Jess C Scott (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Editors and admin did not check the updated references that were added in a day before page was deleted. The page was deleted because of "no credible sources," so I followed the recommendations in the delete discussion's page to add new credible sources (Straits Times Online Mobile Print; SexIs (magazine); and WorldCat, which are reliable sources according to Wiki's guidelines). These are links to interviews and reviews in reputable sources, which was a suggested recommendation for WP: Author. Therefore I am requesting undeletion because of these additional references which were not reviewed by the editors and admin who participated in the delete discussion, prior to these sources being cited. POV of article was also improved along with the addition of these citations.

P.S. If the references are still a problem, I request that the page have a "please improve this" template like on this page. The current or latest list of sources on Jess C Scott's references sections are more reliable than many pages I have seen with the "please improve this" template at the top of the article.

Elfpunk (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - (full disclosure: I contributed to the AFD) I've had a few concerns about this article, subject and editor since I first came across it at AFD. You have literally been trying to create this article since 2010. During the first AFD you claimed to have been in contact with the author in an attempt to help substantiate notability which raises serious concerns about a conflict of interest. Despite having been through an AFD before (for this article no less) you still attempted to remove AFD templates from the article and then unilaterally recreated it a few days after it was deleted (it was speedy deleted as the recreation of a deleted article). Consensus at the AFD itself was fairly overwhelmingly in favour of deletion, not helped by your claims that attempts to delete the article were "evil" and "sexism". You also claimed to have previously been unaware of WP:GNG ("I would have appreciated receiving that WP:GNG notification when the page was first created") despite it having been a part of the discussion during the first AFD where you quoted the policy itself. Beyond all of that, admins are required to consider the discussion itself. Had the admin considered the sources himself and then supervoted the AFD closed as keep, we would likely be here at DRV for different reasons. I'm not going to formally offer an opinion either way, having contributed to the AFD, but this is starting to look like someone who simply won't drop their stick. Stalwart111 07:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, Elfpunk, but as you can see from the discussion the consensus is that Wikipedia doesn't want this content. A deletion review isn't going to overturn that for you. I hope this doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--thanks for the feedback. I will indeed keep improving the article, even if it takes one hundred tries, because it is not clear why Wikipedia does not want the content (the reasons keep changing). I have followed all of Wiki's guidelines, instructions, procedures, rules, and protocol once they were made known to me (as a not-so-frequent user, I am not aware of AFD and templates and G4's and what is or is not allowed, until I am informed of it). I have closely followed all suggested recommendations during each deletion discussion, and followed those recommendations. If the 2nd deletion was due to "no credible sources," and the page now has "credible sources," the problem should be solved. Instead, there is another reason for the page to be deleted, whether it's because the page was previously deleted or because the text is similar to a previous version. If it was credible sources that were the problem, that is the error that has been fixed with an improved version.

If the main problem is that fact that the subject of the article is self-published and not super-famous according to current mainstream media standards, these criteria should be noted in Wiki's guidelines so that contributors know self-published authors are "not notable," even if they have received numerous 3rd-party independent media coverage (reviews and interviews), been participating authors at writing events, and have books in public libraries. If the page has been improved according to the suggested recommendations, why is it still being disallowed on Wikipedia while other pages with less credible sources are allowed to be on? If the policies were applied with more consistency, the whole process would appear to be less hypocritical, with regards to which pages are allowed to be kept on and which are kept off because "Wikipedia doesn't want the content."

With regards to "the first AFD where [I] claimed to have been in contact with the author in an attempt to help substantiate notability," this is indeed true and I disclosed it so that editors/admins could advise me on what to do next. It is discouraged but not prohibited to be in contact with the subject of the article. When admins/editors stated that the page's tone was more promotional than encyclopedic, changes were made. If there was a real conflict of interest with that, no changes would have been made to the tone so that it follows a more neutral POV as was recommended. The page was deleted in 2010; an improved version was posted in 2012. That version stayed on for 1.5 years. If it didn't pass Wiki's inclusion criteria, why wasn't the article speedily deleted when the second, improved version was created in 2012?

I will follow the structure on this author's page, so that the content on Jess C Scott's page is significantly improved (and no longer identical to the previous version, which means it does not fall under G4). I am not attempting to be disruptive--just following Wiki's guidelines as to what merits a page's inclusion. I have read all of the criteria for speedy deletion too.

