Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21

Wikipedia Review (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review (2nd nomination)

Deleted in 2005 because it was a "message board that has one thread" and "a possible hoax". Suspicions were probably well-founded at the time, but now it is a well-known website frequently listed next to Wikitruth as a forum for criticism of Wikipedia [1], [2]. Second link is especially important because it comes from a government agency. I think both websites are equally deserving of an article. Ashibaka (tock) 22:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. With a year and a half between the original discussion and now, and some evidence that it's more than what it was then, it's worth another look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted A non-notable message board with a relatively very small number of regulars who spend there whole time disparaging wikipedia, attempting to violate the privacy of wikipedians, and engaging in tittle tattle about the personal lives and sexuality of our users. No thanks. Worse that Encyclopedia Dramatica - and we don't do that. Non-notable, and self-referential.--Doc^g 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ummm, it seems you are making a judgement about the website itself rather than an argument about why the previous AfD should be upheld, what's wrong with my current sources, etc. Ashibaka (tock) 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I am, but still not notable. Would we even be discussing the inclusion of this if it wern't about us? No, we'd have speedied it and forgotten it.--Doc^g 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Neither cited article is primarily about Wikipedia Review. Both are about criticism of Wikipedia and simply name the site as a place where that happens. Please cite multiple non-trivial independent coverage of which Wikipedia Review is primary subject. Also plainly fails WP:WEB: 21,638 posts, 383 registered members, most users online was 174, on Fri 20th October 2006. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per Guy above, is just an aspect of criticism of wikipedia, and not notable in its own right. Our own article on Criticism of Wikipedia only gives it a passing mention. --Gmaxwell 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• undelete I think this is a question of COI--our COI as a group, in deciding which articles about boards/publications about WP are N. As we all know, the general line of the board is extremely critical of WP, and this gives the best of reasons to support an article about them--assuming that we can do one with NPOV--I haven't been able to find the earlier article. The site is actively discussed on slashdot & elsewhere, and the only way I now of to avoid my potential bias is to keep the article. Given th potential bias, that it isnt mentioned on other articles here is not relevant. DGG 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion way, way, way below WP:WEB standards. Our policies regarding self-reference mean we can't give this extra points just because it's about Wikipedia and most of us are aware of it at least in passing. We'd certainly delete a forum about woodworking, cross-stitch, or Sonic the Hedgehog given the same member count, Alexa rank, and availability of sources. Therefore, keep deleted per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The major thing about my sources is that they list Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review equally, i.e., they are both equally notable. Ashibaka (tock) 00:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think the sources listed are all that compelling. The most important things to mention about WR (such as the fact that there are several forums calling themselves WR, the people who founded for them and the reasons for the splits, the other people involved with WR) would impossible to verifiably cover, at least based on the two sources given in the DRV nom, which are passing mentions that contain no details about the forum(s). I wouldn't be terribly opposed to an AfD or anything that would drum up better sources or otherwise show that a proper article could be written here, but from the sources listed so far it looks like that would be a waste of time. But to recreate the article when the only verifiable information is "Wikipedia review is a site critical of Wikipedia" seems like a bad idea. A redirect to the Wikipedia criticism article would probably be a good thing. --W.marsh 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per JzG, wouldn't object to a redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. The sources mentioned by the nominator are little more than passing mentions, which are not enough for notability per WP:WEB. --Coredesat 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• undelete I wish we could routinely view articles for DRV. I haven't seen article but Slashdot activity alone could support notability and verifiability 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I refuse to overturn deletions when nobody can find even one reliable source about the thing, which this includes. We are in no way obligated to lower our standards for sites that criticize us. -Amarkov moo! 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Fails web; the only reason this is of interest to us at all is vanity. Odd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The sources provided by Ashibaka are sufficient to put a redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia, but do not provide any real information that we could use to write an article. Kusma (討論) 10:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Puppy - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming endorsement of the previous AfD, perhaps we should just end this debate at this point, redirect the page to Criticism of Wikipedia, and add the sources I found there. Ashibaka (tock) 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers

Asia Paranormal Investigators (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Initial reason for deletion is references linked back to their website. Although Article was improved with independent sources for notability, there was no further review by the admin and article was deleted. Firet 07:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I started finding reliable sources for this while the AFD was on but I got sidetracked. Okay, primary subject, lots of content and evidence for notability cache, decent coverage, would contribute to an article cache, moderate coverage, small coverage. They were covered in newpaper.asia1.com.sg, the full article is no longer online but some excerpts still are. Moderage coverage in German. The Singapore media seems to like them; it's apparently something of a novelty to have a group of sceptics running around. Anyway, there it is, multiple non-trivial reliable sources independent of the organization itself. WP:N is fulfilled, even if this was not made clear during the AFD. I think there may have been some WP:COI issues previously, but that can be monitored and prevented in the future. — coelacan talk — 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn or rewrite from sources above. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn since sources demonstrate clear notability and there was also a process issue. JoshuaZ 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

As already recently discussed in its talk page, the topic seems to regard a real, current and notable concept. Please read the discussion in the talk page before saying anything. Angelo 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What follows are a list of sources that define the term in various ways that are consistent with the definitions on the former article's talk page. I'll note that the term is used to denote a collection of "things to come" rather then a single entity and thus the definitions are necessarily provisional. 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

web based news journal http://web2journal.com/read/236036.htm

New york Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/business/12web.html?ex=1320987600&en=254d697964cedc62&ei=5088

Tim Berners Lee http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/23/business/web.php

St Petersberg times http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=20365

Japenses english language new site http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/culture/20070123TDY18004.htm

Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/features/e3i49998ef2b580e2b5461e3dfb1faedb43?imw=Y

Academic essay http://lee.webcoder.be/papers/sesa.pdf

Numskll 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. It's a real phrase and real concept, yes. A well-defined concept? No. Could anything in this article be useful to readers in the future? No. Is having an article about speculation regarding the Web better than normal speculation? No. Could we actually cause harm in creating this article by attempting to define a concept that is not defined? Yes. Once Wikipedia attempts to define it, our definition will become the status quo, and it will ultimately lead to us citing sources that were based on our own definition. --- RockMFR 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  If the speculation isn't our own we certainly can; for example, we have articles on cars that haven't come out yet but have been speculated on by experts in automotive magazines. Tim Berners-Lee is a significant expert and others have voiced similar opinions. Multiple, nontrivial sources means this is some notable speculation. With NPOV, we can avoid defining it ourselves while specifying which definitions have been made. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. The concept and roadmap is now defined congruently across several good references . This is what should be included in the article , not speculation or original research. There is no harm in referring to existing definition and descriptions. There is also significant interest in and demand for the article --Peter Campbell 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  There is harm, as Wikipedia is the de facto source for this type of information. If we were to not have an article, the definition of Web 3.0 might change or transform. Once we define it by selectively choosing sources which match the POV of the article's editors, that definition will strengthen and all other existing definitions will weaken. --- RockMFR 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  I disagree. Many editors would ensure POV is corrected for and all definitions are included. Following your logic, Wikipedia would not have any article on terms classified as emerging or those argued about, such as Web 2.0 or Service-oriented architecture -- Peter Campbell 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete Seven sources, come on. — MichaelLinnear 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, it seems to pretty definitively be tied to the Semantic Web; some of the sources are hazy, but none of them dispute that. change to a redirect, perhaps? Or just a stubby disambig with links to the specific concepts? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My issue there is that as I understand it the semantic web is one of the technologies that will comprise Web 3.0, the terms are not synomynous. The solution would be to have a section in the semantic web article that describes this context - which seems backwards. Numskll 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Here are are a series of articles that illustrate the point. [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Numskll (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
• Undelete. With sources like that, we should have an article. It may end up being too short for it's own article, but that's not our concern. -Amarkov moo! 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• undelete It may possibly be on the short side now, but it can be expected to increase. It is already N enough to include.DGG 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. If there isn't enough to say, we can always merge it to Web 2.0, but the current status (a useless self-reference at a point where we could at least have a useful redirect) is not good. Kusma (討論) 06:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. As somebody in the industry, I hate buzz-o-licious terms like "Web 3.0". And like "Web 2.0" people are using it to mean a couple of different things. But they aren't using it to mean anything at all, and I regret to say that people are using it. I think Night Gyr's stubby disambiguation page is all we need for now. William Pietri 08:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete: This is me, with apologies, parsing out RockMFR's objections.

