Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:25, 8 May 2008

< May 5	Deletion review archives: 2008 May	May 7 >

6 May 2008

Category:People from Riverdale, New York

Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York also included.

Category listing individuals from Riverdale, Bronx was deleted improperly in the face of consensus supporting retention and the inclusion of clear arguments for retention under Wikipedia policy. Administrator who improperly closed the CfD acknowledges that there are valid arguments for retention, but has stated in the close and in discussion that he disregarded valid arguments he disagrees with and imposed his own personal deletionist biases in this case to override consensus. As the sole justification for deletion in this case was the improper insertion of personal bias by the admin to override a consensus for retention, these improper actions should be overturned. Similar improper deletion by this same admin in the face of clear contrary consensus was also a factor in Category:People from Greenwich Village, which is also included here. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn In the face of consensus to keep and acknowledged valid arguments for retention, there is no place or justification for deletion based on arbitrary biases. Consensus is turned into a joke if any admin is granted unlimited discretion to overturn decisions on a deus ex machina basis. Concerns expressed regarding possible overcategorization have been addressed and are easily resolved, limiting such categories to articles with places, a suggestion that was disregarded by the closing admin. Given the improper close, overturing is the proper action. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer. Several of the keep arguments: Riverdale is a distinct and unique neighborhood, We shouldn't fault people for living in combined metropolitan districts. Consensus is not a vote count, and not all arguments are created equal. The delete arguments were simply stronger. --Kbdank71 19:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, the excuses that the admin falsely defines as "simply stronger" and that were accepted by User:Kbdank71 for deletion -- "People can live in dozens of neighborhoods in the course of a lifetime." and "Merge per Otto" -- offer no justification under Wikipedia policy that would require deletion of the category. The arguments in the nomination -- "Single entry category without a parent category for the neighborhood." were addressed under Wikipedia policy and no longer relevant. The stronger arguments for retention, based on Wikipedia policy, were simply discarded. Admin simply refuses to respect or accept consensus without improperly inserting his biases. Alansohn (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn no valid arguement for deletion. DGG (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't CFD 2. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No valid arguments were presented for deletion at CfD, hence the deletion was invalid. Alansohn (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of valid reasons for deletion were offered. You may not like those reasons but your personal dislike has no bearing on whether the CFD was closed correctly. Otto4711 (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The admin was mistaken in considering them valid & we are here to correct his misjudgment. He closed on the basis of his own doubts that "are people notable from where they live?"--which is not relevant --since a category isnt about notability, the people are already notable. He further accepted the argument that he didnt like people by categories, though even he admitted it was not in question here. And then he accepted the worst argument of all: that some of the people were mistakenly in the category. No valid reasons. DGG (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic is most certainly a valid reason for deletion. So is avoiding category clutter that will be caused by putting people into neighborhood-level categories for every neighborhood in which they have lived. So is hindering navigational utility by fracturing an already splintered category into ever tinier and tinier slivers. Otto4711 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That deserves an amen, brother Otto. Postdlf (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Nothing procedurally wrong with the delete. While there was a small response, the deletion reasoning was sound and the Keep reasoning was that somehow this neighborhood was notable (with nothing to back up that assertion). -- Kesh (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the arguments for keeping were weak and generic, relying in large part on the problems that are inherent in the People from categorization scheme. As the closing admin correctly noted, there are indeed problems with that entire scheme but the problems with it in no way prevent us from dealing with particularly problematic categories as they arise. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the arguments for keeping were really about why the neighborhood should have an article, not about why it makes sense to categorize people by neighborhood of association. There are significant problems with the subnational "people from" categories as a whole, and those problems are far more egregious when dealing with something as tiny and amorphous as a neighborhood, which lacks formal, agreed-upon boundaries and is far more easily and commonly moved in and out of than a city. So keeping people by city categories, for example, by no means necessarily leads to keeping people by neighborhood categories. Postdlf (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It's great to see Alansohn up to his old tricks. First there's the ridiculous and outraged overstatement, over-the-top denunciation and periphrastic caricature of the closing admin, who "imposed his own personal deletionist biases in this case to override consensus." Then, for good measure, we have the same point expressed with a slightly different emphasis: the improper insertion of personal bias by the admin to override a consensus for retention. Then, Alan, so impressed by his own hyperbole, !votes to endorse his own nomination. Oh, it's too funny - worthy of Ionescu. Anyway, endorse and keep deleted as a proper and procedurally good close, as noted above. Eusebeus (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is a violation of NPA-- please refactor. We're discussing the arguements , not the nominator. DGG (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the braying schoolmarm DGG; it's tedious. Alan's nomination is over the top in its caricature of kbdank's close. Calling him out on that is not a personal attack. Eusebeus (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the closer stated that the category had problems of verifiability (articles were being added of persons that had no source for residence there). The commenters didn't establish why exactly it was important to note that a person had lived at Riverdale and the closer correctly assesed so (aka, the need for the category was not explained). The parent category was created on-the-fly to try to save the category and it seems that it had the exact same problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, creates verifiability problems as well as overcategorization. Closer was somewhat outwith the apparent consensus but the end justified the means as far as I am concerned. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, admins can ignore what you admit as "established consensus" when they dont approve of the result and argue as here one side of the case in the closing, rather than participate in the debate and wait for someone else to close?DGG (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should not put the words "established consensus" in quotes as it implies that Stifle actually used those words. Stifle said "apparent consensus" which is quite a different animal. Otto4711 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RomexSoft

