Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 November 17
2009 November 19 >

18 November 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Siling labuyo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate page since the interpretation of the closer at AfD was merge but I think it was interpreted incorrectly so in case this is the correct venue I'm posting it here. I tried to ask the closer his/her rationale but my question sat on his/her page for a week with no response and then was automatically archived.

My interpretation of the discussion was that verifiability was the main criterion for consensus. I was the only one in the entire discussion to cite a reliable verifiable source in support of a position, my claim being that siling labuyo is distinct from Thai pepper. Because of this I feel merge was the wrong conclusion and "keep as is" the correct one. However the person who nominated for deletion and made only claims by assertion throughout took the close and decision to merge as leave to merge the contents into a new article Bird's eye chili. I think the resulting article is factually incorrect and the concern seems shared by others. I would reverse the merge or at least restore the siling labuyo article as it was to correct this but it would seem as if I'm going against an admin's decision and proper due process if I did so. I'm seeking permission to restore the article as it was or at least advice on the proper course of action. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Lambanog. The short version is that the proper course of action is to seek consensus to reverse the merge on the article's talk page.

    The (much longer) version is that from a DRV point of view, a "merge" and a "keep" are the same thing. DRV is for reviewing deletion decisions, the test of which is whether the article was actually deleted (in such a way that only an administrator can restore it; if it was merged or turned into a redirect, then any editor can restore it by undoing the relevant revision, so no administrator intervention is necessary and there's no administrative matter to review).

    Basically, because you can restore it yourself, no process beyond the normal Wikipedian ones available to any editor is needed.

    I'm going to close this, but if you'd like more support with this article, please feel free to ask me on my talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer If the separate article is reliably sourced as a separate article then I have no problem with it being restored. I apologise for not responding to the talkpage note - I must've missed it in a busy time. (And yes, this is the wrong venue, but that doesn't really matter). Black Kite 19:24, 18 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stoked for the Holidays (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article is about an annual concert held in Sydney NS. When preparing the article, I made sure to peruse other similar articles such as that for Celtic Colours, Evolve Festival, North by Northeast, and more. The article is written to not be spam/advertising and to be informative about the event.

The article was proposed for speedy deletion under the terms that it was spam. I posted a reply on the talk page outlining why I believe this not to be and citing the other entries above. The response I received was:

':Where were the verifiable references from reliable sources? Not everything cool is notable! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)'.[reply]

Under the deletion guidelines, it shows notability as a non-criteria for speedy deletion.

5. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a reasonable indication of why the subject might be important or significant.

I believe the article should be reinstated. Only hours old, the article had a solid foundation. More sources have been quotes on the talk page for deleting admin, indicating further edits that were intended to be made. I don't believe the regional nature of the article lends itself to a notability deletion, nor does the nature of the article constitute spam or blatant advertising any more than any article on a specific event.

24.138.39.1 (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn The actual deletion was done as G11, promotional, and do not think the article qualifies, since it is not "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten"; it is partially informative, and could easily be rewritten to be less promotional. The deleting admin, a firm wikifriend of mine nonetheless, tends I think to consider G11 as meaning "has a promotional purpose" -- a much wider criterion that may often be valid at AfD but that is not clear enough to be judged at speedy. Stifle, a concert is not a "real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc." . The organization producing the concert would fit that criterion, but the article is about the event they produce. It is therefore ineligible for A7. In any case, it asserts importance by asserting that there are important artists as performers. However, the sources given for the article are at: [1], and I find them unimpressive--but that's for AfD--articles do not need to have their indications of notability sourced for passing speedy. FWIW, some other articles cited by the ed. seem equally unsupported. the article is currently at the Google cache, and people can see it for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I agree that the sources cited really weren't all that thrilling. I agree with DGG that we could probably overturn the speedy deletion on the basis that there's an arguable case it didn't apply, but even if we did, I wouldn't want to try to argue that this material should be kept at AfD. I'm reserving my opinion at the moment but I'd encourage the nominator to find some extra sources PDQ.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Let it be discussed at AfD in any case, as stated above. Collect (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD per DGG. I don't think concerts fall under A7. Tim Song (talk) 16:14, 25 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Easy Projects .NET (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Although being relisted twice, there has been very little discussion. The article however has three external links that provide significant coverage. The rationales put forwared as delete are in my opinion rather meager: one is more of a tirade against using Wikipedia for advertising purposes rather then judging this articles merits, another calls for speedy deletion. The article was originally proposed for deletion (PROD), but this was challenged by another editor. For convenience, the external links were: Easy Projects .NET: Does It Live Up to Its Name? - WebWorkerDaily, Get Industrial Strength Project Management Online - BNET Business Hacks and Review - A Girl's Guide to Project Management Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Other than those dubious blogs that don't really fit WP:RS, most of the other hits appear to be derivatives of press releases and other spammy things pushed out by the company onto the Internet. Also, WP:VSCA. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - This software has been featured in industry publications such as PM Network published by the PMI, twice in 2 separate issues May 2009 and August 2009 respectively. These types of publications are not freely available on the web to the general public, as they are distributed to subscribers and members of the PMI. Googling "Easy Projects .NET PM Network" will produce proof of coverage. This product has also been featured in other print publications including Inc as well as project management related books and whitepapers by industry consultant David Coleman (42 Rules for Successful Collaboration). Because the software does target professionals in the project management field, the coverage by industry experts and publications is thus significant. Other web coverage includes reviews and new announcements by the respectable blogs and websites. The original article editor has made effort to improve the article by consulting with a Wikipedia administrator on the subject (Nihiltres). The article also noted the importance of this software in development of an open source data access framework. Xbammy (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/Xbammy = no contributions whatsoever for over three years, and now this? Possible WP:SPA? Cirt (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't disagree with Cirt on any of the above, in this case let's send it to AfD for a full discussion, so it can be properly and thoroughly discussed, and the nominator can see that FairProcess is being fully followed and the article's had every chance we could reasonably give it. Then it can be properly and finally deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD was relisted twice before it was closed. So that's ~21 days of debate already. WP:RELIST, IIRC, prohibits relisting more than twice. Endorse closure - the third relist tends to indicate that an admin thought there was no consensus, but a delete close is reasonable. Nonetheless, I agree with nom and S Marshall that the debate is rather inadequate, even after three weeks, and for that reason, I would not oppose a relist by DRV. Tim Song (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep on the basis of there being no consensus to delete. If so little consensus that a third relisting is necessary, there should be more than five minutes' given for comments .We've no rule on the length of time, bit this is ridiculously short and amounts to another admin overruling the relisting. I notice in the way of sources it was on the the 5 DrEDobbs finalists for Project Management tools in 2008. as reported by Reuters. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I restored the page. And reverted my close. So it is now back to being relisted. Feel free to engage in a notability debate there, and this DRV can be closed. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:03, 18 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_18&oldid=1140228789"