Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 19: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:15, 20 February 2011

< 2011 February 18

Deletion review archives: 2011 February

2011 February 20 >

19 February 2011

Agalmics

Admin, who has since retired, nominated agalmic for deletion mere weeks after page was up (Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built). The concept depicted in the article ("agalmic economies") was not only mentioned, but was a central driving theme in two Hugo Award nominated bestsellers: Accelerando and The Green Leopard Plague. "Algamics", or "algamic economics" is also an academic concept first coined by Robert Levin. These references were prominently mentioned in the article. Yet of the three people that voted they claimed:

based vote on what they found (or didn't find) on "Google News"
claimed there were no "reliable third party sources" even though the article sources clearly indicated best selling and highly accredited books (see Hugo Award nominated/winning)
claimed "concept does verifiably exist" but voted for "delete" because there was "no sufficient use in reliable, peer-reviewed academic journals"

Admin then deleted after less than two weeks.

I am requesting an undelete on the fact that "agalmic(s)" is a verifiable concept and continues to grow as a meme and concept in the English-speaking world:

in print: Accelerando by Charles Stross and The Green Leopard Plague by Walter Jon Williams
in academia and web media: Rob Levin's The Marginalization of Scarcity
as a main topic in conference presentations: http://www.justin.tv/techzulu/b/258524917 Joseph P Jackson: Agalmics 101 @ Humanity+ Summit 2009
a wealth of blog posts
as the prime driver for some google groups
other wikis Locutus42 (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CardHub.com

I did not attempt to contact the administrator because he seems to be on vacation till sometime in March. Furthermore, from his comments I can not understand what type of deletion it is and the content of the CardHub.com page seems to be aligned with content found on a plethora of company pages within wikipedia. Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrate -- Lastly I feel that CardHub.com is a reputable company that is mentioned in mainstream media on a daily basis (http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=cardhub.com&cf=all&scoring=d) so if the community wants to improve the content then by all means, but if they do not have any suggestions for improvement then I do not think that the solution is to simply delete the page. Sarabas (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily restored the page for discussion--and conceivably for improvement-- in user space at User:Sarabas/CardHub.com. I didn't put it temporarily in mainspace as I sometimes do, because I think it was appropriately deleted as entirely promotional. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hey DGG so the next step should be for me to edit the page to make it more informative and then send you a message when I am done? How much time do I have?" Sarabas —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a free web host. An acceptable article on a company doesn't look like that. It begins, "X is a (nationality) company based in (place)." It lists the company's revenue, operating income, net income and number of employees. It does not describe the company's products in detail (although any notable products can have their own articles—which is why we have articles on Coke and The Coca Cola Company). In short, it's an encyclopaedia article. Imagine your audience is a moderately intelligent and curious, but totally uninformed, African teenager.—S Marshall T/C 19:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country

I am arguing for the restoration of the article: List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country which was deleted. The list was previously called "Norwegian diaspora".

The name was changed to a "list of expatriates" which negated the rationale for delete based on the word "diaspora". The name change was made about 3/4 of the way through the debate which negated those delete votes based on the name "diaspora" in the title. The closer ignored the name change and counted the delete !votes that complained about the name, even though the article no longer had that name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. A quick note from the closing admin to rebut some of the statements here - I'm not sure of the procedure here, not having been DRVd before, so I'm not turning my points into something formally bolded as a Vote Which Is Not A Vote. Firstly, Richard made no attempt to discuss this with me prior to bringing this DRV, which is contrary to procedure as I understand it. Secondly, the deletion arguments were not solely based on the name. The nomination opened with "I am nominating this article for deletion because the topic seems to be a neologism constructed through synthesis of different sources that do not themselves describe this topic" something the keep commenters did not rebut. I disregarded all "deletion" rationales but one, as I made clear in my closing statement, that included deletion comment being "per the excellent reasoning in the nomination". Ironholds (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out that there are more than 25 articles called "X diaspora" and that there were whole books on Norwegian emigration to America. I also pointed out that we are voting on the topic, and not on the state of the article at any given time. Any article can be a stub of just a sentence or two if the topic is valid and can be sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both Stifle and I left messages and you and I communicated before I brought it here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle's message being "good close" and yours being "I'm taking it to DRV", yes. Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the beauty of a selected quote. The entire conversation was: "Good closure, I think, although I came up with a keep outcome from my analysis. Yours was not unreasonable enough for me to make an issue of it. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) will, on the other hand, so watch out at DRV in short order." to which you responded: "Noted; thanks for the head's up, and the compliment. Keep safe - or keep safe, I guess". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never witnessed a deletion reversed based on a personal appeal, only at deletion review. We have "no consensus" for iffy AFDs, you closed as delete with great certainty. Being taken to deletion review isn't punishment, it is getting more eyes on the process. When I said "I'm taking it to DRV", you could have said " Oh no, please don't, I was 100% wrong and will reverse it" and negated bringing it here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could, yes, but if I wasn't certain in my action I wouldn't have made it. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to address logical arguments, simply that you haven't yet provided me with any. Ironholds (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Seems to me this could use a relist. Would you have a problem with this, Ironholds? lifebaka++ 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd rather get some consensus that that's necessary; at this point, I can confirm that me coming out in favour of a position will probably lead to Richard opposing it while vehemently claiming that he'd discussed it with me beforehand. Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ask because I really have no idea how I would have closed the AfD. This seems to tell me that it should either have been closed as no consensus or relisted. I'd say we should go with relisting, as consensus may have been forming towards the end of the AfD. This isn't any sort of censure on your closure, which was perfectly reasonable. The only trouble is that keep seems perfectly reasonable, too. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said it was a reasonable decision, and I think the nominator should have made more effort to discuss the closure with the closer first. Will the nominator please explain why he repeatedly does not do this? And I won't accept "it's optional", because it's polite, and everyone else does it. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eat your pride and accept the rule as it is, or lobby to change the rule so that the new rule demands a personal appeal before an AFD. If the closer ignores the logic presented at the AFD, repeating the same logic again has not been shown to have an effect on reversal. I have never seen a reversal based on a personal appeal. If you can show me statistics on how many personal appeals have led to a reversal, I would be happy to lobby with you for a rule change. The only way to resolve a controversial AFD is to get new eyes on the situation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's happened with me in the past. So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you feel Ironholds is so set in his ways that consulting him before impugning his decision is a waste of time? Stifle (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider myself sufficiently neutral to place a bolded word in this discussion, but I want to put it on record that I believe Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is misusing DRV by the above and by using it as a second bite at the cherry when a deletion discussion does not go his way. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguable that Ironholds closed that discussion in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was clearly wrong. There was a Norwegian diaspora and it's been the subject of numerous scholarly treatments. Wikipedia quite rightly has a whole family of articles about it—see, for example, Viking expansion, Danelaw, Varangians, Settlement of Iceland, Norse colonization of the Americas, etc. Create a redirect to Viking expansion. No blame attaches to the closer because the debate ought to have considered that possibility specifically, and failed to.—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are not about Norwegian diaspora - they are about migration from Norway the past 1000 years. The point of the afd nomination wa sthat 1. not all migration is diasporic. and 2. there was no evidence at the time that the phrase "Norwegian diaspora" has any currency. MR. Norton has now - after the deletion procured a single source.21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)·Maunus·ƛ·

