< 2007 December 10
Deletion review archives: 2007 December
2007 December 12 >

11 December 2007

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

Request temporary undeletion. The AfD of the Ancients article closed in deletion with "The proposed merge target does not exist." Several days later, a similar AfD for the Peacekeeper article closed in deletion with "most of the keep arguments center around in-universe importance, not real-world notability". In both cases, the recommendations pointed more at a no consensus than a delete, but the closing admins didn't do anything wrong. In the believe that all other Farscape races would be considered non-notable and therefore deleted, I AfDed them in a group nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banik), but the result was "Keep with possible merge", although these races are less in-universe-notable. I asked the closing admin to restore the other two race articles for a merge, but he replied that I should go to Deletion Review. Since I doubt that any Farscape races can establish individual notability, I already merged them in my userspace (User:Sgeureka/Races_in_Farscape). The Scifi.com external link serves as source. Because of the amount of companion literature and DVD features, I am very certain that real-world information exists (as needed per WP:FICTION) to justify the existance of a (merged) Races subarticle, so I request the temporary undeletion of the Ancients and Peacekeeper articles so that they can be merged too for consistance. – sgeureka t•c 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • temporary undelete should be automatic. I'm a little unhappy about closers using their own preferred reasons, instead of recognizing there is no consensus on such articles, but in any case a combination article would be better all around.DGG (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where would you like the content? I would be happy to move the articles to your userspace or email them to you but am reluctant to undelete them in mainspace against (another admin's determination of) consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is my understanding that, if I merge, the page histories of two now-deleted articles have to be restored under the GDFL, which is the easiest by recreating the articles and then redirecting them as #redirect [[Races of Farscape]] ((R from merge)). I don't know in how far moving the article to my userspace or receiving them by email keeps the GDFL intact, which is my only worry besides getting the mergable article content. I have never participated in Deletion Review and need a little help here, but the main DR page said Temporary review – Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), which is exactly what I want. – sgeureka t•c 09:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Putting a temporary copy in your userspace (or email) gives you the chance to create a solid merged version which can then be presented to the community for evaluation. At the point that you get consensus to move the article from your userspace into the articlespace, we can (and must) restore the history of the pages merged in. That would be a very routine request that any admin can carry out. (I'd be happy to do it for you then.) Undeleting now, when the success of the merger still seems a bit speculative, could be seen as premature. I think that's the real source of the reluctance to unilaterally overturn the AFD closure. Rossami (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for explaining. Please provide a copy to my userspace then. What exactly do I have to do when I've finished the merge in my userspace? Comment here, or ask an admin for review? – sgeureka t•c 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content has been userfied to User:sgeureka/Ancients (Farscape) and User:sgeureka/Peacekeeper (Farscape). I am closing this DRV as moot. A new one can be started once the draft of the merged article has been created. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Openbravo – Deleting admin did not throughly investigate; interceding DRV of 15 November specifically permitted rewrite. A new AfD would be needed -- G4 not enforceable on new draft per DRV consensus. Clear error here, so speedy restore. – Xoloz (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Openbravo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

