Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 18

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2007 August 17
2007 August 19 >

18 August 2007

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yiffstar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

According to the original deletion history of this page, the reason the Yiffstar Wikipedia page was deleted the first time was solely due to lack of reference notes within the page. The old page was used for a framework and some of the old information was kept as it had not changed, however, pertaining references were placed accordingly in the new and updated text to correct the original reason for deletion, the old content was updated including corrected statistics, new areas of the site were added to the entery, defunct areas of the site were removed from the entery and some parts of the article (such as the forums section) were completely rewritten. With new content, and the old reason for deletion corrected, the entry should not have been deleted. Also, the entry was deleted within two hours of page creation - this is not substantial enough time for more information to be added by other users ESPECIALLY as there has been an open invitation on Yiffstar for it's users to come help create and update the Yiffstar wikipedia page. If you still refuse to allow the page to stand, can it be left up temporarily for a couple days so the updated statistics and references can used to update another wiki? -- 68.229.113.31 (talk · contribs · logs) 23:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - The article was deleted eight months ago at
WP:SPEEDY justifies the 18 August 2007 speedy deletion by Splash. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WritersUA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

WritersUA (formerly knowns as WinWriters) is part of the technical writing community and provides a unique and valuable service that transcends the for-profit elements of the business. The WritersUA web site is highly regarded within the software user assistance community. References from numerous notable people within the profession can be provided. In addition to a wealth of original content, WritersUA offers industry surveys on skills and salaries and provides a resource directory that is much valued by the UA community. All of that is free to the public and provided without vendor advertising. The single for-profit event is a conference that has been held for fifteen years. In that time it has attracted over 8,000 people from around the world and is one of the very few gatherings of people specifically interested in improving software documentation. Resource Directory, 2007 Salary Survey, 2007 Skills Survey - Contact: Joe Welinske, (email address removed) Joe Welinske 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question, The process does document does not provide us with any guidelines as to where/what/when you needed to have references. In the challenge I said I could provide numerous references. Do you want them now? How many? What types? Where should I deliver them to the reviewers? We can provide references from academics, corporations, professional societies, notable experts, etc. Google has 20,000 references to our organization from sources all around the world. Most of the hits are referencing original articles that have contributed to the knowledge-base of the user assistance community. Over 800 hits reference survey results alone. Most of the hits referencing the annual conference are not advertising - rather they are describing industry news and insights that came out of the technical sessions. Approximately 40-50 industry experts speak at the event each year. With respect to the authority of referencing entities, I would assume the size of the pond should not be as important as an organization's relative size in that pond. User assistance is a relatively small part of the overall IT industry. It does not regularly receive notices on large, mainstream web sites. But it is vital and vibrant. The numerous organizations and individuals that reference WritersUA may not be well known in the mainstream but they are certainly well=respected within our community. Joe Welinske 21:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The material for the article should be from
    reliable sources that are independent of WritersUA. Newspaper articles are good, write ups in magazine such as Time (magazine) and Newsweek are good too. A published book or two on the history of WritersUA would be great, but is not a requirement. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep deleted, valid AFD and article was definitely promotional in tone. Sources provided by nominator are not independent. --
    desat 20:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse No independent sources during the AFD or now, consensus was clearly to delete. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the review request does not indicate why the AfD was supposedly closed in error. It was a unanimous delete. Sandstein 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Igor Vishev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was copied from [forum] with the permission (to place it on Wikipedia under the GFDL licence) of the person who posted it there (Bruce Klein, a director of ImmInst). The statement about the source and the permission was added to the talk page immediately after adding the article itself. User:WWGB marked the page with speedy deletion tag. I further elaborated on the article's talk page that it is copied here with permission. In case of any questions I requested this to be discussed on the talk page. Some time later User:Maxim speedy deleted the page.

All this was done in violation of Wikipedia's critera for speedy deletion, because the parameter 4 of the 12th criteria did not apply. That is, there was already an asserted permission for use of the text.