No they aren't, they're about a historically significant mass emigration from the whole of Scandinavia between 800 and 1100 AD. Norwegian diaspora is a plausible search term for that event, though. My personal bias is that I like putting in a redirect wherever possible—redirects tend to stop inexperienced editors from thinking "ooh, a tempting redlink, let's write an article!" and therefore save us from unnecessarily repeating process.—S Marshall T/C 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments One It was said above "I don't remember a deletion close being reversed on a personal appeal" -- I can remember many. It'll take some searching to find them, but most administrators both know they are capable of making errors and are very willing to fix them. Speaking for myself, there are closes I am very sure of and closes I am somewhat less sure of, & in those cases I would certainly relist if a reasonable case were made on my talk p., & I think I remember having done so. Two Even if it is known that a given admin never reverses their decision, asking about the decision can guide the appeal to address the salient points involved. In my experience, it can often prevent a poorly-founded appeal, and I would think most people contemplating an appeal would not want to do so if they became convinced they would not succeed in it. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was no consensus to delete this article as several experienced editors gave cogent reasons why it should be kept. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide something more detailed and, dare I say it, cogent? Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment I would like to know why I haven't been notified as the original nominator for deletion?·Maunus·ƛ· 21:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think Richard only bothered poking me, and then got distracted while we argued over whether or not another administrator telling me "good close" on my talkpage constituted Richard calmly and politely discussing the close with me or not. Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody notifies the AfD nominator. It's the closer who's being challenged.—S Marshall T/C 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 *Wikipedia isn't a free web host.  An acceptable article on a company doesn't look like that.  It begins, "X is a (nationality) company based in (place)."  It lists the company's revenue, operating income, net income and number of employees.  It does not describe the company's products in detail (although any notable products can have their own articles—which is why we have articles on [[Coke]] and [[The Coca Cola Company]]).  In short, it's an encyclopaedia article.  Imagine your audience is a moderately intelligent and curious, but totally uninformed, African teenager.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 19:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
-====[[:Norwegian diaspora]] and [[:List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country]] ====
+====[[:List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country]] ====
 :{{DRV links|List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora|article=List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country}}
+:::::::I am arguing for the restoration of the article: [[List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country]] which was deleted. The list was previously called "Norwegian diaspora".
 The name was changed to a "list of expatriates" which negated the rationale for delete based on the word "diaspora". The name change was made about 3/4 of the way through the debate which negated those delete votes based on the name "diaspora" in the title. The closer ignored the name change and counted the delete !votes that complained about the name, even though the article no longer had that name. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|talk]]) 15:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC) [[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|talk]]) 15:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 :Okay. A quick note from the closing admin to rebut some of the statements here - I'm not sure of the procedure here, not having been DRVd before, so I'm not turning my points into something formally bolded as a Vote Which Is Not A Vote. Firstly, Richard made no attempt to discuss this with me prior to bringing this DRV, which is contrary to procedure as I understand it. Secondly, the deletion arguments were not solely based on the name. The nomination opened with "I am nominating this article for deletion because the topic seems to be a neologism constructed through synthesis of different sources that do not themselves describe this topic" something the keep commenters did not rebut. I disregarded all "deletion" rationales but one, as I made clear in my closing statement, that included deletion comment being "per the excellent reasoning in the nomination". [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 15:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)