Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 3

Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

There were far too few editor involved in the afd. Emulator notability can be confusing at times due to the lack of "reliable" sources. However, sources such as emulation zone, emulatorpro, and VG Network are reliable in this area. This was not taken into consideration. Also the creator of the page was not informed of this AfD which means I was not able to defend my article. Overturn and relist this subject AfD need to have direct input from people who are members of the video game project. Finally this emulator was among the first emulators and is apart of N64 emulation history. This emulator is no less notable than

Ultrahle. Please relist Valoem ^talk 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Endorse. The debate was closed 171 hours and 24 minutes after it was listed. Nothing suggests that the deletion process was not properly followed. On the merits, the debate could not have been closed any other way. While it might be optimal to notify the creator, it is not required, and a failure to notify does not invalidate the AfD. As to notability, is there a
talk) 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Response You are correct however I was not informed of the AfD and was therefore unable to successfully defend my article which was written over 2 years ago. If we could restore the article I can assure you that in the scope of emulation, this emulator is notable. Did you view the other emulation articles? This emulator is no less notable than those. There were serveral citations on the page prior to deletion. The sources for the article can be found on emulation zone and other emulation pages independent to the creators of this software. To find sources from NYTimes, CNN, etc., for such an esoteric genre is hardly expected. Valoem ^talk 20:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – correct read of consensus by closing admin. Also, it was listed at
WP:VG/D. Also, what "different set of notability criteria", because I haven't heard of it. MuZemike 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Could you please show me where is was posted in
WP:VG/D? Also no emulator pass the official criteria for WP:N. They pass through sub sources specific to their genre i.e. Emulation zone. Therefore all emulator articles should be deleted according to GNG despite the fact that the sources are reliable albeit trivial. We would be removing massive information what is wikipedia for if not for information? Valoem ^talk 20:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
[1] MuZemike 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close but userfy and allow for improvement. User:TTN redirected a ton of these articles while using an edit summary implying he was "merging" but he didn't actually merge anything. When many of the articles were unredirected by various editors (a reasonable course of action as far as I'm concerned) he would nominate them for deletion. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See [2] and [3] for just a couple of these. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Juliancolton did read the consensus correctly as far as I can tell, but the discussion itself certainly left a lot to be desired. The nomination was about "assertion of notability". "Assertion of notability" is a CSD criterion and not a reason to delete at AfD. Two of the three !votes should be disregarded because they referred to CSD criteria and do not seem to have made any attempt at all to evaluate the sources. This leaves the third !vote, which appears to have been entirely valid within Wikipedia's criteria, and no doubt was the sole basis of Juliancolton's close.
It would be possible to argue that this article should have been relisted on the basis of only having one valid opinion, but I think Juliancolton was within his discretion here and it would not be appropriate for us to overturn him.
I endorse this decision, but I also want to say specifically that I do not object to Tothwolf's suggestion that the article should be userfied for improvement.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article I wrote was wikified and cited by several sources. It was as well written as any other emulation article. However it is hard for me to defend my position without my article restored. Does anyone not see the flaw in DRV? Valoem ^talk 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you need to see the article, an admin will temporarily restore it for you for the duration of the DRV; you need only ask. (Exception: Certain kinds of copyvio, or material that could cause harm to living persons, would not typically be restored, but that doesn't apply here.)
  For the avoidance of doubt, I hereby request temporary restoration of the article for DRV purposes so that Valoem can defend his position.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not
  your article. Once you hit that "save page" button, it becomes the community's article. MuZemike 19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

- - I did ask [4], but it was ignored. Valoem ^talk 19:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just a note to say that though the article is now a bluelink, the history remains invisible.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - ... and the history is still invisible, which means Valoem's complaint is starting to look rather justified.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Requested undeletion for userfication and review at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. [5] --Tothwolf (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the restore I will be working on this article later in the day once i get home. Valoem ^talk 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I've added 3 more sources and wified a bit ill continue to work on this article. Valoem ^talk 17:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Lindy Scott – Restored – Peripitus (Talk) 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Subject is notable per [6] and [7] Subject is a defeated candidate for a congressional primary and I would like to recover the deleted content before re-creating article. — goethean ॐ 17:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you just need the original text, you'll probably get better response time at
talk) 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Restore Not a candidate for speedy A7 . A claim that someone is a professor at a college is a claim of possible importance; whether it will hold by WP:PROF will depend upon the publication record--and whether the candidacy will hold on WP:BIO depends upon the sources found. But either of these is enough to make it an invalid speedy. Perhaps the deleting admin would have restored it had you asked, because they seem to have been going under the assumption that a defeated candidate is never notable, or else that sources for notability have to be present, whereas there just has to be an indication of it. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. I'm unclear as to whether this would survive AfD, but I do see an assertion of notability such that I would have declined the speedy deletion. Kevin (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