Elfpunk (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're getting it, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. It would be disruptive to keep trying to repost this article based on nothing more than your personal judgment of "it passes guidelines now, so I can ignore the deletion discussion we just had" (and that's what I meant by refusing to "play this game" on my talk page response to you). Without consensus at Deletion Review that, yes, it has now been demonstrated to satisfy GNG or a subject-specific notability guideline, it should not be reposted. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi postdlf--OK, thanks for the feedback. My judgement of whether the page passes guidelines is according to Wiki's guidelines and feedback from Wiki editors and admins. That is the only game I am playing (following Wiki's guidelines so that I know exactly why a page is not satisfactory, and what I can do to improve a particular page). I read through the criteria for speedy deletion, and followed the structure of the following existing author pages (Michael J. McCann and Nick Antosca). The improved page's contents are no longer a duplicate copy of previous versions. If a consensus or deletion review now concurs that the page does not satisfy GNG or a notability guideline, I will continue to keep in mind editors and admins' feedback as to what further improvements can be made (as I have done so far, with following all of the instructions and recommendations). Elfpunk (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the above comments (or at his talk page, or at mine) could have been more clear, yet Elfpunk just incredibly reposted this again. I have again speedy deleted and WP:SALTed it, and blocked Elfpunk for 24 hours for disruptive editing. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "even if it takes one hundred tries" was a bit of a give-away. Stalwart111 03:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion: "...even if it takes one hundred tries"? Sorry, you don't get to have a promotional article by brute force. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, and protect against recreation. (I listed the 2nd AfD and commented further in the discussion.) I am eager to keep articles on even marginally notable authors, especially of material in any way out of the mainstream, and have frequently over the years used my skills as a librarian to source them, and ever since I came here argued in defense of every reasonably defensible such article at AfD . Sometimes, like here, it's impossible. The protection against recreation should be reconsidered if the author does become notable, but it would take not just more books, but significant reviews of them, and others than the ed. here needs to be judges of that. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and salt, per DGG. If an evil inclusionist/mergist is against the article, what else is a deletionist left to argue? Besides, DGG needs to come over to the dark side with us, we have cookies...(jk). Seriously, consensus on both AfDs was clear for deletion. I don't see anything here to indicate that the deletion was improper. GregJackP Boomer! 00:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a bit unfair on DGG GregJack. I'm sure the inclusionists have cookies too! The label is a bit unfair too, DGG has deleted far more articles then I have by at least an order of magnitude. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty sure that we deleted the inclusionists' cookies some time ago. Did someone recreate them? :p DGG is a great guy, but does tend towards the keep side of the house on most issues. I think that he knows I meant no offense, and if he was offended, I apologize. GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Did we get to their cookies? Oh good, that's bound to give us an advantage in the wee hours of the morning when blood sugar levels are crucial to securing the winning argument for an Afd. Top work GregJack. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly I tend to be an inclusionist, and as far as I know everyone using the rem "evil inclusionist" is doing so as my friend, generally for the purpose of pointing out when I think an an article is hopeless. As Spartaz says, I've deleted personally at least 12,000 articles & helped remove several times that. But I dont think it's right to treat any deletion opinion of mine as meaning it must unquestionably be deleted; I make mistakes in logic, I fail to see things; sometimes I may even let my previous experience with a particular editor or topic affect my view unfairly;; there are even some areas of WP where my own standards are more rigorous than consensus. Please never say delete (or keep) because I (or anyone else) says so, but only if you agree with what is said. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I agreed with your argument on deletion, and as a friend, I thought it was a good opportunity to have a little fun. Of course, the scotch may have had something to do with that. (Spartaz - why didn't we delete (i.e., drink) the inclusionists' scotch when we got their cookies?) Besides, you should come over to the dark side... :p GregJackP Boomer! 23:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • The irony is that I know that I do have a reputation as a strong deletionist but when it comes down to it, I don't believe there is a massive difference between where I sit on the spectrum and where DGG generally is. Indeed, I recall a DRV where I closed something as keep that DGG recommended as delete which amused me intensely. The reality is, of course, much more nuanced than the labels allow. On the subject of cookies, my son just snaffled the last one so this deletionist household is now completely bereft off cookies - except ours got eaten instead of deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Creator was not notified of nomination for deletion of maintenance categories used to filter lists of users of WP:AFCH and WP:SNUGGLE. Requesting temporary undeletion until this can be sorted out. Technical 13 (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. The only issue here appears to be that the category creator was not notified of the discussion. There is nothing wrong with the close in which there was no support for retention of the category. Since there is no requirement to notify the creator, and creators can watch list the page if it really is of interest, that in an of itself is not a reason to reverse a completely within policy and guideline close. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian, you seem to be entirely missing the point here. The major issue here is that these categories are not suppose to be deleted as they all fall under both ((Maintenance category)) and ((Wikipedia category)). Please restore these categories and assume good faith. Technical 13 (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further notes: Template:Cfdnotice/doc says "When nominating a category on WP:CFD, add this template to the main article's talk page to notify users of the category's nomination." and does not say that this is an optional step. These categories also fall under the Appropriate types of user categories: Categories which group users by participation in Wikipedia; such as participants of a Wikipedia collaborative project... and Categories which group users by ability to improve the encyclopedia as I've mentioned, this category is used by me for making lists for more than one WP:WikiProject to be able to mail out bulletins about software updates related to their specific operating system, browser, or (not yet implemented but planned) wiki skin. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are missing the point. A full CfD discussion was held and that decision was to delete. You need to show why the close was faulty. CfD decisions are able to delete maintenance categories. You have yet to explain why the close was not correct based on the discussion. Your objection appears to be that there are certain categories that are not subject to CfD discussions. That assumption is not supported by any policy or guideline I am aware of. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be getting agitated, and although I can sympathize, I am requesting you take a breath and attempt to stay CALM. I honestly do not know how much more clear it can be...

