Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 22

Love Not Riots (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This organisation has multiple press sources, and a number of notable figures supporting it, which were mentioned in the article. Certainly not A7 criteria. Darksun 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Notable figures endorsing something is not really an assertion of notability for the thing. Besides, these press sources weren't even cited, and the article was two sentences long. If the subject really is notable, then just write a new article using these press sources. -Amarkov moo! 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[1][2][3][4] Are some of the sources I've just found. --Darksun 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, good. Now you can write a new article with them. Why would you need a stub that doesn't assert notability to do so? I mean, I don't have a strong objection to undeleting if there are sources, but there's not really a point. -Amarkov moo! 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - a regular stub, plenty of news sources are available and should be added to article. Zocky | picture popups 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Entrance_Software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am requesting the article titled “Entrance Software” to be undeleted. I have checked the deletion log, and it appears that the article was deleted due to a proposed deletion by Naconkantari. I feel that the article had provided relevant and factual information that can benefit college students about the company, aiding them in making decisions when applying for summer internships as software engineers. There are many articles on similar software related companies, such as Microsoft, Accenture, and Amazon, providing invaluable information for those researching for future careers before entering the job market straight out of college. The article on Entrance Software provides similar information, and does not violate the Wikipedia content criteria. 205.196.183.229 19:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete, contested prod. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nat Cassidy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm not clear as to why this article was deleted. There were numerous sources, and I can certainly track down some more, as well. 216.115.180.7 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• It was a contested WP:PROD with the rationale "Doesn't meet WP:BIO i.e. no notability in the career. All roles are extraordinarly minor (i.e. cable access TV, regional theatre, off off broadway, role as an extra in a movie.) And while not a reason itself for deletion, it's possibly got POV conflicts and it has a promotional tone. i.e. heralded". If you disagree with that, we can undelete the article. --W.marsh 15:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW the WP:PROD guidelines weren't followed entirely in the deletion summary:

(For Admins): If you agree that the article should be deleted, delete it giving an informative deletion reason, such as that given by the nominator, not just expired prod.

Though it sounds like WP:BIO won't be met if the PROD is correct. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Restore and send to AfD. Contested PROD. Corvus cornix 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not clear this is contested... the IP editor wasn't able to see the deletion rationale until now. --W.marsh 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to undelete this as a belatedly contested prod, without prejudice to an AfD, but the deleting administrator should be asked first. Newyorkbrad 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete per WP:PROD: "Articles deleted under this procedure (using the {{prod}} tag) may be undeleted, without further discussion, on a reasonable request." --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and send to AfD. Taking this here to deletion review is ipso facto contesting the PROD; that the contesting is a bit late is just a technicality, and we don't give too much weight to technicalities. Herostratus 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Zionism and racism allegations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Delete, becausee the vast majority of the people either wanted this article deleted or merged per previous Afd. The result certianly wasn't keep. Sefringle 06:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I am the closing admin. I did not count "votes" and AfD is not a vote. The Delete arguments were a good deal less cogent than the Keep arguments, is what it comes down to. "Delete - no way can a NPOV article ever be written here - so let's not try" is not a strong argument. "Delete. This article is ridiculous..." is not a strong argument. "Delete per nom" is not a strong independent argument. There were several "per nom"s , throwing a lot of stress onto the nomination. And what does the nomination say? "Clear POV fork, no sources. This page attempts to prove that zionism is a form of racism, which is a clear anti-Israel POV. Also the entire page is origional research." It does not appear to be a POV fork as it has existed since the fall of 2005 and it is not specified what the fork is from. "...attempts to prove that zionism is a form of racism..." seems untrue; the article if anything tends toward explaining why Zionism is not racism. Lack of sourcing is not a deleteable offense when the subject is notable, which I think it surely is; no one is making the argument that the subject is so obscure or marginal that no one would likely look it up... The only argument that doesn't fall apart at once is the claim that it is original research. I found this to be not proven. Herostratus 06:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I question your neutrality on the subject, Herostratus. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know about that... this AFD sat waiting to be closed for 3 days and a lot of closers skipped over it (including me). It was a real beast to close. Herostratus not only closed this one, but the other remaining AFD from that day, which had nothing to do with Zionism. His behavior suggests he was trying to clear a backlog, not swoop in and express some POV. --W.marsh 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The result was not a definite keep. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The votes for deletion was basicly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. // Liftarn
• The article is a POVFORK of UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 and should be merged. There is no need to duplicate the content: the allegation entered the mainstream with the UNGA Res 3379 and was revoked (even by the unreformed UN) by the UNGA Res 4686 and belongs in the history's dump, together with other old Soviet propaganda junk. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 1) No, it's not. 2) If it would be then it's rather UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 that should be merged into Zionism and racism allegations since the subject of racism within zionism is wider than a US resolution (like the allegation that zionism is a form of antisemitism). // Liftarn
• I'm inclined to agree with merging, but why are we discussing a merge on the board for deletion review? >Radiant< 08:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sore losers? // Liftarn
• Endorse Keep - Seems like many/most of the delete votes were by the same cast of characters trotting out the same non-arguments in other controversial articles they don't like, such as Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Tarc 12:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, closing statement seems entirely proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Do version histories go back before August 2003? Looking at the two mentioned article's histories, this article is older (by 4 days), however the edit summaries of the earliest version available in the history tabs for each indicates that the earliest visible versions of both are reactions to some prior version somewhere that was not considered neutral. Figuring out where that article or article(s) were would depend on getting those involved back in 2003 to remember it. So we can't decide which article is a fork, if either. However, being a POV fork is only a tangential issue now, as DRV is not AFD round two. GRBerry 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Merge is not a version of delete, it is a version of keep. Merging remains a valid subject for discussion and consensus forming on the relevant article's talk pages. With many of those whose first choice was deletion also indicating that merging was acceptable, keep is clearly the consensus of that discussion. GRBerry 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Edit-conflicted Endorse closure. No opinion on the article, but I wouldn't have found a consensus (i.e., in our practice, a well-argued supermajority) to delete here, either. The keep result does not rule out a merger if consensus for it subsequently materialises. Sandstein 18:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) moved from the CyberPower discussion, as the content of the opinion and the diff clearly indicate that it is intended for this discussion. GRBerry 18:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure There was certainly no consensus to merge, or to delete. It might conceivably have been closed it as "no consensus", but the closure as "keep" is also justified, and has the same result. DGG 21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure: Sandstein really hit the nail on the head with this one. 24.2.128.44 22:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I might have closed as no consensus, but since the effect is the same, it really does not matter. Merging remains an option, but that needs to be discussed on the relevant talk page by people who know the subject well. -Amarkov moo! 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

