship rules article meets the criterion of no original research.

  • All major ideas in the article are cited, demonstrating they have been published.
  • Every rule listed in the article comes directly from a cited source, demonstrating they have been published.
  • All of the main ideas, and all of the specific rules listed, reflect the ideas and rules as presented by their original authors. That is, none of the major ideas and listed rules in this article represent a new analysis or synthesis of the cited articles and chapters. This article simply reviews the content of the cited articles and chapters.
WP:NPOV Neutral point of view

The Relationship rules article is written in a neutral point of view.

  • There is very little theoretical conflict in verifiable sources about relationship rules. Readers are free to disagree with the published literature. However, mere opinion is not verifiable and constitutes original research. Editors must supply citations to published and verifiable sources to demonstrate that major conflicts exist in the theory of relationship rules.
  • Different publications can differ in the specific relationship rules offered. When this happens, multiple sources are cited. Examples include multiple sources for rules of marriage and multiple sources for rules of fair fighting. It is also noted that still other rules may b offered by other authors.

Finally, the topic covered in this article is mentioned in four other Wikipedia articles. The Polyamory, Swinging, Open marriage, and Jealousy coping articles refer to ground rules, which are discussed in this article. These mentions show the topic is of encyclopedic interest. Second, the Relationship rules articles is approximately 31 kilobytes in length, the maximum desired length for Wikipedia articles. This is clearly a full scale article and not merely a stub or a definition.Kelly 03:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. The article is impressively written and sourced, but it was when it was AfDed. Consensus then was that it was a well-written and sourced guide to relationships, and not appropriate for an encyclopaedia, and the article has not substantially changed since then. Little of the above wasn't considered by the AfD and consequently there is no reason for us to overturn it. The article may arguably meet all three policies, but meeting them doesn't make it an encyclopaedia article; it failed and still fails what Wikipedia is not. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be appropriate on one of Wikipedia's sister projects, such as Wikibooks. If Kc62301 agrees to allow the deletion stand, I'll be happy to temporarily undelete it for an import there. --Improv 14:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to continue contesting the deletion, through mediation if necessary, because the article in fact deals with a valid relationship phenomenon. Relationships are characterized by many phenomena (e.g., attachment, communication, sexual intimacy, roles, relational schema). One of those pheonema is rules that guide conduct in a relationship. Why exactly is a review of verifiable, published sources on a specific relationship phenomenon inappropriate for Wikipedia? Kelly 15:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are the topics listed for what Wikipedia is not:
    • 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
    • 1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary
    • 1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
    • 1.4 Wikipedia is not a soapbox
    • 1.5 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
    • 1.6 Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site
    • 1.7 Wikipedia is not a directory
    • 1.8 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
    • 1.9 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
    • 1.10 Wikipedia is not censored

Which of these, exactly, does the Relationship rules article fail on? The article is more than a dictionary definition (1.2), the article is well-cited and keeps to the ideas as originall presented in the original works (1.3), the article does not serve as a soapbox for a cause (1.4), the article is not a mirror to other sites (1.5), the article is not a blog or a social site (1.6), the article does not serve as a directory (1.7), the article is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as all cited sources deal with the topic of rules in relationships and even use the term 'rules' in the original sources (1.8), and the article does not try to predict the future (1.9). So why exactly does the Relationship rules article fail these guidelines? Kelly 15:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here isn't that I believe the article fails WP:NOT by amounting to a how-to guide to relationships rather than an encyclopaedia article (though I do); the main issue is that the article had an AfD, the consensus was that it failed WP:NOT, and the article has not substantially changed enough to merit overturning that consensus. This is a review of whether to overturn the AfD, not AfD Round 2. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lazy_K&oldid=16961621

I'm requesting the undeletion of some revisions of this talk page. Revisions 16961621 and prior held a VfD debate which was deleted along with the article, so I'd like the revisions to be undeleted so that the debate can be referenced. (I have no objection to a renaming of the page to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lazy K, or something similar, afterwards). --ais523 13:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alix Rosenthal Review

I am requesting the review of the decision to keep the article based on no consensus. Four editors with valid reasonings concluded that the article should be deleted. The original creator of the article put in two seperate keep comments and then obfuscated the discussion by quoting and commenting on proposed policies rather than the merits of the article as the policy is currently maintained. I believe this may have led to the administrator mistakenly feeling that there was no consensus when it was only one voice arguing against many. Thanks. ju66l3r 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist for AfD The points that you make are sound. Reading through the AfD discussion originally, I distinctly remember a feeling of equivocation when it came to the decision to delete. It was because of the element of doubt, combined with the keep arguments, that I came to no consensus decision. My feeling was backed-up by Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which states; "When in doubt, don't delete.". My secondary feeling was that if this article was kept then it could be resubmitted for AfD at any point, which may be the case in this instance. My decision was based upon equivocation erring on the side of caution. If 'no consensus' is overturned then I will vote delete. (aeropagitica) 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_16&oldid=81867994"