Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 20
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
There were so far 4 votes to keep and 5 votes to delete; after less than one day of existence, the UCFD was speedily-deleted as a WP:POINT. I believe that good arguments to consider it otherwise were made in the discussion and that admins should at least have left the discussion run its full course. If it was a WP:POINT, nobody showed that it caused any disruption, and as I said, valid objections and at least one alternative to the deletion were raised, so it is clear to me that the speedy-deletion was at the very least premature.--Ramdrake 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
- Roy O. Martin, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Nominating this procedurally as the request for a DRV has been posted incorrectly (on the AfD talk page). As User:Billy Hathorn, the creator of the article and requestor of the DRV, has recently lodged a complaint at AN/I regarding my alleged "harassment" of him in XfD discussions, I won't take any part in this discussion - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to nomination - I refactored the AfD to make it easier to review for this DRV. -- Jreferee 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relist. AfD appears to be a bit of a mess, but being a subject of a book, having a reporter assigned to your obituary, and having a proclamation from the governor all appear to be things that deserve a second look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure - Closer interpreted the AfD debate correctly. If significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD is presented as part of this DRV, I would consider changing my position. -- Jreferee 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure - Each of the points mentioned by badlydrawnjeff was already openly addressed in the debate. At the end of it, outside of the article author and one anon IP SPA, there was exactly one editor who found the subject to be notable. Mwelch 22:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why I'm not sure the closure was accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think I follow you. If all of the arguments were addressed and considered in the debate, and still there were five editors for deletion and one editor (besides the article author and the anon IP SPA) for keep, how was the closure inaccurate? Mwelch 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why I'm not sure the closure was accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relist: AfD is terribly messy. Notability needs more discussion, and the AfD needs more discussion and hopefully more obvious consensus. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relist as the only editor other than the author and an SPA who suggested keeping, I feel I should comment here. In a strict interpretation, he was notable. He was covered in multiple local/regional newspapers, at least one of which assigned a reporter to cover his death in multiple articles, much more than "everyone gets." Since when does it matter that only his death received significant coverage? A non-notable person's death would not receive that much coverage. He meets: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
There were 8 "keeps", including 4 "strong keeps", against 6 "deletes" and 1 "merge" - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Category:Systems. The summary says this was a "judgement call" to delete. The original reason given was overcategorization. Although not explicitly stated, I assume from the discuss that this relates to the section WP:OC#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. However, the examples given seem to be very specific and obvious cases, whereas systems are a much more general case. In particular, the articles and categories included were related by the fact that they all covered the semantic concept of systems across different domains, not merely that they used the name "system". While I can agree that the category needed diffusion, I do not agree that it deserved deletion on this guideline as it currently stands, which I believe has been somewhat misinterpreted in this case. Either that or the guidelines on overcategorization need to be updated to make it clear that they are much more wide-ranging than the examples included at present. Jonathan Bowen 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment — please note that I am willing to help with the diffusion effort if this category is restored. — Jonathan Bowen 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Background Wikipedia:Overcategorization provides guidelines through which categories may be kept or deleted at CfD. For example, per unrelated subjects with shared names, Category:Systems may be deleted if it categorizes by characteristics of systems rather than by the subject "system" itself. However, the guideline provides exceptions for useful categories. Diffusion of a category means that the main category, here Category:Systems, should mainly contain sub-categories rather than articles. -- Jreferee 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment — agreed and this can be sorted out easily enough with a bit of effort. — Jonathan Bowen 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Restore. This is a horrible category only because it has languished as such. Diffusion could solve this much more efficiently than just a blanket deletion of the category. --Hemlock Martinis 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. The closing admin made a correct decision.--Ezeu 23:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment — can you add any comments in the light of the discussion above? — Jonathan Bowen 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn the original decision. The CfD keep consensus outweighed the delete consensus. Contrary to the closing statement, the keep reasoning was supported by the overcategorization guidelines. The delete reasoning was not clear as to how Category:Systems itself included unrelated subjects with shared names. The delete reasoning appears to have been based on hypotheticals that did not take into account the Category:Systems membership criteria. From both delete and keep CfD positions, consensus was that the term system is diverse. As clarified by the article system, systems may be in information and computer science, engineering, social and cognitive sciences, and management research. Category:Systems is a top level category and should mainly contain sub-categories rather than articles. The Category:Systems hierarchy can mirror the hierarchy set out in the system article. This appears the consensus of the CfD. Thus, the original CfD decision should be overturned. -- Jreferee 04:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wong Fu Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
They're a pretty popular filmmaking group and I added stuff on the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.34.200 (talk)
- Comment: As it stands, they are non-notable per A7 (Articles, point 7 on Criteria for speedy deletion). If you (or others like you) assert notability, then this DRV should overturn the speedy deletion and the article should go to AfD. To be totally honest though, and given that various closing admins have spoken with me and told me that part of Deletion Review, despite Deletion Review's description specifically saying not, is also about assessing whether the article would survive AfD, I don't think it would. There are no Verifiable/reliable sources in the strict sens of Wikipedia Policy that I could find on a quick Google search about the production company.
- If there are better sources I/we could have missed, please provide them here in this discussion - it could help the cause of undeleting the article so folks could work on it. Otherwise, this DRV will probably just verify that the deletion was appropriate. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion Article as written contained no assertion of notability and the stuff on the talk page doesn't really add much either. Where's the multiple articles in independent reliable sources? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, article as written was a legitimate A7 candidate; no information provided indicating otherwise. Furthermore, while I generally have no prejudice to recreation of a properly sourced article, I doubt the ability to find any WP:RS indicating notability, and agree with User:MalcolmGin in that the outcome of an AfD would be a foregone conclusion. --Kinu t/c 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion: Would like to see a userfied version of the article, but is salting necessary? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Basecamp (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Speedily deleted as blatant advertising. I'm not sure what the text was at the point of deletion, but this item is clearly notable under WP:WEB, having been covered in BusinessWeek [1], PC Magazine [2], Boston Herald [3], Salon.com [4], among many others. It's also notable as one of the most prominent projects using Ruby on Rails. JavaTenor 04:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedily restored - someone please check User:Owski for multiple false additions of spam templates to legit articles. FCYTravis 06:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)