)

please undelete ban_hammer. new information has come to light. banhammer is a physical object, not simply a neologism. photograph uploaded on wikimedia, linked and displayed on main article, recently hit boingboing, referenced in the article.

It hasn't been deleted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer: I found the consensus abundantly clear after the relisting, and so closed it per
talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: As noted, nothing has been deleted, so there's nothing here to review. However, I wish to note separately that the "new information" cited by IP 76.124.67.155 is also not any reason to review the closure - it is just a novelty item for sale somewhere, not an assertion of separate notability. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

World Club Challenge winners templates – Restore and list at
Tikiwont (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

)

Templates detailing the team that won the World Club challenge.Lando09 (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Links fixed. Deleting admin notified.
talk) 07:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

What is the rationale for bringing this to DRV?
Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

That they were deleted and as the biggest club trophy available in World Club rugby league that it deserves to return, I'm frankly a little shocked that someone would delete it.Lando09 (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need something a little more explicit then "I don't like it" for the deletion to be overturned. Is there a reason why the deletion was out of process? Was there a discussion somewhere you can point us too? Maybe you were courteous enough to discuss the deletion with the admin that did it to find out the reasons for the action?

Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hum. Nihonjoe deleted those under G6 ("Uncontroversial deletions"), and the act of raising this DRV is in itself sufficient to show that the deletion was controversial. Therefore, the speedy deletion cannot stand. QED.
There may be a discussion to be had about whether these templates are appropriate, so we should also specify that this is a procedural overturn and there is no prejudice against a subsequent TfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn That these were deleted speedy is just plain wrong, and unless we overturn such deletions we have no hope of getting admins to do things right. I see the admin has been just now asked, and he does need time to respond, because I would expect he would realise that himself: G6 is not intended for this sort of use. It is limited to uncontroversial maintenance, and he might possibly have thought it uncontroversial, ~~but I do not see how he could have thought it maintenance.~~ We admins do--all of us-- make errors, but we're usually glad to fix them. . DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at TFD – Let's build a consensus as to whether to keep or delete these templates. MuZemike 23:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of the templates were listed as deprecated by
User:Jeff79 with the comment "deleting redundant template". Based on that, it appeared that they had been combined into another template or the information was merged, so the G6 deletion was general housekeeping. I suggest contacting them and finding out why they tagged them. Please keep in mind that these were deleted well over a month ago, so my memory beyond what I put here is pretty foggy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- talk) 02:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Puzzled. I'm having trouble reading the history here. TFD templates seem to have been added on April 30, but they were never actually listed at TFD--is that right? In regard to DGG's comment, I think he fails to assume good faith here--assuming that a template that had been blanked for months without anyone noticing was genuinely deprecated seems reasonable. If there is a problem, though, it may be with {{
Chick Bowen 03:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I've modified my comment--it may be a mistake, but its not a wholly unreasonable one. My apologies. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I marked them as deprecated in a semi-regular 'sweep'/survey of
deprecated}} on 9/11 and deleted 16 days later as they still weren't being used - no other reason/motivation - just regular cleanup stuff. Skier Dude (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I deleted these. Sorry for not following the procedure. But as I expected, and as mentioned above, no one took any notice because they shouldn't exist. The only person who cares is chronic sockpuppeteer/canvasser
talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

