Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 March 8
2009 March 10 >

9 March 2009

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

The result of the discussion was keep, most people voted so but somehow the page has been deleted. I see no point at deleting that page when Longest word in English and Longest word in Spanish still exists. Deleted page was much more better and longer than the Spanish page, and sourced. But somehow, Longest word in Spanish has been decided to be kept. This is discrimination, Longest word in Turkish should be revived.--Cfsenel (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Neutral. If I read and tabulate the AfD discussion correctly, it was either a keep or no consensus. According to my counts, there were 6 "keeps" (two of which weren't opposed to merging), 1 "merge", and 3 "deletes" in addition to the nominator. I realize these discussions aren't votes, but after reading the actual arguments for deletion or keeping, I fail to understand how this discussion was interpreted as "delete". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As David Fuchs pointed out on his talk, he disregarded (correctly, in my opinion), !votes not grounded in policy or guidelines. Such !votes included "it appears to be real, and might be useful" and "virtually anything of record-breaking reknown seems notable around here". Stifle (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment-Stifle has pointed out my comments, and for anyone interested my initial reply to the close is here. Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, another possible reason for the Longest word in Spanish to be kept is that it actually had significant sources; the only sources present in the Turkish articles were from questionable Turkish sources. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point David. Sources are a problem. But the fact that they are in Turkish shouldn't be a problem. Since I do not read Turkish, I cannot comment on the idea that they may or may not be questionable. I'm revising my recommendation to neutral for now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source cited in the article was "Yeni Mesaj", a Turkish newspaper affiliated with a political party, which evidently is common in Turkey; whether that makes it's linguistic articles untrustworthy is an interesting question - not addressed in our policies per se nor in the afd. We seem to divide sources into reliable ones and not reliable ones without discrimination with respect to topics. Just as I wouldn't necessarily take the US Govt as a reliable source regarding whether there were WMD's in Iraq, I think it safe to rely on the US Gov't as a source regarding whether Austin is the capital of Texas. But I don't think we need to go to such hair-splitting to figure out that a Turkish newspaper's articles on the Turkish language is probably reliable even if they may slant reporting of a political nature to favor their party. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn nowhere in the deletion guidelines allow a closer to go against the community's views because his unilateral view that the sources were "questionable". If we are permitted to do so, I'd like that spelled out - and if the deletion here is OK'd, that'll be endoresement enough and all admins will be empowered to delete anything with questionable sources regardless of community input. Not particularly an attractive situation, but alas, where we may be headed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Nobody in the AfD discussion said that the Turkish language sources were "questionable", so the closing admin shouldn't use that as a reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closing admin did not provide a rationale in their closure which is clearly required when going against the majority of votes so everything is transparent. Looking at the delete votes in the discussion. One said that it should be in the Turkish Wikipedia which would be a clear case of systemic bias. Another suggested a merge as an alternative and the third said this type of article was an indiscriminate collection of information without explaining how they thought that applied. Any claim the sources are questionable wasn't backed up with proof and there were at least two merge targets that could have been used as an alternative (Longest words (good target for all the articles Atmoz wanted to delete) and Turkish language). Overall I found the arguments weak on both sides, but it was clear there were merge alternatives to discuss and it was also clear that no good reasons for deletion were provided (which should result in a keep regardless of the keep rationales because that is the default decision when bad nominations are made) - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The AfD nominator's concerns were: "Unsourced. I don't speak Turkish so I'm not sure if this is a hoax or not. Can someone who is Turkish help us out?" I think these concerns have been answered; it is not a hoax, apparently, and sources have been added by User:Cfsenel. (I must admit that I do not speak Turkish and so cannot vouch for validity of these sources; more eyes are needed here, perhaps.) Moreover, some arguments for deletion in the above AfD are not very strong; e.g. "The longest word in Turkish may belong on the Turkish Wiki ... [b]ut there is no real point I see in having a longest-word article for an individual world langusge on the English wiki"; this is against the spirit of countering systemic bias -- if an article is notable enough for Turkish-speaking people, there is no reason not to have it here on English Wikipedia. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The argument for deletion, as cited by Ekjon Lok, was flimsy. The closing admin ignored consensus, which was opposed to deletion. This entire episode raises WP:CSB concerns. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Contrary to the closer's belief, there were no policy-based deletion arguments made in this discussion. WP:DICDEF wasn't even mentioned in the discussion, and simply stating "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is no more a valid argument to delete than it would be to simply state "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" as an argument to keep. It is not reasonable to expect those arguing to keep to "refute" arguments that weren't actually made. The consensus was clearly to keep. DHowell (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete the article. As Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, even !votes that are currently not in line with current policy should be given some weight in deletion discussions as possible evidence of changes in community consensus regarding the policy. -Atmoz (talk) 18:55, 11 March 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.
J Stalin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After comming about several Bay Area people related articles I ran into J-Stalin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin, were mared with sockpuppetry and interference in addition to bickering between editors, votes were never allowed to finish and there was never any consensus, the subject in question has what I consider to be significant notability and reliable sources issues. I believe it needs to go to AfD again or simply be deleted, there is only one source that has non-trivial coverage and its not really enough. Troyster87 (talk) 04:54, 9 March 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.
Sibeam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

