Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 6

6 February 2009

Funkitron

Funkitron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) DRV)

Company is notable based on referenced articles. Notably has increased since 2006 based on:

• Article from 2008 on gamezebo: http://www.gamezebo.com/features/interviews/gamezebo-interviews-dave-walls-funkitron

• Developer of Slingo line of computer games:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_vg?url=search-alias%3Dvideogames&field-keywords=slingo

• Developer of 80s game with Martha Quinn (notable classic MTV VJ): http://www.amazon.com/80s-Game-Martha-Quinn-PC/dp/B000XQLSVQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1233933335&sr=1-1

• Developer of computer version of notable board game Blokus: http://www.amazon.com/Blokus-World-Tour-Game-Download-PC/dp/B001QCWQJE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1233933305&sr=8-2

• Original maker of first downloadable scrabble game:

http://www.gamezebo.com/features/interviews/gamezebo-interviews-dave-walls-funkitron

• Inventor of Scrabble Blast top ten game on MSN

http://zone.msn.com/en/root/default.htm

• Games listed on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=funkitron

Dave635 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse the (numerous) deletions. None of the above amounts to a reliable source, and your spamming of the company does not help your case any more than does your lack of involvement in anything else on Wikipedia. Same applies to all the other single-purpose accounts wich make up all substantive edits to this article in all its deleted versions. Is it a coincidence that your username matches the name of the founder of this "indie game company"? A pound says not. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not the author of the article that was just deleted. Gamezebo, Amazon, MSN are I believe reliable sources for researching companies. Please look towards the material referenced as sources. Here is information on Gamezebo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamezebo. Please assume good faith on this and be objective. Thank you. Dave635 (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Guy. Let's have a userspace draft with some reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  Gamezebo is a reliable source. Please assume good faith on this and be objective. Thank you. Dave635 (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think I agree with you on that. Reliable sources are things like national or large regional newspapers. A website can have a Wikipedia article but not itself be a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  Interesting point. But it is an interesting question, how show notablity of a news web site for a particular industry? Many news sources are not covered by other newspapers. I did find it pointed to by an industry group as its news source covering its conference. http://www.casualgamesassociation.org/research_news.php Would that qualify? Dave635 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AFD - G4 does not apply as the most recent version of the article made steps to address the issues raised in the previous deletion discusssion. Disclosure: My attention was drawn here by this note left by the page's author. –xeno (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: While I think it can be overturned, I think G4 was correct to be applied. The last deleted version still only listed a 2006 source, no newer. In light of the new claims made here with post-2006 sources, I think we should userfy it, so the author can create a better-sourced version which can then be reviewed and maybe moved to article space. SoWhy 21:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree with the application of G4 - the new version is substantially improved over the one deleted via AFD, made assertions of notability and provided independant sources (the validity of which is still in question, but that's a question for AFD). –xeno (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Assertion of notability is for A7. It asserted notability in 2006 as well, it was just said to lack it. And the only source the article had was from 2006 as well, none of the links above were in the article. But I, too, understand the wish of the author to re-create this article, hence I !voted to userfy it. If taken to AFD at the moment, without a reasonable draft to replace it, I don't think it will fare better than it has before. Regards SoWhy 10:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • This version of the article is the one that went to AFD. The nom and two voters said it failed WP:CORP, which it did. The new version did not (imo) - at least not clearly enough that G4 could be used. We should err on the side of caution in cases like these. xeno (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - there is currently an ongoing - although it seems to have stalled - discussion about whether Gamezebo can be considered a reliable source at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Gamezebo, having said that the piece linked is an interview with the company's founder - not exactly independent. There are brief mentions around (e.g. [1], [2]) but nothing substantial that I can find. Guest9999 (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Here are some more I found [3], [4],[5], [6] Though some of these seem like press releases and I'm not sure if wikipedia can use them as reliable sources. Dave635 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy Normally I'd lean toward recreation and AfD, but sources here look weak other than maybe Gamezebo. The rest seem to be just proof that the company has made products and a ranking. But little in the way of RS information that can be used to make a reasonable article (or stub). Gamezebo looks acceptable as an RS to me, but I'm not sure everyone else will agree. Certainly no reason not to userfy as topic may well meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per Guy and Stifle. Not very impressed with the canvassing either. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • One note does not canvassing make. –xeno (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I would say that it is perfectly reasonable that someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia who wishes to dispute a deletion would seek out someone who is conversant with both the subject matter and our processes and ask the latter to assist (or even to intercede directly). Joe 07:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse for right now. While I do consider stuff from Gamezebo to be reliable, the interview listed is certainly not independent of the subject as the author is interviewing the owner. None of the other sources (e.g. Amazon, Gamers Hell) are either not reliable or are just trivial mentions as in directory listings with with the IGN link above. However, I leave myself open to interpretation as to whether Pokernews.com is considered reliable or not, as it seems to have some air of professionalism in there. MuZemike 16:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bezgovo cvrtje