User:Maxim has ignored my message on his talk page. I am asking any admin to immediately restore the last version of the page, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It says "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." Paranoid 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ignored it. I haven't had time to read it yet, Paranoid. Also, Paranoid posted a rather
uncivil message, starting with "Are you serious?", and ending with "I require that you...". I realise that Paranoid has asked me to take a second look, and I believe this DRV is premature, as I've only seen Paranoid's first and second notice, and I certainly didn't delete the article in question out of process, as Paranoid has implied. I would prefer to have a day or two to look over this, as well. By this, I also ask Paranoid to be a bit more patient, and understand that I'm human, I make mistakes, and most importantly in this context, that admins delete page not by personal likes/dislikes, but by policy, making them more like janitors. Thank you. Maxim 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the reply, Maxim. Sadly, I have become really annoyed by the overall bureacracy at Wikipedia and has simply stopped contributing to it. When people falsely accuse me of copyvios, arguing I copied a photo to Wikipedia from another website, when I made the photo myself and the website in question is a freaking wikipedia mirror, I get really pissed off. That's my attitude to Wikipedia now.
In this particular case the page was deleted without review, it clearly didn't fit the criteria for speedy deletion, I was not notified by User:WWGB on my talk page about the SD tag (as he is required to do by policy), so I assume "out of process" can be applied to it. If "out of process" is clarified somewhere on WP, please give a link to it.
The civility of my message is not relevant in this context. You clearly didn't check the CSD g12, so I was really surprised by the deletion. Hence my "Are you serious?" comment. Please note that I didn't ask whether you were nuts, on drugs, etc. Furthermore, since you clearly made an error when speedy deleting the page, I required you to undelete it immediately. I should not have to "request" or "kindly ask" Wikipedia users who made an obvious error to fix them, should I? Paranoid 17:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I didn't check CSD G12, I know it by heart, as I do countless deletions per day. Civility is relevant, as any individual is less likely to act if someone asks them to do it rather uncivilly/rudely. I still believe it's a CSD G12 vio. I realise you are attempting to help, but I don't think it complies with our policies. I think it would be better now for myself, Paranoid, and WWGB to abstain for a bit from this DRV, and let the community seek a solution to this. Maxim 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps you should check CSD g12. As I said above, parameter number 4 requires that there be no assertion of permission. In this case there clearly was such assertion. Please answer to this direct complaint before asking the community to "seek a solution". Paranoid 20:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author (Bruce Klein, director of ImmInst) agrees to license it under GFDL. Paranoid 13:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)" Though I have much less experience than you,why not simply restore it with the appropriate tag pending the rest of the formalities, instead of debating here?'DGG (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore as permission was clearly asserted and seems like it would be easily verified (or not). G12 does not apply when permission and/or free licensing are asserted. I think we can assume good faith here but backing off of a clear error seems to be the correct course of action here, as the G12 policy advises. --Dhartung | Talk 03:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Spells in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)
Note This deletion review addresses the Snowball keep, non admin closure of AfD #1, which was open for ten hours. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been put to AfD twice this month (the second debate was closed as it was judged that not enough time had passed since the first debate). The

snowball decidion, during the second
there was an ongoing debate before closure. The admin closing the second debate suggested that it could be taken to Deletion review. Basicly my feeling is that the article goes against several policies and guidelines and essays that are important to Wikipedia in the following ways:

  • WP:NN
    - No secondary sources discussing the subject.
  • WP:FICT
    - No real world material
  • WP:V
    - Can't verify the content as there are no secondary sources
  • WP:RS
    - As there are no secondary sources obviously none are reliable
  • WP:OR
    - If something has no sources it is almost by definition origonal research, the etymologies are really just a case of

editors matching up the names of spells with words in a Latin dictionary

  • WP:NOT#INFO
    - Collection of non-notable information
  • WP:NOT#GUIDE
    - This page and pages like these effectively are a guide to the HArry Potter Universe - not encyclopaedia articles and may be better suited to a Harry Potter wiki or a fansite.
  • WP:NOTINHERITED
    - Harry Potter is notable - this hould not by definition mean that the spells in the Harry Potter books are :notable - they should meet the relavent notability criteria.
  • WP:FAN
    - Could definately be considered as fancruft (in my opinion)

It might also be noted that the AfD for a page on non-canonical spells - with much the same content but refering to the games and movies rather than the books - was deleted using much the same reasoning.