A previous version of the article, with which I was not involved was deleted several months ago. The current version of the article was in poor form when I spotted it and helped fix it. Then, the article was deleted without a prod, any form of notice or AfD. The article asserts the notability of the company and there was already the formation of a referenced start level article. The company has been covered in a variety of newspapers and is being funded by large , well-known venture capital firms. The original AfD does not apply as (i) the article under consideration was very different and (ii) the AfD discussion was minimal. To reassert the deletion from that AfD to this article does not seem appropriate. The deleting Admin did not seem willing to discuss / justify the decision to delete and suggested only a deltion review as a remedy.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore, G4 only applies if the copy was "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." Assuming this was not the case and that there were no other egregious, speedy-deletable problems with the article it should at least have another AfD discussion. Perhaps an admin could confirm that there was indeed a substantial difference between the versions? ~ mazca t|c 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those with the actual ability to see the deleted content seem to be unanimous that it's not much of an improvement. ~ mazca t|c 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, with the sources provided I see no reason why another attempt at an article can't be undertaken, by all means restore and it can be relisted at AfD if the problems persist. ~ mazca t|c 07:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was previously deleted at the title SiBEAM, and the recreation under different capitalization seems like it could be an attempt to avoid scrutiny of the page. The two deleted pages, though somewhat different in wording, are about the same subject, and the newer version failed to cite any non-blog sources. I endorse the deletion and recommend protection of Sibeam and SiBEAM to prevent further recreation against consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (latest admin to speedily delete). The article about Sibeam wa deleted at AfD and then subsequently speedily deleted as re-created material three times—this is just the latest incident, making it the fourth overall deletion. Each deletion has been by a different admin. As the admin who performed the latest deletion, I did not find the version that was deleted at AfD and the version I deleted to have remedied any of the problems of the original—still no reliable sources, still sounds written like an advertisement, still no indication of notability. I recommended DRV to the complaining editor in an attempt to finally stop the cycle of deletion and re-creation that has been going on for some weeks now. Nominator is incorrect that the article was deleted without "any form of notice". It was tagged for speedy deletion by an editor, which in the circumstances was an entirely appropriate response to it being re-created for the third time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I seem to recall deleting some version of this along the way as well - it's popped up under numerous different capitalizations. Any article on a company that regurgitates the company's press releases and sources itself to its website has not overcome the AfD issues; and any repeated recreations like this over-and-over is gaming ths system and likely someone with a COI. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (in favor of Restore) - To the point made by Stifle and the Deleting Admin a couple of quick observations:
(1) The article was recreated after an AfD delete, although not by me. If this had been all that happened I would potentially agree that the original AfD should stand and the deltion of the article makes sense per 64. However, at this point I noticed the article as the portfolio company of a venture capital firm I was working on and thought that the company was sufficiently notable to work through the issues in the article. My course of action was to help establish the company's notability first and also to make sure the article was clean enough for Wikipedia standards as this sector is not my primary area of expertise.
(2) the article is different enough that G4 should not apply. The article that was deleted did a poor job of establishing notability and was also not particularly well written or written by a user with significant familiarity with Wikipedia policies. As a result it probably should have been deleted. I would argue that the level of discussion in the AfD was also limited so it is not as though there was broad discussion and real concensus that the company is not notable (please note that the company is widely covered in its own sector, as well as in the venture capital industry and was written up in the New York Times among other general interest publications.
(3) My original intent was to fix the article where I had found it and then ultimately move to SiBEAM but the article was deleted before that occured. I redirected SiBEAM to Sibeam in the interest of transparency. I think a simple review of my work would justify my good intentions.
If there are still issues with the article these should be worked through in the proper fashion with the addition of new content and references. This is not a case of a spam article or a non-notable company - it is a notable portfolio company of two leading venture firms New Enterprise Associates and US Venture Partners. In my judgment the article should be restored so it can be further improved. and I think the suggestion that the space should be protected does not make much sense to me.