Administrators: Please do not delete this category even if it is empty! This category may be empty occasionally or even most of the time.

Technical 13 (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That only has the effect, that the category will not be deleted by the ((db-c1)) CSD criterion, but a full WP:CFD discussion can still come to the conclusion, that the category should be deleted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armbrust, I don't see that noted anywhere in the rendering of the template or in the template's documentation. Can you show me where it does say that it only applies to CSD:C1? Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't written down anywhere, but from the wording of the template it's clear, that purpose of it is to avoid the category's deletion just because it's empty (C1 is for empty categories only). It doesn't says anything about WP:CFD's at all. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't written down anywhere, then your "assumed" purpose in not clear. The wording of the template does not read, "don't delete just because it's empty", but instead it reads "don't delete even if it's empty". Clearly, it should not have been deleted. Technical 13 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That template can't stop the implementation of a Categories for discussion, a process which works on the base of consensus, event if you think it should. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close There was clearly a consensus to delete the category, and therefore it couldn't have been closed any other way. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose close: The entire deletion rationale was that these categories served no purpose. These categories do serve a legitimate purpose, and are deemed appropriate by the WP:CfD guidelines themselves. The fact that the creator was not notified of the discussion prevented the rationale of the categories being presented which I believe would have swayed the outcome of the discussion. Please temporarily restore the categories and relist the debate for seven days to obtain a true consensus with all of the facts available as to how the category is being used. I'm not asking for an overturn, I'm asking for a chance to defend the categories in question is all. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote. By definition of opening a DRV, you disagree with the close. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Technical 13 seems to be arguing that this falls under DRV criterion 3, that there's "significant new information" that wasn't taken into account in the CFD discussion. They need to explain how the category was used for maintenance and why that use was in some way important. The procedural failure to notify isn't enough, given the solid consensus in the CFD discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. The process was correctly followed and the closer implemented the consensus, so DRV would normally endorse, but, this can't be allowed to stand. Of course it matters who uses Windows, who uses Linux, etc. We're in the process of developing a visual editor and working on other technical changes. How are the technical and maintenance people supposed to test things? They will need to find users who operate various different hardware and software setups in order to find and fix bugs. For example, if everyone experiencing a particular issue is using Google Chrome and Windows 7, that's something the coders need to know! Therefore it's good for the encyclopaedia if users can self-identify with their hardware and software configuration if they so choose, and therefore, this CfD outcome needs to be unilaterally overturned.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per S Marshall's cogent analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is an ongoing RfC going on at Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia that editors following this discussion may be interested it. Technical 13 (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - how many user pages were/are affected by the deletion? Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer: The countless ever growing number of people that see the category on the bottom of users pages and follow the redlink that can't see the instructions of how to add themselves to the category. Potentially, 123,503 active users. Technical 13 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a stretch, T13. Blueboar: The actual answer is, if we stick to T13's original logic, is that this will impact the developer's ability to write new tools for all users.--v/r - TP 13:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean seven users? Because that many are currently in the category. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Operating systems has many other templates, which are more widely used, to indicate which OS the users are using. If you click on the "Transclusions" at ubox, than you easily found users with the search OS. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The current number of users in this category is at 143% of what you claim... That is a growth of 43% in less than four hours. I'd say that a 10% growth per hour is significant enough for this category to exist. You can watch it grow-- Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows currently has 0 users. Technical 13 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I only see 10 pages of 8 users in the category. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • As opposed to the 7 pages of 5 users that you first mentioned 4 hours ago... Very good. :) Technical 13 (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt at the very least. I don't know which policy supports full protection after deletion.--v/r - TP 13:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't care. Honestly, it doesn't really bother me if these categories exist or not. For what it's worth...developers don't use these self-selecting categories to find users of given operating systems (or browsers, or choice of chat client, etc). So yeah, I wouldn't undelete on that argument alone of "think of the coders!" ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^demon, while MediaWiki core developers may not use such categories, WikiProject and usercript developers do.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's code other than core?!? I jest. You make a good point, feel free to disregard me :) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist While failure to notify the creator may not normally be enough to overturn, it seems to have had the effect (in this case) that the "keep" arguments that should have been presented and may have affected the outcome were not presented. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• relist there is a valid argument for keeping this that was not heard at the XfD. That's a fine reason to relist. That the creator wasn't notified helped cause that situation... I've no objection to an "undelete" given strength of argument here, but I think those that want it deleted should have the chance to make the case if they still desire. (And if they don't I'm not clear why we are still talking about this...) Hobit (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close if we want to survey who is using what OS, browser etc, we can do that without a category. In fact, I'd be surprised if WMF doesn't know exactly what OS and what browsers we're all using. Really, do we honestly believe only ten or so editors are using Windows? This is a pointless category, and something that anyone can add whether they actually use Windows or not, or if they happen to use Windows XP, iOS, MacOS etc (which I do all of) so these claims that it could be useful for identifying users' profiles is pure nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. The question under review here is whether the close correctly determines consensus from the discussion. With a 5-0 turnout in favor of deletion after the full period of review, this could not have been closed any other way. I would further suggest that categories such as these are of very little use in any sort of information distributing scheme, as there are probably hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians who use any given browser, but fail to self-categorize as such. Had I been involved in the discussion, I would have voted to keep the category, but only because I see no harm in allowing editors to categorize themselves this way if they really want to. Nevertheless, I see no harm to the encyclopedia in either having it, or not having it. bd2412 T 19:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close You can't really close this any other way. However, due to new material being presented, I think the category should be unsalted and recreated if needed, and then a full and cogent explanation provided in the header as to how the use of this category advances wikipedia. If someone then wants to re-nominate for deletion, they can do so, and I'm sure the nominator here will have the category on watch and can defend it at that point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete only today I saw a tool writer that was planning to post the correct software to each user of it depending on which operating system they identified as running on. Scrapping the category has screwed with that idea. the category was harmless. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Relist :::Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to to take account of the policy-based arguments. If there is no opportunity for the arguments to be heard, it is out of process. That potentially key arguments were not presented because of lack of notice is any error in process. For material that has a technical use, the closing admin must take account of that use--if it was not considered, for whatever reason, the discussion needs to be reopened. There needs to be a way of considering new evidence after something has been deleted, and this is the only place available. The guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. . We have another instance here of why notice ought to be required in all cases: the only effect not giving it can have is to discourage the presentation of support arguments, which is intrinsically unfair and unreasonable. . DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist per Philosopher and DGG. Wikipedia does not determine consensus by voting. The lack of notification caused potential opposition to the deletion from being presented. Now that the relevant editors (and more) have been notified, it only makes sense to run the process through again to determine what the actual consensus is within the community. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural undelete and relist. Proper listing procedure - specifically informing the category creator - was not followed. We have absolutely no idea what information would have been brought to the discussion if the creator could have simply presented the initial creation rationale. As such, the presence of only delete !votes is irreparably contaminated by the failure to follow procedure. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to inform the creator of a category. The rules are different than those for articles. Partly because it is much easier to create a category than an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, could you show me a link to where these different rules are so I can become more educated please? Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out where there is a procedure that was not followed? The objections appear to be based on the existence of some unidentified policy that was not followed. If there is no policy, then opinions based on a non existing policy are problematic. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is not mandatory to notify the creator, it is considered a courtesy that has become a part of the deletion process. Usually, when a deletion nomination would be potentially controversial (a nomination such as this one), the nominator should notify the creator of the category. This allows for all opinions to be heard. Since some opinions did not get a chance to be heard, it only makes sense to run the category through the process again. The underlying principle here would be WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying, is that just because someone may object after the fact to an unanimous discussion, it should have been considered controversial due to a possible objection after the close? And given history for closes of this type of nomination, there was no reason to expect controversy. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone objected to deleting the category while the discussion was going on, but never had the chance to express that opinion because he wasn't notified that the discussion was going on. I'm just saying that it would only be fair if we ran the category through the process one more time to redetermine the consensus with everyone's opinion. If it ends up with the same result, so be it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• When this is over, we should probably add a bullet point to WP:CFD#HOWTO step #2 with something along the lines of "Consider adding ((Cfd-notify)) to the talk pages of the creator of the category and other potentially interested editors to notify them of the nomination." Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]