As I understand it you blanked them rather than deleting them? Nevertheless, in view of what you say, I can see no other course for DRV but to confirm that the circumstances surrounding the deletion were irregular, which in turn means the deletion was unsafe and should be listed at TfD. I move for speedy closure on this basis.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jeff79 blanked them; he did not delete them (though he may not understand the proper procedure for deletion, or how to delete something and how it differs from blanking). I'm fine if someone wants to speedy close this, undelete them, and then list them at TfD. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. My understanding of the deletion process wasn't as good then as it is now.--

talk) 05:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy close and send to TfD per the deleting admin's consent.
talk) 06:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

nn-bio}}. Text userfied and Lando09 invited to write the article! – — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Former professional rugby player.Lando09 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Tikiwont (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I edited the article to include more prominent information related to the artist, and deleted information that was not referenced on other Wikipedia articles (i.e. "non-notable" producers, and songwriters). Also removed the list of influences as it is debatable if this is relevant to an article about a developing artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewsilb (talk • contribs)

Comment: malformed DRV fixed.
talk) 05:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: userspace draft seems to be at
talk) 05:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: this looks like a reliable source. Also this.
talk) 06:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse my deletion at least until proper references are provided. I said I would abstain from commenting but attempting DRV at this stage is an insult. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi, not sure which information you think needs further references. All the information in the article can be found at the source link provided in the article. 09:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewsilb (talk • contribs)
What RHaworth means is that Wikipedia asks for articles to have
reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Tim Song has, arguably, provided them, but it would be more orderly for such a discussion to take place at AfD than here.
An article that includes Tim Song's sources would probably not be speediable.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Restore There is in any case a claim of importance, as having been nominated for awards, so, while it may not not have met WP:N, it did not meet speedy A7. RHaworth, in the state it was in I would either have looked for references, asked for references, or sent to AfD, but not speedy deleted. It never qualified for that. Passing CSD A7 does not require actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you DGG for clarifying this. In any case, I have updated the sandbox article for Jaicko, which is located at
  User:Andrewsilb/sandbox. I have referenced two reliable resources, and added his controlled web sites to a different section, to distinguish between reliable third-party resources and his self-controlled online properties. Would like to see if this now meets Wikipedia standards. Andrewsilb (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Permit recreation. I have no idea whether the deleted version is A7. Doesn't matter here. This version is not speediable. Further sourcing concerns should be discussed at AfD.
talk) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Permit recreation per Tim Song. I'd bet it will be deleted at AfD (and the creator needs to be aware of that), but it certainly isn't speedable at this point. Hobit (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Chick Bowen 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Article was restored and userfied following a request at

barbarian 00:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The article was deleted by just 4 votes. 3 never heard of it and 1 was "smooth" reason. It's was proposed as ostensibly non-notable software. But the program de facto holds over 70% of IM market in

Miranda IM (20,718) or Pidgin (13,976). We have an article about market-specific Baidu, about market-specific Yandex. We have articles on Trillian, Miranda or Pidgin. But CIS is all up to ICQ, MSN is not present on CIS market at all, Same as like Google is not popular in Russia, Yandex is. Or Firefox and IE are not popular in Russia, Opera is. That's a very specific IT market. And QIP program has very large share worldwide, but just almost no share in west states due to MSN. I find the notability as very high. Elk Salmon (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see why there are users that don't understand that we don't need to have previously heard of it. That is what the guidelines are for.

talk) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that the current article is enough to satisfy

talk) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It looks pretty marginal to me, and it needs a detailed discussion of the sources. But the proper place for such a discussion is not DRV; the basic purpose of this page is for challenging deletion decisions. Sources should discussed in detail at XFD, not here. I shall say permit re-creation with no prejudice against an AfD if notability is in question.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh. What is the proper community forum for judging userfied versions of deleted articles? They're not wanted at
  barbarian 17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Now that's a bloody good point. If there's no proper forum, and discussion is needed, then per IAR, any forum will do. Striking my remark and reconsidering.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Softpedia and Lenta sources (references number 3 and 4) look good to me. The others, not so much. At the moment I'm tending towards "permit re-creation", but I also feel the article should be trimmed down to those things that can unequivocally be sourced to Softpedia, Lenta or any other reliable source that can be unearthed. In taking this view I had a certain amount of regard for countering systemic bias.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permit restoration Yes, you could restore it without asking us, see if it was speedy deleted as G4, and then appealed it here, which is the correct formal procedure, but you might as well get the decision now. We are NOT A BUREAUCRACY ` DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permit restoration I had planned to improve this article myself as I've already done with a number of these that were part of a mass-AfD campaign but if someone else beat me to it, so much the better. This article was part of a mass-AfD that was actually directed at me personally in revenge for tagging prodded articles for the
WP:COMP workflow and for sourcing a number of other articles and having them kept at AfD. The irony with this specific article is that it was only loosely related to articles that I had been working on and was merely listed in the same navigational template. The details can be found on a subpage of AN/I here. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