CyberPower PCs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleting admin deleted based on WP:CORP, but based on the state of the article at the time, not whether the subject actually met the criteria, and with gazillions of G-hits I suspect the subject would indeed meet the criteria. Votes are roughly evenly distributed, meaning no consensus seems to have been present. Morgan Wick 04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. If you can demonstrate that it does meet the criteria, I might change my opinion, but we can't undelete things because it might be possible to create an article that is allowable. -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (or if non-admins have a say, overturn closure(s) and continue AfD(s)): I wrote the following comment on Blnguyen's talk page:

I was wondering if you would consider taking a second look at some of your AfD closings from 16 May. I am not sure that some of them reflect community consensus. For CyberPower PCs, for instance, another administrator KrakatoaKatie relisted to get a further consensus--three further arguments were given, two for keeping and one against, I am not sure how this could have resulted in a consensus to delete. I think your argument [there] is a good one, but I think that arguments like this should happen in the AfD and not in the closing, where they can't be disputed by other users. Similarly, for Cec Cinder, two other admins felt that the discussion did not reflect consensus; after four more voices were added--two for and two against--you closed as "spam" based on a low alexa rank, which no voice had the opportunity to dispute. Finally, for Titus North, the only AfD I participated in (where I suggested Neutral, leaning delete), you stated "Does not pass the PROF or political guidelines; no reasons given as why this person is an unusual case. As pointed out, he was the second of two candidates, so he was the only outlet for dissent." No one argued that he passed PROF, so that seems uncontroversial, but whether the community felt that he passed the political guidelines had not been concluded--it seemed like a relisting to get further consensus was in order. Thanks for considering these ideas.

My comments don't have to do with the outcome -- I think that I would lean toward recommending deletion in all three cases -- but with the process. I don't believe that closing admins should express new arguments which have not been yet raised in the AfD in the closure comments--it gives others no voice to contest these statements. From what I've seen elsewhere, Blnguyen is a great admin and contributor, and it could be that I, with much less experience, have missed something. But I don't feel like voices (even those of Admins asking for further comments to find consensus) were listened to in these AfDs. I haven't looked earlier than May 4, but the fact that Blnguyen has only closed deletions (>10) with one redirect, at least gives the appearance that these closures are not considering a balance of opinions. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: "Meets WP:N and WP:V" doth not a keep rationale make. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Decline opinion with strong disagreement with the opinion by David Mestel. Meeting content policies (WP:V, others) and notability guidelines (WP:N or WP:CORP) are excellent grounds for a keep opinion. The nomination however, was about this being spam. That requires evaluation of different policies, most significantly WP:NPOV. Frankly that is a terrible AFD; everyone seems to be talking past each other without even discussing the same issues. The one party that mentioned WP:CORP in the discussion prior to the close hasn't seen it since the merge with WP:ORG settled down, as the stock market criteria was removed back in February. I frankly can't figure out what the closing admin should have done nor whether what they did do was reasonable. I think the spam claims are wrong given the criticism section in the article, but that the article did not demonstrate notability clearly. I think I'd have closed as no consensus and then speedy deleted for failing to assert notability myself. GRBerry 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. While the number of comments was not large, it is very clear that there was no consensus to delete. It does not seem appropriate for a closing admin to ignore keep arguments and basically state that he is applying a "speedy delete" criteria to close the discussion as a "delete". -- DS1953 ^talk 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion didn't meet WP:CORP didn't satisfy WP:N. I agree with GRBerry and would likely have taken the same action.--Dakota 07:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep Cyberpower and its PCs are quickly found with a google search, including long reviews of their products [5], [6], [7] which certainly are reliable (IMO) and independent (IMO.) The article needed a good clean-up and some NPOV, but that's all. Cyberpower Inc is one of the few companies to make customised PCs which are reviewed in major PC magazines. (Conflict of interest: I "voted" "Keep" at original AfD.) Mmoneypenny 20:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)