Looking at the first AfD most of the arguements used boiled down to

WP:INTERESTING
or other rationale such as:

  • "it's well written" and
  • "it's a good guide" and
  • "Oh no you didnt! This page is great!" and
  • "I know it's useful, because I just used it to check the spelling of a hex that I just shouted at my friend"

were also given as arguements for keep, I do not these opinions did much to address the issues at hand. I think that there is definately a case to be made for deletion. The first nomination ended in

WP:SNOW but I do not think that should preducjice against opening up a new AfD considering that there was considerable discussion in prehaps a more policy minded way. Guest9999 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

But the debate ran for only 1 night in the US = 1 morning in Europe, and obviously not everyone was heard from. Personally, considering recent AfDs in general, I would have expected that there was more to come, and would have continued the debate. But I do not say relist, because nothing said now is likely to settle the matter: even if it is relisted and ends in a keep, there will be another series of attempts to delete possibly continuing once monthly until by chance it gets deleted, and if it ends in delete at any time there will be another request for review, etc. We have no mechanism for a final determination, which is a disgrace to any pretense at well-considered process.
As for the underlying merits, the spells are collectively a very major plot element, they run through the books, there is already substantial criticism to be added, and it was cited in the debate.--and there is a certainty of more to come. Ilikeit, though a factor, is balanced by idontlike thistypeofcontent. There is no ruling anyway that this sort of material counts as trivia, and not likely to be any consensus on that. There were abundant policy arguments raised for keeping. the possibility of merge remain, as a editing decision--one doesn't need AfD for merge. And, as I said in the discussion of another Potter-related article, this series is important enough to people generally and to wikipedians that any flexibility in interpretation should amount to a keep. deletion review is not AfD round 3. DGG (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn closure. While I am absolutely in favour of keeping the page, and will continue arguing that, I believe it was wrong and unnecessary to close the debate while active discussion was underway. There is nothing wrong with letting a nomination run its course, even though it was probably not really smart to start a new AfD just days after the previous one ended.
    saran 18:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn closure Endorse closure The first AfD was withdrawn by the nominator, not closed, so that's not anyone's fault. I too am in favor of keeping the page, and will also continue to argue its case. The AfD should be allowed to run its course. The second AfD was rather hasty, there should have been a longer waiting period. GlassCobra 18:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure - This is not a speedy, but Guest has it right. This one partitially or fully violates those policies, and I suggest this to be partially merged with the Harry Potter article, or continue with the Afd. --Hirohisat Talk 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure. While I understand the closing admins rationale for closing the second AfD, if your going to do close an AfD under such circumstances, close it when the AfD is still new, as in less than a day old. This AfD had been open for about 2.5 days, i.e, half the time period for an AfD. Kind of silly at that point to close it. And as far as I know, there is no minimum time period for a person to renominate an article, assuming good faith. And on top of that, there was about 18 days since the closure of the first AfD, and the opening of the second AfD. Also, considering the first AfD didn't even run it's full course, I see no reason to not let this one do so. Pepsidrinka 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure—the first AfD was Snowballed, but the second AfD introduced much more discussion on both sides; an early closure prevented the newly found discussion from continuing. — Deckiller 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - the decision to renominate the article for deletion in the first place was out of process, and considering DRV is a place to discuss process (not whether or not the article deserves deletion), the AFD should never have been created in the first place. Specifically - an AFD was closed on 3 August 2007, with the verdict being "snowball keep". Anyone who disagreed with that decision should have put it on DRV, or waited a significant amount of time (I believe the guideline is 1 month but then again I don't visit AFD on a daily basis so maybe that has changed too!) before renominating. But instead, the article was renominated within 2 weeks. I see nothing wrong with the original decision to close as a "snowball keep", and therefore there is nothing wrong with the 2nd decision to close early. Incidentally, I would vote strong keep for this article, so please don't speedy delete it because then I will have to re-nominate it for DRV and it becomes quite a mess ;-) ugen64 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enough of the rules lawyering already. What you seem to be saying is that we should close this DRV as endorse, to allow a new DRV to overturn the snowball close, and only then re-open the AfD. Needless waste of time. David Mestel(Talk) 22:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - AfDs of the same article shouldn't occur within weeks of each other, especially when an article doesn't have
    WP:CP issues. Consensus needs to count for something. Wait at least a month. ichor}mosquito{ 19:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If you look at the page for the the
    "snow ball clause"
    it says that:

"If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause."