Bezgovo cvrtje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Concerns about speedy closing before evidence could be made available and WP:BIAS Power.corrupts (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is on a Slovenian national dish. Overturn per the following reasons

• Concerns about speedy closing before evidence could be made available

1 Slovenian editors had begun to respond and had even made edits to the main page, anyway the discussion was closed as delete. It could well be caused by unfamiliarity with the AfD procedure. For much of the comments see here

2 A major concern was if it was a hoax. The problem was that I accidentally "referenced" a wiki mirror of Slovenian cuisine. The corresponding page on sl:Slovenska kuhinja had apparently been deleted, raising doubts of verifiability. These proved unfounded, as the page had simple been moved to sl:Seznam slovenskih narodnih jedi (List of Slovenian national dishes/foods), and also listed in Kategorija:Slovenska kuhinja (Category: Slovenian kichen). There was no time to resolve this technicality before the discussion was closed, and it takes extra time due to Babylonian confusions

3 A similar page on the Slovenian Wiki has been created sl: Bezgovo cvrtje and has existed for about two weeks now. I confer that the Slovenians consider this national dish notable and the topic verifiable. The Slovenian page is properly referenced

4 Because I accidentally "referenced" a wiki mirror, I have taken pains to seek to establish verifiability. I have searched three major Danish libraries, including the National Library, and I spent a morning in the Czech National Library in Prague searching for "slovinská jídla", "bezová květina" and other declensions I could figure out. No luck, lots of seafood, no bez. The reference at the Slovenian page is only available in Ljubjana, Wisconsin and other places I will not visit anytime soon. The is no reason not to trust the Slovenian reference, I just can't verify it.

• Concerns about WP:BIAS for "non-English" articles - this is really my main reason for bringing up this review as I consider the general topic more interesting than this (honestly) quite marginal article

1 There appeared to be a dogged resistance to keeping this article that cannot be explained solely from Wiki policy. First, it was "incomprehensible" broken English, which led to a deletion request after barely 3 hours of existence. Then, violation of WP:HOWTO was an issue, it even continued to be an issue, after the how-to section were removed. Then, it had "no claim to notability". When this was established as a national dish, it was not "encyclopaedic". When it was encyclopaedic, it could not "be developed". Etc.

2 Similar articles exist for national dishes of other countries. Most notably Onion rings, which must the closest analogy. But also Elvis sandwich, Happy waitress, Fool's Gold Loaf, etc. No doubt, they will survive an AfD here. I confidently leave to American editors to determine if such dishes a notable there, likewise I will leave it to Slovenian editors for decisions on their dishes.