Looking at some of the Endorse comments, I think you are painting this version of the article with the same brush as previous ones. I would propose restoring the article, allowing time for edits and if you are not happy propose a new AfD discussion. Think that is a fair enough solution. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any items of substantial reliable source coverage about SiBEAM that you can point to? Your point is fair enough, but I can pretty much guarantee that if this goes back to AfD with blogs for sources then it's just going to get deleted again as comprehensively failing WP:N. I have no problem with you working the article up, but I haven't seen much evidence that it can be rebuilt in a policy-compliant way. ~ mazca t|c 23:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think notability can be established through material third party coverage of the company. Just as a start:
  • A real AfD was held; no one added these sources, some of which are still no more than parrotted press releases from the company (see the 2nd on the list above) and short articles without significant coverage (see the CNN, NYT Times Deal Book blog, and some of the others. I suggest that it be userfied to Urbanrenewal and see what he/she can make of it - without using blogs or tangential or short coverage. Most non-notable businesses get written up on occasion, that doesn't make then notable by WP standards; the 7-11 franchise in town has been written up a few paragraphs each time it's robbed or has the lowest gas prices around. Doesn't make it notable....or now does it? After 3 deletions, we shouldn't be forced to buy a pig in a poke. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed you nominated the article for its original deletion asserting "unreferenced article about a small company that has no indication of its significance; it is also written like an advertisement". I never saw that article but assume that was correct. The only other comments were "No indication of notability" and "A non-consumer tech business that contains no showing of importance". I am not sure why you are trying to diminish the articles I cited. There are tons more but the key items I see are that this is a company which has garnered large amounts of attention for its significant venture capital funding, it has been profiled in industry publications as an up and coming tech company and was profiled on CNN / Fortune. I don't see a lot of 7-11's with that kind of coverage. And these are the publications for its industry. There is no criteria that articles be long as long as the coverage is notable. I think you are establishing a criteria that is higher than for any other article. And I am not going to spend a lot of time on an article that is just going to get deleted without notice. The article should be restored to the main space for it to be edited. The article does not have a major fatal flaw that would require it go into my user space first. I am happy to do it that way but don't want to have this whole discussion again next week.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't an article for every 7-11. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore AfD was closed just fine, but sources have now been found. some of the above are press releases, but others have bi-lines from significant news sources in the field. (EEtimes in particular). Sending to AfD might be in order, but it's clear to me this company hits our notability guidelines. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit restoration with the additional sources. per Stifle, he found two that he had access to that he considered reasonable, and that is sufficient. The others can also checked, many libraries have access & there is no prohibition in the least against using pay sources. As for the 7-11 comparison, the local 7-1's dont get written up by sources of national circulation and major importance in their industry. The company does, & it is notable. DGG (talk) 13:52, 10 March 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_March_9&oldid=1140155907"