  It's a real phrase and real concept, yes. A well-defined concept? No. It is a braodly defined concept but relatively well articulated. Just because some term is conflicted or slippery doesn't make it non-notable or unencyclopedic.

  Could anything in this article be useful to readers in the future? No. This, to me, is ridiculous on its face. An NPOV article on the topic certianly could be useful to those who stumbled across the term. In point of fact I'm advocating for its inclusion primarily because I directed someone to wikipedia to find out more about the term and found it locked down. I found its omission and wiki-forboden disapointing to say the least. Is no information really better then provisional informartion.

  Is having an article about speculation regarding the Web better than normal speculation? No. Except this speculation isn't pure specualtion as it is embedded in on-going and real world projects that surround building the web out for the future. We're not talkng flying cars here.

  Could we actually cause harm in creating this article by attempting to define a concept that is not defined? Yes. Once Wikipedia attempts to define it, our definition will become the status quo, and it will ultimately lead to us citing sources that were based on our own definition. Isn't that simply [somewhat self important] speculation? You don't want to allow us to publish a discussion of the term because of the possible harm it might cause to the Web? I'm not sure where to go with that other than to note that if the article is NPOV and accurate any definition we float will be necessarily accurate, thus obviating your f wikipedia dominating the term. Numskll 12:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• undelete - the argument that we shouldn't have an article is so completely specious that taken to its logical conclusion, we shouldn't have an article on _anything_ because wikipedia might be used as a source and cite sources that used it. --Random832(tc) 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep deleted article would still fail WP:NEO, and still be basically be a laundry list of all the times people have taken Web 2.0 and added one to it. Artw 15:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just read WP:NEO. The qualifiers offered by the policy seem to allow the the use of Web 3.0 by exception. The actual limiting policies then are WP:NOR and whatever the wiki code for the verifiable policy is. The article clearly passes on those accounts. I wonder if you're not getting caught up in the negative conotations of web x.x and buzz words in general? Numskll 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• undelete TBL and NYT as cites. The notion that WP can define a term in an industry with rigorous process of developing a standard is precious. Edivorce 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The TBL quote is, frankly, rather selective quoting and utterly disengenuous. The man doesn't even like the term Web 2.0. Artw 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I missed the WP that said a given auther had to like the term. Seriously, even if he used it with distain (which is indeed obvious from the source), he used it with the expectation that everyone would know what he was talking about. Numskll 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete a buzzword, but a notable buzzword. Seems like this could be turned into a decent enough article, given the sources above especially. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. Meets verifiability standards. Abeg92contribs 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)!
• Undelete. If it's something feel a need to look up, Wikipedia should contain an article on it - even if all it does is explain the ambiguities and problems associated with the phrase. I fail to understand where this protectionism came from. Nossac 20:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted: When it exists as a stable concept, then it can be defined in Wiktionary. When it exists as a stable thing, it can be described in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a proper home for lexical matters, and shifting concepts are linguistic counters rather than realities, and Wikipedia is not a proper home for vague musings about what might be. Even describing the contexts in which the term is employed is properly lexical and not encyclopedic. The fact that this is the contemporary Land of Cockagne is interesting, but it is sufficient to note, in the article on WWW2, that people are using the term "3" to describe what might one day be. There is no need for a separate article of speculation. Geogre 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is a speculative article on World War III, so being a stable concept is not a valid criterion for exclusion. A subject doesn't need to be locked down in concrete before a Wikipedia article can exist - there is still debate about what Web 2.0 is. Web 3.0 exists as a term. The important article criteria are that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are followed, viz WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability, WP:No Original Research, WP:What Wikipedia is not. The article can comply with all these. The references will address the WP:NEO concern about the Web 3.0 neologism being verifiable --Peter Campbell 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the applicable policy is the deletion guideline. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Your business is lexical, not encyclopedic, until there is more than a linguistic phenomenon to report. The article on Cloud Cuckoo Land should not say what it means but what it is. This is important. Concepts are not all that is needed for an encyclopedia: activity within culture and the world is what is needed. If there are disparate referents for the sign, you're in dictionary world. Geogre 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • The term applies to a set of concepts that might be thought of as the specific scope and nature of near term innovation and augmentation of the web. There are a number of features, identifed in the various sources, that make Web 3.0 a relatively coherent concept. It is not a simply a synonym for whatever comes after web 2.0. This, in my view, makes it fair game for wikipedia. Plus, I'm not certian "not in my backyard" is a productive posture for the enterprise before us. Numskll 15:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I've just reread the deletion policy and other then wikipedia is not a dictionary or a crystal ball( both of which are in my view inapplicable for reasons given here) there deosn't seem to be a criteria that fits. Are those your basis for excluding this topic? Numskll 15:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete We know the concept exists. We know the term exists. We know the term is used for the concept. The concept will change, but that doesnt prevent an article. WP manages to keep up with change quite well, especially on this sort of topic. Trying not to have the article now, when we know there will be one in a few weeks or months is irrational--any reasonable person would expect to find an article on this here.DGG 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think your distinction of term vs. concept is an important one and perhaps part of the hang up folks are having with the article. Numskll 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete per the commenters above, the concept is notable. Yamaguchi先生 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Rob Frieden academic paper Internet 3.0: Identifying Problems and Solutions to the Network Neutrality Debate Feb 2007 (Internet rather than Web, and I'm having no joy opening the pdf, but I thought I'd throw it in) Wwwhatsup 09:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete I read most of the arguments above and it seems logical to undelete the article. Although it might not have a definite definition, it satisfies WP:NEO in that it's mentioned in various reputable sources. Only a definition on Wiktionary is too shallow for the entire subject. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. It's a notable concept, with plenty of external source material, and deserves its own page. --Careax 17:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. It's hard to see many 'Web technologies' as a holistic system, and even harder to define it and give it versioning numbers. But people are using the term and that by itself should justify a Wikipedia entry. At least we would then have an informative page where it says "Web 3.0 is hard to define because people are referring to the integration of various web-related technologies, however ....". -hthth 02:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete I came on Wikipedia to read about Web 3.0 tonight. Was surprised to find it locked. Would favor unlocking and at least describing why it's hard to define, etc. InvictaHOG 03:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Better Badges (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