- Power.corrupts (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I did not approach the closing admin User:MBisanz because I'm not particularly unhappy with that person. It's the broader process issues that I don't like. This article was created by someone, who obviously had a less-than-perfect command of English - however it was claimed to be a national dish, and the page therefore has as much right to be in Wiki as other national dishes. The investigation is hampered by language difficulties (I's don't speak Slovenian myself) and the Slovenian editor that sought to intervene did so at the "wrong" page (main page), not the AfD page, and his contribution was unnoticed - i.e. pure procedual error, infamiliarity with Wiki procedure. The more I have looked into this, the more I'm convinced it is a bona fide article - I it is in big trouble, solely because of language difficulties. This is not ideal. Tavix commented, that taking it here is totally inappropriate. I don't know if I agree, I'm thinking. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Leaving aside that that doesn't explain in any way why you didn't refer to the closing admin, endorse deletion as there has been no evidence adduced that the deletion process was not followed. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Closing admin Thanks for the note Stifle. At the discussion it was brought out that the article lacked reliable sources. Other than the creator of the article who brings this DRV, one of person supported keeping the article if it could not be transwikid and another said to Keep per comments that were later changed to Delete. I really can't see how I could have closed it any other way given the sourcing issue and lack of good faith disagreement over it. Also, if my math is correct, it ran the full time and was closed in the normal fashion. MBisanz ^talk 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I brought this to the DRV - note I'm not the creator of the article. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse close / Userfy upon request Stifle's right, and the original AfD fell properly within admin discretion. I don't see any process flaws, and I don't see a bar to re-creation (is there one?). Townlake (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close, heartily. No speedy action was taken here. The standard 5 days was allowed for anyone and everyone to present proper sources for this article and it never happened. JBsupreme (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close I don't remember this article particularly well, but I do remember it basically being a recipe. It was a list of ingredients written in broken English, and it didn't establish any notability beyond it being a Slovenian dish. And I feel that simply existing doesn't make something Wiki-worthy. --Pstanton (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close as original nominator and because I don't see any flaws whatsoever in the process. Taking it here was totally inappropriate. Tavix (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• References, a bit late I tried to find reliable sources and found them also, a bit too late. A Wikipedia Slovenian translator has checked them for me.

  Translation =

  Hi, I have answered to your question posted on my talk page.

  --Ajgorhoe (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)I see good reasons to re-create the article.

• You can check the references here.

  Warrington (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment their response says they are valid references apart from one of them. I've taken a look at them (despitve not reading Slovenian) and this google translate is an article about elderberries and lists this as a recipe at the bottom, it doesn't establish any notability. this is some research into the cuisine related to tourism, I couldn't find much if anything about the dish though (it's a long document and I only did a superficial search of some key terms), the next is the one the checker notes as not being good (article about a pub) and the final one is clearly a blog and doen't meet WP:RS. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • If you can not speak Slovenian than you are not qualfied to judge it. Warrington (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I am qualified to review the sources in relation to the notability guidelines and the reliable source guidelines, my ability to speak Slovenian has no bearing on that. One article is about elderberries and mentions the recipe for this, one is an article about somewhere serving this, one is a blog and the other I can't tell. The notability standard is non trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. The elderberries article is not non-trivial coverage, the place serving it isn't non-trivial coverage, the blog fails the standards of reliable sources and the other I can't tell (but couldn't find anything significant, which given the nature of the document isn't necessarily suprising). My ability to read Slovenian is irrelevant to the first three, and even if I've made a huge mistake on the other, it still doesn't meet the multiple part of the notability guideline. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Here is an other one, about slow food , [7] (slowfoodovski... whatever). The main problem is that this is a peasant food, fried elderberries [8] and flowers [9] and [10] . I was tasting a similar dish in smal villages in the rural areas in Hungary and aroud there, flowers fried in dough, of the Robinia pseudoacacia tree, (Black Locust, see reference for that [11]). This recipe, fried Black Locust was not mentioned in cookbooks and rarely eaten in the town, but an usual dish in the countryside. Here is an other one with recipe, a food forum, [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrington (talk • contribs)
  • And these seem to have the same problems as the first set. The first link is about a Pub/Inn, similar to one of the original links, the others are all forum posts which fail to be reliable sources. You really need to read and understand what reliable sources are, if this article is to meet wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability --81.104.39.44 (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I show you what I can find at the moment, since I am not Slovenian, so I do not have a Slovenian food lexicon or a Slovenian folklore on food book. We would need an ethnic Slovenian to provide those, since we are talking about a foreign culture’s dish, a culture which neither of us is familiar with. The dish does exist, I tried to show what I could find and explain what the possible problems and dificulties may be in finding the sources you are talking about. And why don’t you get an account?