article not substantially identical, as per CSD A4, notability shown, and no more COI, because of new editors editing the article. Note: please view User:Thylacine222/Openbravo, not the cache, that is a previous revision of the article with no sources. Thylacine222 (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, here's how I think this came about. First of all, when the page was first created, Openbravo didn't satisfy the guidelines for notability, and it was speedy deleted. I believe this went on for some time, until it was recreated, by the owners of the company. It was deleted again, because it did not meet CSD A4, and also because of notability and the COI of the owners creating the page. It was recreated one last time, except that this time, the Openbravo creators did not edit the page, I did, and I expanded it so that it was not "significantly identical", as per CSD A4. Then, I'm not sure what happened, but the page was deleted, I think because the admin believed that the page was being written by an employee. I am not an employee of the company, I simply use it. As for showing notability, I have a few links. CNet article mentioning Openbravo Sourceforge Activity Ranking, OB is currently #2 Google search with 192000 results (I know, it doesn't really prove anything) Article about Open source ERPs CIO Article about ERPs Thylacine222 (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore last revision per nom. I cannot tell from the cached version, but there does not appear to be significant problems with the last revision of the article. Citations would be good, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to let you know, the version that is on the Google Cache isn't the one that was deleted, but rather one from a previous time that the page was deleted, but both versions are similar. The more recent version had a few refs. Thylacine222 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Course of events: Probable OpenBravo employee creates article. Gets deleted by AfD. Probable or admitted OpenBravo employee creates article. Gets speedied. Repeat, seven or eight times. OpenBravo employee asks for undeletion. Editor in dispute with me (user:Sfacets) recreates article to irritate me, succeeds admirably. I no longer care. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is exactly why I brought this to Deletion review! Can we please stop yelling at each other about petty internet rivalries, I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about the article which I believe should be undeleted! Thylacine222 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the cached version shows no signs of notability. Corvus cornixtalk 23:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as the cached version is non-notable. Given that this has been washed and dried many times over, it's obvious that the article is not warranted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Full disclosure: I am an Openbravo employee. I have always stated my condition as an Openbravo employee in any discussion related to Openbravo. As per your instructions, I have requested all Openbravo employees to refrain from editing the Openbravo entry to avoid any conflict with Wikipedia's policies). You can find independent evidences of notability in Google (200,000 references), SourceForge.net (a regular in the Top 10 list projects in terms of activity , with more than 400,000 accumulated downloads, at a rate in excess of 1,000 per day -for the last year the fastest download rate for any open source ERP on SourceForge-), Awards (InfoWorld's 2007 BOSSIE award to the best open source ERP Infoworld_Bossie_Awards; LinuxWorld San Francisco'07 Product Excellence Award; Red Herring Top 100 Europe). Please, also note that if you want independent writers for this entry, add references, and so on, you need to allow for some time for the community to work on it. If you ban the article there is not time for the community to contribute to it. Please help me. We are an open source project that understand and respect community driven efforts. Give us a chance... Jmitja (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2007 (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.
NewMusicBox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a notable e-zine that would link from many references already existing in wikipedia. VoxNovus (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the deleting admin and have explained that the original article posted violated CSD G11 but had no qualms with the notability and stated that the article could be recreated as long as the advertisement sections were removed and it was re-written in an encyclopedic tone. The current version is as such and I have no objection to it. –– Lid(Talk) 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current version looks good to me; not sure if it really needs a review, but if it does, endorse current version. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, the current version looks fine. I endorse the deletion and say allow current version. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - the current version is clean enough to avoid a G11 and the site is plenty notable as here. BlueValour (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2007 (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.
Debacterol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was SDed, I need a copy of this to my userspacePatcat88 (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see how this was blatant advertising, but it certainly needs work, so I'm userfying. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2007 (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.
Glenn Burns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Requesting history-only undeletion; page is now redirected to a section of the TV station he is at (WSB-TV).