The fact that someone later brought up a reasonable objection (in the second AfD) suggests that the use of WP:SNOW was not neccessarily an appropriate way to end the origonal debate. [[Guest9999 19:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

  • Overturn closure- the use of
    WP:SNOW in the second AfD was uncalled for and unnecessary. The admin should have waited at least more than a day to allow discussion. However, the nomination of the article twice in such a short period of time wasn't so good, either. --Boricuaeddie 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn closure and relist, I hate
    desat 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

but the two objections were withdrawn, weren't they? DGG (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but this appears to be your first contribution. Do you have a username? Because right now, you seem like a complete newcomer adding a comment for a process you don't know about. Again, if you just failed to login, I apologise. Therequiembellishere 02:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; I have my login set to "remember me," but evidently, it did not. Evouga 07:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and relist. The first discussion seemed to be lacking in much policy discussion, but the second seems to be generating useful discussion (rather than fan-based keeps that cite no policy). I'd like to see this relisted as it was, so that the good arguments don't go to waste.
  • Overturn and reopen/relist. Needless parliamentary red tape. We should not have to have a debate about whether we're allowed to debate the deletion of an article! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the first AfD closure, overturn the second The first AfD was closed quite properly, with the nomination withdrawn and overwhelming consensus to keep, it was perfectly fine to snowball and keep the article. As for the second AfD, since new arguments in favour of deletion have come up, the AfD should not have been closed early. Thus, reopen and let it go the whole five days so as to get a sturdier result. PeaceNT 03:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and relist second AfD The reasons for the first AfD closure was because of a withdrawn nomination, and different issues were raised for the second AfD. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist in AfD. I personally think this article should not be deleted, the nominator thinks it should be. Let and AfD finish and we'll (hopefully) have a better consensus. Useight 04:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse per overwhelming consensus. Let's go through all of Guest9999's points:
— xDanielx T/C 07:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply J.K. Rowling has had many, many secondary sources write about her - her article is not based on Harry Potter "spillover". The Bridges in list of tallest Bridges show evidence of being notable - they have their own articles - the spells do not. I'm pretty sure that fansites like Mugglenet - which you linked to and the Harry Potter Lexicon do not count as reliable secondary sources.
    WP:FICT does not say real world perspective - it says "contain substantial real-world content". I felt WP:NOT#GUIDE was relevant as if real world places do not merit having every aspect of them explained I do not think that the Harry Potter Universe deserves this treatment. WP:NOT#INFO - applies to putting in information which is not notable for the sake of it - if the arguements above are to be considered then by default it would seem it is a relavent policy. [[Guest9999 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply
    ]
True, the
WP:N
does not apply to bits of information within articles and thus does not apply to individual list items.
I agree that Mugglenet is probably not the ideal source, but just as
exceptional claims require exceptional sources
, mediocre sources can suffice for claims which are trivially true, such as "the summoning charm is a spell in the Harry Potter story." There are also multiple sources listed which can be cross-referenced with one another (see the two external links), so the sourcing is more than sufficient in my opinion.
I think
WP:FICT should not be applied here for a couple reasons. First, the article in question is essentially a supplement to Harry Potter and other related articles. If we were to merge all the Harry Potter-based articles together, the result would be too massive, hence the split. We could just repeat the cultural details in Harry Potter
to make the article in question a "proper" article by conventional standards, but that would be redundant since readers who are seeking such details of the story don't need such a general overview. Regardless, though, exceptions can and should be made for books which sell 325+ million copies.
Your comment on
ignored
.
— xDanielx T/C 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd to say
WP:FICT doesn't apply to an article on fiction. [[Guest9999 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply
]
Especially since
WP:FICT is geared toward fiction subarticles instead of their main works. We must establish balanced, academic articles on fiction—not lengthy subarticles that retell every aspect of a fictional universe (that is not the role of an encyclopedia, obviously). — Deckiller 00:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It's a notability guideline, not a rule. Fictional stories which sell 325+ million books may merit an exception. And I don't understand why you assert that
WP:FICT is geared toward sub-articles; it seems completely general there as far as I can see. — xDanielx T/C 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Guest9999, I said that
WP:FICT should not be applied, not that we shouldn't consider it in relation to the article in question. — xDanielx T/C 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry if I misinterpretted you. I would like to restate my point in a more appropriate way. It seems odd to say
WP:FICT shouldn't be applied to an article on fiction. [[Guest9999 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply
]
I think this is only a pseudo-disagreement resulting from a minor ambiguity in my earlier assertion. When I said
ignored as a loose and non-binding guideline. I argue that those conditions should not be applied as reasons to delete the article in question because of the questioned article's supplemental nature, and because the article is closely connected to an extremely notable subject such that it warrants an exception. Hope that clears things up. — xDanielx T/C 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:FICT deals with "topics within a fictional universe"; in other words, the subarticles for the work they appear in. WP:FICT also encourages merging and transwiki over deletion; I'd prefer to see this merged and/or transwikied before deletion (I started a merge discussion, which met stiff resistance, and transwiki to the Harry Potter Wiki is certainly an option if enough people agreed to it). — Deckiller 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Endorse closure - Even notwithstanding the technicality argument that the second AfD was too soon after the first, I think it's still persuasive that the second AfD was once again on its way to snowballing to keep. Overturning the closure and reopening the AfD or relisting it for a third time would seem to be monumental wastes of time -- it doesn't look as though there'd be any real chance of a consensus to delete, so why spin our wheels going through those motions yet again when that effort could instead be applied to simply improving the article? The proper course here would be for the objectors to the article to work with the proponents thereof and just improve it, in my opinion, rather than wasting everyone's time with a perpetual cycle of AfD nominations. Ashdog137 18:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen many discussions and debates where, in the first day, things are looking to go one way, and then go somewhere else. I've seen RfAs that start out with 100% support from 40 people on their first days, only to fail at the end. That first day, when you see a page without a single oppose, and 40 people supporting the person, it would be easy to come to the conclusion of a snowball keep. But important points were brought to discussion, and the outcome changed in the end. One day's worth of discussion is in no way, whatsoever, a reasonable measure of consensus. -- Ned Scott 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    WP:SNOW is not meant to apply when there is any reasonable dissenting arguement - which there cearly is in this case. [[Guest9999 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Need help? 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of chefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closing: This deletion was made based on 3 arguments, one that would successfully apply to all lists of this type, and two others that could be fixed just by editing the page. As such, I'm going to leave the page deleted, but allow for re-creation if whoever recreates the article fixes the two problems. If the resulting list after the fix still should not be there, then a new AFD can be opened. ——

