Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plum Canary (second nomination)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE, theatrically. -Splash 21:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plum Canary

A disputed close. I closed this with keep because there were 4 valid deletes, 1 valid keep, and 1 provisional keep (subject to conditions which appear to have been satisfied). Radiant has disputed this and, as his fashion, summarily deleted. I restore this and present it for reconsideration. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Previous deletion discussion
• No vote. I have no opinion on this and will take no part in the discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, for the usual reasons. —RaD Man (talk 17:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, legitimate call by Tony, not longer advertising. Kappa 18:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like a reasonable article now. JYolkowski // talk 18:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable software company founded last year. The only reason it exists is to advertise "Chirp", which I learn is "designed for simplicity". Sdedeo 18:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I find 96 Google hits (a fair bit of which are irrelevant) and no review of the software. Pilatus 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Entry contains nothing on why the company is unique or noteworthy. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn company, inappropriate action (as usual) by Tony Sidaway. Zoe 20:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no assertion of notability in the article. Even after cleanup, it is still simply exploiting Wikipedia to be a linkfarm. It was an appropriate speedy. Nandesuka 21:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Theatrics for extra impact

• Delete, advertising, no assertion of notability made in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. advertising. (Memo to myself: remember to ifd Image:PlumCanaryLogo.gif after this is closed.) —Cryptic (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I see no indication that the company is particularly notable, either in the article or in this thread. DES ^(talk) 00:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No notability described or implied. --Calton | Talk 00:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - This could have been done without the theatrics, though. - Tεxτurε 03:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert for a non-notable company. Quale 04:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Company is not notable, but Tony Sidaway's closing of the original debate as a "no consensus" keep was perfectly sound. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please explain how 80% for deletion is no consensus. Zoe 20:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I counted 4 delete, 2 keep. (OK, maybe I overlooked the fact that one of the keep votes was "conditional"). Never mind, the article seems to be headed for deletion this time around. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is correct. The original close was legitimate, with four votes to delete, one to keep, one conditional keep where the conditions had apparently been met because the article had been trimmed back as requested and only a small minority of voters stated that the company was non-notable. The article was of course immediately undeleted and relisted here after being summarily deleted by a third party after the legitimate close. I don't know where some editors managed to get the figure of 80% from; perhaps they decided to discount one of the keep votes other than the one by the article creator, which could be legitimately discounted. Even if the provisional keep vote isn't counted as a keep vote, it is a vote, so in my opinion shouldn't be discounted when weighing whether a consensus had been attained. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The two votes in favour of keeping were both dubious at best. This existing makes both humanity and Wikipedia slightly worse, and must be expunged from both existence and history. (hurrah for theatrics!) Bad faith undeletion by Tony. Proto t c 13:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure who undeleted (or deleted) what, and whether it was before (or after) whom undeleted (or deleted) what, and whether or not it was while which of the first or second deletion discussions or the undeletion discussion had or had not already been closed, by whom, properly or improperly. And I really hope nobody is going to bother to enlighten me. But it may not have been Tony. Whatever, just so long as someone makes the article go away. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • P. S. The rules say "Items sent here usually wait five days or so." It would seem to me that if an article has a relatively small number of votes and a ratio whose relationship to 2/3 isn't obvious, that it would be sensible to let the discussion mellow/simmer/fester a while longer, and see whether a clearer consensus emerges. Is there any reason why such a discussion couldn't be mentioned in RfC in order to draw in more voters? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It was me. The discussion had been closed eight days after being listed. An article deleted out of process, as this one was, can be undeleted by any sysop (undeletion policy#Exception) and that is my normal practice in disputed closes where a sysop unilaterally deletes after a close. In such circumstances I immediately relist the article for deletion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What I meant was that the circumstances are so tangled that fingerpointing is inappropriate. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - qualified. Look folks, I was the creator. I created this in good faith for the people I thought would look for it. I'm a big Wikipedia supporter. I've invested some hours of time (admittedly not tons, but a few hours nonetheless) in helping out with content in places where I know something relevant and hopefully useful. I created the Plum Canary page because I believe the company is attempting to solve a common problem in a novel way. So the page was created to recognize the novelty and provide a landing page that could be used for links in other pages where it is legitimate to talk about the software (e.g. the List of project management software page.). It appears from this second nomination that this page will get deleted. I obviously feel different about this conclusion, but I think in its current cleaned-up form it doesn't make the Wikipedia a worse place (despite the theatrically-condescending comment by Proto). (I won't even take the bait about making humanity a worse place.) I also wanted to go on the record as saying I put this page up in good faith, not to exploit Wikipedia as a link farm. (I *am* amazed at the amount of theatrics about a few bits on disc for a page that only interested parties are going to ever see....) Batsonjay 13:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.