  • Any reason for this? According to the AfD, the article was a partial copyvio, plus it was wholly unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was a partial copyvio, this DRV should probably be speedily closed since copyvios are non-negotiable. --Coredesat 03:57, 14 December 2007 (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.
The Adventures of Captain Proton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This deletion discussion had no clear consensus, being split almost perfectly, and while the article admittedly is not exceedingly important, it has significant content that ought be retained at least in a merged article. Precedent for this level (and even lower) of article was clearly presented and the page was deleted regardless of the discussion. Best solution is likely a merge, but there was, again, no clear consensus (in fact, no consensus at all) for deletion. Please review and restore so the information from the article may be utilized in a more appropriate merge or standalone article. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: On 11 Dec, it was recreated by user:Anthony Appleyard and was subsequently tagged for deletion. I have speedy-deleted it as recreated content pending the conclusion of this discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: As has been pointed out as well, more than 20 pages pointed to this article. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of pages which point to an article have no bearing on whether or not the subject of an article is notable. What if I created an article about myself, then went in and added my name to hundreds of articles? Does that by default mean that my article should be kept? Corvus cornixtalk 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're missing the point totally. The pointing-to is a note. The problem is "This deletion discussion had no clear consensus." How are people so blind to simple fact and instead pick apart the extraneous or additional information? Open you eyes, read the discussion, and instead of puny little quips about fringe "what if" statements, one can see that the deletion discussion was inappropriately classified as delete in spite of the true reality of the discussion. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. As far as I can tell, none of the arguments for keeping the article addressed the nominator's valid concerns (namely meeting notability requirements with reliable sources). Nor was there any mention within the AfD discussion that the article itself had been edited to address said concerns. Unless article underwent sufficient revision prior to closure, deletion seems in-bounds. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Memory Alpha is on the Interwiki link list, so you can do [[MemoryAlpha:The Adventures of Captain Proton|The Adventures of Captain Proton]] to produce an interwiki link, like so: The Adventures of Captain Proton. --Stormie (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Neither the article, the AFD or this discussion have produced any independent sources demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's recommended inclusion criteria. I find no process problems with the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, reasoning for closure seems sound and reasons for keeping were not grounded in policy or guidelines. --Coredesat 06:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On 12 Dec, user:Anthony Appleyard again recreated the deleted content. It has again been speedy-deleted pending the conclusion of this discussion. Rossami (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I re-created it as a stub with external link to [1], not as the full article again. I thought that that would be allowed, to satisfy its current incoming links. Sorry. Could that short stub-and-link be restored as a section in Star Trek: Voyager? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: While I tend to agree with the notability concerns, the decision was entirely subjective. The AfD should have been closed with no consensus, however, it was closed by an admin who subjectively decided the arguments of those against the AfD weren't "good enough". Overturn the AfD, allow the people that expressed an interest in the article to qualify it's notability, and come back in 6 months if they haven't. Justin chat 18:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins are supposed to weigh the quality of the arguments. Otherwise, an article with 10 Keeps based on solid policy would be outweighed by 11 Deletes based on "I don't like it." Consensus in an AfD discussion must be rooted in policies and guidelines. Comments not based on policy or guideline can (rightly) be discarded by the closing admin. -- Kesh (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep agree, AFD isn't a vote count, consensus is formed by if the article meets current policy or guideline, which this AFD didn't, thus Endorse my deletion Secret account 05:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does it say admins are supposed to weigh the quality of arguments? WP:IAR is the ultimate rule and "the first to consider". There is absolutely no requirement at WP to prove a particular point with policies and guidelines because WP:IAR says to ignore them. Personally, I tend to get annoyed when people use WP:IAR, but it's purpose is to prevent EXACTLY this type of action: an admin making a subjective decision that other people didn't quantify there arguments with policies and guidelines. If admins make determinations like these, then the simple answer is from now on, simply saying "Keep per WP:IAR". Why bother arguing as humans when we can just quote like robots?
      Furthermore, I am astounded that the admin in question in this DR actually endorsed his own AfD. Perhaps that's commonplace, but it's pretty poor form to be providing a "vote" (so to speak), in a review of your own actions. The decision was made without a consensus. The irony is, it seems this AfD is likely to head to no consensus, perhaps the closer of this DR should use the same logic Secret did and close it in favor of overturning. Justin chat 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There is no consensus to delete present in the AfD discussion. In particular mere allegations of "cruftiness" are not persuasive arguments to delete. Lack of independent sourcing is a problem but need not be decisive in cases like this where reliable primary sources are available and other arguments for notability are made. A redirect might be a compromise option, but I see no pressing need to keep the history deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was no attempt to retrieve independent sources during the Afd nor was there an attempt to explain why independent sources could exist but are hard to retrieve. As such, no sources → no article applies. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
More