Need help? 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

For reference: the two issues that can be fixed are: 1) the list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable - In addition to listing chefs, the list also accepts entries for noted gastronomes. There is no distinction for living, dead, nationality, gender, or even "real"; fictional chefs like the Swedish Chef are also on the list. and 2) The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category.

There has been arguments given that note that there are categories by nationality of chefs, so its unreasonable to create a chef category and put the chefs of the various nationalities in that category as well, so given that a list can be made with additional information, and the list's scope is limited, recreation is ok. If someone wishes to do this task, you may contact me to undelete and move the full article history to your userspace. ——

Need help? 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The arguments given for deletion included specific, legitimate problems with the list; in particular lack of annotation making it redundant with the category system and the existence of unreferenced red links. I put a considerable amount of time into addressing these problems, and if I think its not going to be a wasted time I will put in a great deal more. Most of the delete !votes were however general arguments which apply to any

Kappa 12:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Could you please provide some substantiation to your argument? Thanks,
talk•contribs 02:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • proposed deletion policy.--Chaser - T 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
CMS_Made_Simple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Expired prod, concern was: Fails WP:SOFTWARE, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SPAM Dannewestis 10:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to know why this page was deleted. CMS Made Simple is a very active community developing an open-source CMS system with the General Public License. As such there is no commercial interest in this. The community in the forums and on IRC is also very active and thus the CMS is definitely notable, as it is used by thousands of web designers all over the world.

  • Overturn and list Since the prod deletion is being disputed, I believe this is the next step. However, proof of notability will help. But so far, a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything with regards to reliable sources beyond a few security alerts. --Farix (Talk) 13:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Julia_Earl – Contested prod automatically restored. In my opinion the BLP issues do not rise to the level of deletion in the presence of sources. They or other concerns can be delt with by editing or AfD. Eluchil404 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC) – Eluchil404 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Julia_Earl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|

I hope I'm asking this question correctly. I'm a new editor. What is the reason for the deletion? The reason cited was "hit job" and "messy," but it was neither -- it was neutral in point of view, and well-sourced. I tried to find out more by going to the deleter's page, but he seems to offer just a rant about how he knows the rules and doesn't have time to follow them, or listen to anyone who objects. What to do? Notfromhereeither 04:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the help desk, Julia Earl was a superintendent of public schools of a small (population-wise) county in New Hampshire. The article made no claim for notability. With the exception of the last paragraph, the article went into great detail about accusations against Julia Earl. All citations were from the local newspaper (again, lacking worldwide or even national notability). The first step in reinstating the article is to show notability. Wikipedia does not contain articles about mere school superintendents (present or past). Wikipedia does not contain articles about people who merely made the local news. Notability is the key. --
(what?) 05:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Norvan_Vogt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notability notability with respect to the "Norvan Vogt" Article as per 3rd post deletion "00:00, 18 August 2007 " , last substantial review, in the Wikipedia guidelines is described as;

A person is generally notable if they meet *any* of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included

1.The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Norvan was the Subject of an article in the Youth Volunteers Report of the international Symposium on Volunteering (Geneva, Switzerland - November, 2001). He has also been the subject of an article in the Australian Journal on Volunteering, Volunteering Australia ISSN: 1325-8362, Volume 7 Issue 1 (April 2002)


2.If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.