      Warrington (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

      • There is no point in showing lots of unsuitable sources, if we can't find good sources then there is little chance of cresating an article to standard. I don't doubt the dish exists, but so do thousand's and thousand's of dishes, by wikipedia's standard existance on it's own is not enough to warrant an article. I can understand frustration in not being able to find sources, but that unfortunately doesn't change things, there are many many things which go through the deletion process where people are totally convinced the subject warrants an article but can't find sources, the result is the same each time. If it is indeed an "important" subject, a national dish (as the review request states), then those sources must exist, if they don't or can't be found, the conclusion normally is, it's not actually that important. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't get it. It is sourced on sl: Bezgovo cvrtje. Anything wrong with that source? Second, you are welcome to create a page on fried Black Locust, the acid test would be if the Hungarian Wiki will keep it as a "national dish" or some other dish of significanse. Third, I would like to revert to the principal issues: the language difficulties, the potential WP:BIAS, and that the discussion is not given time to run its course, be the five days math strictly complied with or not. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Precision, when I say sourced I mean the source: Felicita Kalinšek. Slovenska kuharica. Cankarjeva založba. (1985). WorldCat provided on the Slovenian page Power.corrupts (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• If it were just a recipe, then it could be included in the Cookbook. LA (T) @ 21:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• A few points (1) per WP:RS the wiki article itself isn't a useful reference, so if the Slovenian wikipedians have decided it to be important, isn't helpful for notability here. (2) in a similar vein, inclusion standards on other Wikimedia wiki's can differ significantly from here, so inclusion there isn't any indication that it would meet the standards here. (3) The article hasn't existed there for long, there are many articles here which exist for a month or two and then get deleted (and some much longer), so we can't make much inference from the existance of that article (particularly given it's size, content and low number of references). (4) It is mostly a detailed ingredients list, certainly well away from the standards we would apply here (5) We normally demand multiple reliable sources, it only has one source and I can't say if it's reliable or not and to if it establishes any notability for the subject, it may like some of the references given above only contain a recipe which wouldn't help us much.

  So really it doesn't actually add much to the debate. As for the other issues, language shouldn't be an issue, if you can find the sources and they meet the standard (so far no), claiming WP:BIAS doesn't mean there is a bias, if we apply the same standards for sourcing a similar article on a US dish with the same lack of sourcing would fail. I haven't looked at the length of time, but since we haven't managed to overcome the fundamental issue of sourcing in the time it's been here I can't imagine it would have significantly affected the outcome. Do remember deletion isn't a "never ever" outcome, if we can write an article that substantially addresses the reasons for deletion, then the article can be recreated. If we find suitable sourcing next week, next month, next year, whenever then we can still move this forward --81.104.39.44 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • No, no, fried Black Locust is not a Hungarian national dish, the Hungarian national dish is Goulash. But I think I get the point, the Slovenians have an article on it at the Slovenian Wiki, sl:Bezgovo cvrtje and nobody deleted it there. By the way, Their reference is this book, http://www.bolha.com/oglas2681082/slovenska-kuharica-s-m-felicita-kalinsek-(l-1953)?cookie_test=1, a book by Felicita-Kalinsek, called = Slovenska kuharica, a good gues for the title is probably: Slovenian cooking or Slovenian cuisine.

    Warrington (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I personally, feel that no real case has been made for notability. It would see that the reasoning is that "This dish exists, therefore it deserves its own article", and I most heartily disagree. I also wonder if just because something exists on another language wiki makes it notable for the english wiki. --Pstanton (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• If a dish is also considered a national dish than it has a certain qualification for the English Wikipedia. I understand that when the article was deleted it was deleted because it looked like there was no reliable sources at that moment, and nobody who was involved really tried to make an extra effort to find some, but we have them now.