The article has been changed and even the slightest hints on advretisement have been removed. It would be highly requested to restore the article so that appropriate editing could be done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuegoazul (talk • contribs) 08:30, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

endorse It has been deleted repeatedly by a number of different administrators for both G11, and A7-- no indication of importance. I have looked atthe last deleted version, and there is indeed nothing that makes a reasoanble argument for notability or importance. We should see a draft of an article with some 3rd party sources for notability before permitting restoration. DGG (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse nothing in the article to indicate notability. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and come back once you can provide evidence this company meets those requirements. If you are employed by this company then I strongly advise against writing an article for it. Hut 8.5 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly read like an advertisement to me, hence my involvement in one of the deletions. It would be best if you have a read of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and then, if you still believe you can create an acceptable article, do so in userspace (e.g. at User:Fuegoazul/RomexSoft), with reliable sources, and then bring that to Deletion Review. --Stormie (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There is nothing to indicate notability of this company. Moreover, the user page User:Fuegoazul reads like an ad for this company as well. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Spammy article with no claim to notability by a succession of single purpose accounts, the requester being the latest. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inciclopedia

The article was kept at AfD even though only one good source was found. As usual a bunch of Uncy' users voted keep. The article is almost entirely original research, so notability of this particular website isn't established.

According to Alexa.com the site is currently the 10,267,272th most popular site on the web.
Not in the top 250 Wikis in the world, according to meta:List of largest wikis

Sources evaluation

http://estrecho.indymedia.org/newswire/display/73061/index.php
This is just an article saying that 'Frikipedia' was closed down. As far as I can see, 'Inciclopedia' isn't mentioned in it.

http://www.frikipedia.es/friki/Inciclopedia
An wiki article from the old spanish uncyclopedia, unreliable and looks like nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WM2006_0060.jpg
A picture of Jimbo Wales from Wikipedia..

http://desciclopedia.pt/wiki/Tio1.jpg
Primary source of an image on the site..

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/wikia.com
Alexa.com page for wikia.com showing that 8% of traffic to wikia.com goes to the site (according to alexa anyway) and it's the third most popular wiki of wikia.com

http://www.lun.com/modulos/catalogo/paginas/2006/09/16/LUCSTDI05LU1609.htm
The only decent substantial coverage from a newspaper. I don't read Spanish so can't say much about this.