The 15 that have been supplied with in the article should be sufficient


3.The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.

An independent bio was published on the Youth Action Net website as well as the Department of Education (Australia), witch are independent and widely noted sources.


4.The person has received significant recognized awards or honours.

Both awards noted in the article are not trivial, they are both royal warrants. However I do note that it is not a popular invented award like CLIEO's Batchlor of the year or TIMES person of the year.


5.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Norvan's Contribution to the re-establishment of Scouting in Vanuatu is widely recognized as a significant contribution to youth development their, as noted in several articles in the 'trading post'(Vanuatu's main daily news paper)

  • I feal that there is a double standard being applied to the Norvan Vogt Article as the notability issues are not equally applied across the board.

For example; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Muehlenberg - is about a nice guy that has been involved in a few NGOs and has a Blog that is not even noted as one of Australia's top 100 read blogs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iktimal_Hage-Ali - is just about a sweet girl that has been on a few advisory committees and landed her self in a media frenzy late last year.

I am not saying that these articles should be taken down but if they are allowed to stay I cant see why this one can't. Or is there a rule that the bigger the article the more notable you need to be. If so how many words does Norvan get? Or is a disk space issue?

  • Also, anyone that does work and live in developing countries, as Norvan does, has a natural disadvantage to the notability criteria. There are the Wikipedia is dominated by North American content because the wider media

there can produce more content than any other country.

Now before anyone decides to delete this article I would like to have a decent rational discussion against all 5 of the points I made above. Also I found the paragraph on the " Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" "Much like just a policy or guideline, simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. Therefore, try to explain to other editors why the subject of an article may not be notable. Instead of saying, "Non-notable," consider using "No reliable sources found to establish notability," or "Not enough reliable sources to establish that the subject passes our standards on notability. Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that establish or confirm the subject's notability."

NB. Lastly I should state that I have known Norvan in the past and that there may be a COI issue.

I look forward to your responses.

Delvian

P.s - I would like to politely point out, with respect to Carlossuarez46, that the deletion of the article was not deleted in accordance with the CSD G4 Q:“not provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version” the new article was substantially different and was also pointed out in the article discussion page.

  • Overturn and list at AfD first of all, a clear assertion of importance was made. I have some doubts whether it is adequately supported, but that's a question for AfD. Second, G4 applies only if the previous deletion has been by XfD, not if it has been a speedy (or a prod)DGG (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC) I think the present version is worth a discussion at AfD, tho I would advise the author to trim it first. DGG (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was deleted as the result of an AfD, page log and the AfD. The two deleted version appear substantially to me, so the deletion that needs to be appealed is therefore the AfD one. That had only one dissenter, the nominator of this DRV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to note that I was also dissenter in the third edit of the article but due to seedy delete that was not noticed. It would seem to me that most of the peole reviewing the article did not see the 2nd or 3rd edits of the article.Johnanderson75
  • Comment Ok so what is correct way of re posting this article?, do you guys restore it and then i cut it down a little or do i just start the article again? Delvian 11:18 August 20 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion the proper way to have dealt with this was to bring it here after the afd was concluded rather than re-create it in defiance of the community consensus. Recreation of material within hours after an afd is closed as delete is the clear reason for having G4, otherwise nothing will ever be accomplished by afd. User:Delvian has few edits outside of this topic and managed with his second edit to find himself at an afd discussion which I find somewhat unlikely. Carlossuarez46 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion per Carlossuarez46. Material recreated after AfD speedy deletable per
    WP:CSD#G4. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse both deletions I'm not sure which one is being appealed, but the speedied version was substantially identical to the one deleted at AFD. The points raised in the AFD didn't persuade people, so not seeing any problems, I endorse it as well. As to other articles, see
    WP:INN. Wikipedia can be inconsistent. If you really want consistency, you can nominate those other articles for deletion. Kudos to the nominator for his consistent politeness and civility. It is appreciated.--Chaser - T 05:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_18&oldid=1147966907"