  Warrington (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Where do we "have them now"? we have set which don't meet the standard for reliable sources, we have a source from the Slovenian wikipedia which looks like a cook book so is unlikely to be a reliable source, but even if it is more than just the recipe, the standard is non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • What is your standard for sources?, like the one for Onion rings with ketchup, a page which no doubt will survive an AfD Power.corrupts (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • As had been said many, many times WP:RS the standard we have for judging the reliability of sources, the one which says blogs and forum posts aren't reliable. As to any other article failing to meet the standard, isn't important to the state of this article. I agree Onion ring as it stands has no reliable sources and fails to meet the standard (I would guess there will be sources but could be wrong), feel free to (a) look for better sourcing for it and (b) failing to find that sourcing nominate it for deletion. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I have absolutely no problem with Onion rings with ketchup, Elvis sandwich, etc. That should be left for the Americans to judge. I also adhere to WP:PRESERVE and to some extent to WP:NOTPAPER. What concerns me is WP:BIAS, for what is the difference between fried onion rings and fried elder flowers, apart from the peculiar Anglican letter combination in "bezgovo cvrtje". I don't like your reference to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I suggest WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and note that the guideline there mentions consistency concerns as a valid application of that guideline. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Well I disagree, it's not for the American's (and by that I mean American wikipedians) to decide, it's for the world as a whole to decide if it's significant enough to write about it in reliable sources, same standard as applies elsewhere. Shout WP:BIAS all you want, I am happy to apply the same standard across all articles, you however seem to be willing to let those standards slide on "American" articles if you think it'll let yours also fail to meet the standards. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
            • I repeat: it's not my article, I tried to salvage it, but I have otherwise no stock in it. I'm only here because somebody deleted it, violating what I think are basic principles, and because the discussion was closed before arguments could be brought forward, because of procedureal, language and other complications irrelevant to the decision itself. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent)
nobody who was involved really tried to make an extra effort to find some — Ahem! I went looking for sources, quite hard, at both Proposed Deletion and AFD, thank you very much. I actually said so in the discussion.

• Important nobody who was involved really tried... I NEVER said so (assuming you address me). This is Warrington's interpretation who was not involved in the first AfD. On the contrary, I fully accepted your work, "the editor en:User:Uncle G has a real good reason to be suspicious of hoax", see here (bottom of page) Power.corrupts (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I also reported that I was unable to find a single source documenting this as a national dish, or stating anything more than that frying is one way of cooking the plant. Looking at the above, it is clear that you have been unable to do so, either. Not a single one of your sources supports the claim to being a national dish, or even supports expanding the article beyond "fried elder is elder that has been fried". I stated this in the discussion, and you've independently proven it to be true. You've successfully demonstrated that the AFD discussion came to the correct conclusion.

I also note that (quite ironically given your accusations about lack of effort on the part of everyone else apart from yourself) you've employed little effort with the sources that you've pointed to yourself.

One of them quite clearly states that it got its information from Wikipedia, which completely eliminates it as a source. Another talks of various things cooking in the kitchen of a pub (little more than "elder can be fried", again). One isn't even discussing Slovenian dishes at all, but Californian cooking, and makes no claim to being a national dish ("elder can be fried", once again). One talks about "pies, wines, jellies, jams, juices and soups", and doesn't mention either frying or Slovenia at all. One is some unidentifiable, and therefore unreliable, people in a chat room talking about whether acacia can be fried "like elder can" ("elder can be fried", yet again). One is a simple recipe, of which elder is one ingredient, that says nothing at all about national dishes (It's actually a web log of woman talking about some man that she met.). One is actually lists the various things that customers can buy in a certain place, listing fried elder along many others and saying nothing more about it ("elder can be fried", yet again). One is a wine list. And one is an article about Sambucus nigra that lists frying as one of the many ways in which it can be prepared, with a short recipe, saying nothing at all about national dishes or Slovenia ("elder can be fried", yet again).

You really should read your purported sources, and put in the effort that you accuse everyone else of not putting in.

And sl:Bezgovo cvrtje, by the way, was created in the Slovenian Wikipedia directly in response to the AFD discussion here, by sl:Uporabnik:Pinky (a.k.a. User:Pinky sl). It cites ISBN 9789612310288, but doesn't give any page numbers. That's a cookbook, containing lots of recipes. We already have recipes to look at, and as can be seen, they support the 1-sentence permastub that in translation repeats its title: "Fried elder is elder that has been fried.". Indeed, sl:Bezgovo cvrtje itself is nothing more than a recipe, in fact. Sambucus nigra can be fried. That article can tell the reader that. There's no evidence that there's actually a Slovenian national dish at all, or that there can be any more than a 1-sentence permastub that reiterates its title here, or that the full AFD discussion that was had came to the wrong conclusion, or that the discussion would have come to any different conclusion with the non-sources that you've presented here. Uncle G (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)