1) Better Badges was a vital/unique part of UK punk culture & a pioneer in viral promotion. 2) Deleter asked for reference and one was given but ignored. Wwwhatsup 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete and re-run (or re-open) AfD. The one reference quoted looks good (here it is) and the AfD had an extremely low vote count. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Did a little research, found a New York Times mention from 2001, and a brief mention in a book called "Post Punk Diary". Both of these are just mentions, but I'm inclined to think that a good article on Better Badges in possible. If it gets undeleted, I'll try to find even more sources for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking, Andrew. There are two more pages to that referenced article in The Face - ([4] and [5]).
    • The Post Punk Diary mention [6] refers to the Better Badges 'Top Ten' which was printed weekly in the back of the NME, and a recognized indicator of buzz.
    • Simon Reynolds' book Rip It Up and Start Again: Post Punk 1978-1984,P.213 [7], refers to BB's symbiotic relationship with Rough Trade, his source was likely Tom Vague's Pop History Of Notting Hill [8]
    • Tony Fletcher in a history of his fanzine Jamming! describes how he came to get it printed at BB [9]
    • Marc Johnson's book An Ideal For Living notes that one of Rob Gretton's first acts as Joy Division's manager in 1979 was to order badges from BB [10].

I realize that the page as it stands is not up to much, but I think it could be built on.Wwwhatsup 03:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Yes, this is enough new evidence to justify further discussion. I would suggest that the article be given to Wwwhatsup in userspace now, so that there's a little time for the new cites can be woven into the article, and then relist in a couple of days. — coelacan talk — 08:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Copy userfied at User:Wwwhatsup/Sandbox. GRBerry 14:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by closing administrator. I am okay with a relist but the evidence produced by Wwwhatsup includes sources of no good notability, some amateur sites, a weblog etc. I am not sure about the pinstand.com website though, and that still fails multiple. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closer acted within bounds of reasonable discretion. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and whack into more acceptable shape by early next week. Excuse me for being a bit green. What I guess is best is to keep it brief and put the unsourced or dodgy sourced info on the talk page? I have the copy of The Face in question. I could rescan it, but where to post, or how best to refer? Wwwhatsup 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • One more source. 2003 Village Voice article Bootlegger's Banquet [11] Wwwhatsup 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)