http://www.cuatro.com/videos/index.html?xref=20071114ctoultpro_6.Ves&view=ver
A tiny mention on a TV show. "Inciclopedia was also mentioned..." Otterathome (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't go around endorsing my own closures (evaluating my work is something I leave to others), but I will give a rationale for my close, and note that I have given my reasons on my own talkpage. First, the reasons given to delete were "Notability has not been established. A notability tag has been on it for nearly 3 months now. No third-party references still. So fails WP:WEB.", "another non-notable wiki", "This article sounds like an advertisement written by the website's users, also. It fails WP:N in that it is non-notable." These arguements are largely assertions of non-notability, and when the discussion contains people who argue for notability, they don't carry all that much weight. The fact that Rataube added a section on notability, and was able to produce a third-party source addressed the main concern in the nomination, that there were no third-party references. In short, there was in my view certainly no consensus that the article should be deleted, and with some of the concerns given by the nominator alleviated by the presence of a third-party source, I chose to close it as "keep" rather than "no consensus". Two points about this DRV nomination: An argument given in this DRV nom is that the article is "original research", this was not presented in the AFD. Looking at the article, I don't think that the article suffers from blatant OR problems, rather much of the article is sourced from the website itself which is OK to a certain extent (see WP:SELFPUB), and there is also some third party coverage now. Finally, the Alexa ranking looks like it's for "inciclopedia.org" which is probably a redirect address, since the actual address is "inciclopedia.wikia.com". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You keep referring to the sources like there's more than one, when infact there's only one legitimate one.--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and DeleteSjakkalle offers a fairly strong defense of his close and it is not necessarily out of process, except that I think this site does clearly fail WP:WEB as noted in the original nomination with a dash of WP:RS concerns thrown in (noted in the DRV nom); so it would have been better for the admin to have closed based on policy, not !vote-counting. I am unmoved by the lazy endorsements of some of those below whose sanction is the usual stuff one expects when a close conforms to one's own views; but I include myself in the laziness category for not having consulted this discussion which I think provides sufficient grounds for retention and makes Sjakkalle's close reasonable. Eusebeus (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, pretty clear consensus even if not for the best of reasons. Recommend merging with Uncyclopedia, which is a normal editorial action that can be done anyway. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, only Rataube & carl responded to my concerns, the rest were just votes. The discussion ended without the concerns of another reliable source being addressed.--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer's explanation seems impeccable and the challenge to it seems not to have any basis in process. DRV is not AFD². Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you want me to move this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inciclopedia‎ 2?--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Good summation of closure from the closer, given that a reliable source was found to meet the core verifiability policy and provide some notability, overturning the consensus of the discussion based on the possible failure of a guideline would not have been appropriate. Davewild (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse per Davewild and Colonel Warden. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse keep this is not AfD2. Since there was clear consensus to keep, if you insist on another AfD, i'd think it necessary to wait at least 3 or 4 months before starting one.DGG (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment If this is kept, I will make Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inciclopedia‎ 2, as the fact still stands it still fails WP:WEB despite the Keep votes which never seem to address the problem at hand.--Otterathome (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the recent nature of the previous AfD, I strongly suggest you wait a while to do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. It's very bad form to immediately re-nominate an article for deletion just because you disagree with the result. Give it at least a month and, if it still hasn't improved, then you can re-nominate. -- Kesh (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the closer gave clear rationales for keeping the article. The article meets verifiability and is closely on the verge of notability. If one legitimate source can be found, it means that there's high chance of finding more sources on this subject. Remember we need sources when there's something that need to be cited. The first source from indymedia is ok, since it supports the information that "it was founded on February 24, 2006 to serve as a continuation of Frikipedia, a parody site closed by SGAE". The site is mentioned on a TV show, it means that it must have certain notability to be referenced in pop culture. Also, SELFPUB is sometimes acceptable, for example we still use information on Nobelprize.org as sources for Nobel prizes related articles. After all, this is a rightly closed AFD. If you want to renominate the article for deletion, you should wait for 2 or 3 months because there's a consensus for keeping it and in the meantime maybe many users may add more sources to the article. @pple complain 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read my sources evaluation, the indymedia source talks about frikipedia being closed down, and Inci isn't mentioned. A small mention in a TV shows doesn't count towards the notability of the article as it is as trivial as info can get. I was mentioned as the winner of a competition, does that contribute to my notability? There was no consensus, there was a vote.--Otterathome (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and ~~Delete~~ Merge with Uncyclopedia until better sources are found The newspaper source is horrible[1]. Did you look at its main page [2]. This is a sensationalist newspaper that looks for curious stuff to cover. FFS, this is just low-quality yellow press that I doubt that has any reputation for fact checking. Looking at the Society section: "Condoms sell like hot bread this week(...) this time (people) is buying boxes of 12, tells Mirta Salazar, shopkeeper of the sucursal of Farmacias Ahumada of (street) Providencia with (street) Manuel Montt"[3], they only asked one pharmacy shopkeeper. Not only this source is awful but it asserts no notability of Inciclopedia at all. See, it only covers Inciclopedia because it had a fun page, not because they found it notable, the article only talks about a parody that is found in *one* page on the site. The page could have been hosted at any other wiki and it would have been covered in the exact same way. Also, they just interview the senator to show him the parody and ask him about it and, from context, they never ask him about a website called Inciclopedia or ask his opinion about it. If *this* is the better source they could find at eswiki and here, then the assesment that there were no sources on the article asserting notability is totally correct. In other words: Dios mio, pero que mierda de fuente es esta, hace falta valor, qué coño estaban pensando en eswiki. The eswiki votation was based only on the fact that the voters like the website and want the article preserved, and they make absolutely no assesment of sources at all. I just don't want to watch the video from TV Cuatro in case I find something worse than the newspaper. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closer's explanation was sound. Verifiable, reliable sources were presented and consensus is that they were enough to warrant keeping the article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 *'''Endorse''' It's great to see [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] up to his old tricks. First there's the ridiculous and outraged overstatement, over-the-top denunciation and periphrastic caricature of the closing admin, who "imposed his own personal deletionist biases in this case to override consensus." Then, for good measure, we have the same point expressed with a slightly different emphasis: ''the improper insertion of personal bias by the admin to override a consensus for retention.'' Then, Alan, so impressed by his own hyperbole, !votes to endorse his own nomination. Oh, it's too funny - worthy of Ionescu. Anyway, endorse and keep deleted as a proper and procedurally good close, as noted above. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] ([[User talk:Eusebeus|talk]]) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 :::this is a violation of NPA-- please refactor. We're discussing the arguements , not the nominator. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 13:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
+::::Enough with the braying schoolmarm DGG; it's tedious. Alan's nomination is over the top in its caricature of kbdank's close. Calling him out on that is not a personal attack. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] ([[User talk:Eusebeus|talk]]) 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse''' the closer stated that the category had problems of verifiability (articles were being added of persons that had no source for residence there). The commenters didn't establish why exactly it was important to note that a person had lived at Riverdale and the closer correctly assesed so (aka, the need for the category was not explained). The parent category was created on-the-fly to try to save the category and it seems that it had the exact same problems. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse''', creates verifiability problems as well as overcategorization. Closer was somewhat outwith the apparent consensus but the end justified the means as far as I am concerned. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:25, 8 May 2008

6 May 2008

Category:People from Riverdale, New York

RomexSoft

Inciclopedia

LaTiendaUSA (closed)