You can still improve it. I'm not a proffy of large texts myself. Mind there are also BayanICQ and Ya.Online messengers have no articles at all. First one is among most popular S60 non-MSN IM clients, seconds is Yandex analog of Google Talk. Elk Salmon (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will work on the article at some point. I have a lot of ongoing projects at present and the individual who nominated these for deletion is still initiating more AfDs to "get at me", albeit at a much slower pace. Their most recent AfD nom that they directed at me can be expanded and sourced easily but I have no intentions of participating in that AfD or improving the article while it is at AfD as it will only lead to them canvassing for

meatpuppets like last time. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Tothwolf, we're here to decide about this particular article. DRV basically makes rulings on whether a particular deletion discussion was closed appropriately. By convention, it's not absolutely restricted to such things, and there have been times when DRV has decided to go beyond those bounds, but it's certainly true that DRV is about content and not conduct. In other words, we can help reverse a particular decision if appropriate, but we cannot help you with any issues with a particular editor. Sorry.

You'll see people opine from time to time that "DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone". What this means is that conduct disputes are best not raised here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a newbie either and I know how both AfD and DRV work. The original AfD itself wasn't done in good faith and I have absolutely no issue at all with someone picking up the pieces from that AfD and fixing that needs to be fixed with the article in question. I won't however remain silent about the larger issue and allow it to slip through the cracks as absolutely nothing has been done to address the AfD nom's behaviour (which is ongoing) and with what originally happened with those mass-AfDs. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- You sound paranoid.
  talk) 12:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have insufficient familiarity with software sourcing norms to comment on the article, but I agree with the filing here. A successful DRV would inoculate the article against a G4 speedy. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger sources first, please Lenta and Yandex would suffice our "multiple" and "reliable" requirement, but the mentions there are very small. Miami33139 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikistalker be gone! --Tothwolf (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me you won't accept any sources at all. Yandex finds over 10 million pages by QIP request with over 680000 monthly requests[9] comparing to just 77000 monthly requests on Miranda[10], Lenta with a refer to TNS says RBC services has got 14,4 million of unique monthly users, with QIP most popular among them. Just third to Yandex and Mail.ru services. Alexa says qip.ru has got 545 rank worldwide and 24 in Russia. And KanICQ has a massive public poll with over 60000 users voted from Russia, over 70% of them voted for QIP. If this is not strong for you than i guess you won't accept any sources at all. Same goes to S60 phone clients. Agile has got 2900 requests, Nimbuzz 2800 and BayanICQ+БаянICQ has got 5600 close to fring's 8400. Elk Salmon (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:POPULARITY. Numbers and statistical data are great things to have in an article, but they do not establish notability. Notability is the criteria under which the article was deleted and significant sources should be found before it is recreated. Yandex and Lenta are good sources, but they do not provide significant coverage. I have changed my mind in AfD discussions multiple times when new sources have arisen. This isn't one of them. Miami33139 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  - It doesn't matter what sort of information you present,
    WP:DUCK
    --Tothwolf (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  - This applies to statements with no backup statistics. With QIP and further BayanICQ statistics of actual popularity is provided. Moreover, a bunch of statistics provided above does not show only popularity, but also significantly large coverage on the web. The last is the indicator for
    WP:N. Elk Salmon (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Permit restoration - Article is not too promotional, is reasonably balanced, and includes sourced criticism of their inadequate Unicode support! I would still be good if the article creator would provide English translations of all the references. A quick look shows 1.2 million Google hits, though this is not decisive until someone studies the hits. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation. If there are still sourcing concerns, AfD is the proper venue. This is not a G4.
talk) 06:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.