Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 23

Rochester Institute of Technology Model Railroad Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admin Secret closed this discussion as delete. I brought the following reasoning to Secret's talk page but the response was to suggest bringing it to DRV, so here I am.

The article in question was modified during the discussion, which I pointed out as the final comment on the page, but no one ever went back to look at the article again to see if it was improved. Furthermore, I believe the established standard of "multiple reliable sources" was ignored in this discussion for no good reason, and thus that those arguments should have been given less weight in the analysis.

For example: Cirt's reasoning was that it was a) unsourced, b) non-notable, and c) original research. The revisions made to the article invalidated at least two and possibly all three of those arguments. It was no longer unsourced, which also meant it was no longer original research. Notability might still be an issue, but I believe it's established by precedent due to the multiple reliable sources that were found.

jj37 simply referenced Cirt's reasoning, and so that !vote is called into similar question.

LonleyBeacon never responded to my additional question and request for clarification; LB's objection was that the D&C articles were not primarily about the club, but the policy he quoted says only that coverage must be "more than trivial", which said articles demonstrably are. That objection to LB's reasoning was never addressed.

Storkk had similar concerns, but yet still only said "Weak Delete".

Bearian had no opinion on the main club article.

DGG mentioned only that "[a] single writeup in a hobbyist publication is not sufficient notability", which is true, except DGG apparently ignored the other reliable sources, and never responded to my question pointing that out.

So in my opinion, each of the delete !votes are either weak or have remaining unresolved questions. I don't think there was a clear consensus for deletion in that discussion. Powers ^T 20:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - a reasonable call by the closing admin of the debate. We are not here to second guess the AfD debate but to ensure that the AfD was properly closed. As a BTW, of the five references; two were from the club's own website, two were index pages and just one was a local paper report on an exhibition rather than on the club. Most all railway clubs, stamp collecting clubs, chess clubs, bridge clubs, bird-watching clubs (and I belong to at least two of these) can point to a similar range of references and most have a history way longer than 10 years. BlueValour (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It was my understanding that the issue when it comes to notability is not which sources are referenced in the article but which sources exist; I found sources that were not (yet) used in the article, yet several participants failed to provide a reason why thy didn't qualify under the notability guidelines (which merely call for "multiple" sources). Powers ^T 03:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - an admin can not go do research and then use his own assessment of the article and its issues to discount the comments left by those who participated in the deletion discussion. Instead the admin has to evaluate the comments, determine which are sound arguments with respect to policy and guidelines, and make a weighted decision based on what the participants said; not what they should have said. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure to what you're referring. The problem as I see it is that new information was introduced that indicated notability that was not addressed by earlier participants in the discussion; as such, the discussion should have been considered incomplete at best. Powers ^T 03:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• endorse the only other independent sources is a short article in the college's home-ciity newspaper and a special interest blog--albeit a good special interest blog. There is a place for material like this, but not WP. DGG (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The second source was a magazine, I believe, not a blog. Don't those two count as reliable independent sources? Powers ^T 03:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

generic trade group, speedied twice as G11 Davolson (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

On September 4 2008, Guy (user: JzG) speedied as G11 the entry for the "Product Development and Management Association". PDMA is a 30-year-old, highly respected non-profit 501(c)(3)professional organization of 3500 members worldwide. Among other activities, it publishes a highly regarded professional academic journal called "The Journal of Product Innovation Management", named as one of the top ten academic business journals in the world. The association's web site at www.pdma.org.

In Guy's reason for deletion, he called PDMA a "generic trade group"; it is not in any sense a "trade group", as it is not focused on any particular industry, does not do any lobbying, etc. It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit association, and is cross-industry in its focus on improving the professional practice of developing new products and services.

An association very similar to PDMA in its professionalism and mission is the American Marketing Association; and the AMA in fact has a Wikipedia page, and which has not been deleted like PDMA's has. There is no consistent or logical reason as to why there should be a Wikipedia entry for the American Marketing Association, and not one for the Product Development and Management Association, unless Wikipedia editors believe a highly-regarded professional association of 3500 members does not merit inclusion, when a larger association of some 38,000 members does. Is there some sort of cutoff point on membership size for inclusion? Is 3500 members simply "too small", regardless of its value and contributions (e.g., publishing a "top 10" academic journal)?

Guy, in response to my personal request to him that he reconsider, wrote me this: "It was pretty generic stuff, loaded with peacock terms and making no obvious claim of notability - for example, the fact that it has a magazine and an annual conference hardly distinguishes it from any other organisation, and 3,000 members worldwide is pretty small beer." But please look at the American Marketing Association entry, which is entirely "generic stuff"; the one for PDMA had, I believe, much more specific information about the association, like its history, mission, contributions to the practice of product development, etc.

I am particularly puzzled by his comment that the information "hardly distinguishes it from any other organizations", not knowing this is some sort of requirement for an entry on Wikipedia. PDMA is in fact completely unique, in its mission in being focused, for more than 30 years, on new product and service development. If the entry didn't do that, it perhaps wasn't very well-written; but the page is now completely blocked, without any way to improve its content.

I fully understand and endorse not letting for-profit companies use Wikipedia for their commercial advertising, but what about non-profit 501(c)3 professional organizations like PDMA (and the AMA, and others)? These are organizations which provide real value and information to people, worldwide.

I hope Wikipedia editors will reconsider this decision, or at least explain more clearly the reasons why this deletion stands, when the AMA page continues to exist on Wikipedia. Thanks very much for your consideration, whatever your decision. Davolson (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore - the deleting admin said "I believe the creator and sole editor is connected with this organisation". He may but that is not a ground for a G11; it is a ground for care in assessing the page. Undoubtedly the page is promotional but that is a matter that can be dealt with by editing. OTOH it is also well sourced; far better than many comparative articles. If the deleting admin has ongoing concerns then he can AfD but, in my view, a speedy deletion was improper. TerriersFan (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. There are some issues with the tone of this article, but the advertising isn't blatant, so it doesn't qualify for G11. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn & Restore certainly seems notable, the original article may have been unencyclopedic in its wording and the article creator may have had a COI but that isn't a good reason for speedy deletion. RMHED (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn & restore. This will allow a reasonable time period for the maintenance issues to be addressed. If it then still warrants deletion, an AfD can be instituted. Speedy was premature. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. that top 10 rating was based on JCR impact factor, an imperfect measure abut an unmistakable indication of notability for the publication. an organization that can do that would almost certainly be notable, as would the journal. But for the record, we adopt the same standards towards commercial and non-commercial organisations--both groups want publicity, and both frequently are the subjects of articles that are Publication Relations style pamphlets, rather than encyclopedic articles. DGG (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Vanderbilt, the Netherlands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

AFD debate was closed after 38 minutes per WP:SNOW with the statement that all places, irrespective of anything else, are notable. I'd agree if we were talking a larger village or a town, but the place is a hamlet with an apparent population of 54 with no reliable sources cited and no significance given - this place seems less notable than my street. I believe this should go through a full AFD and that the speedy keep was incorrect. -Halo (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: As I said on your talk page, arguing that a recognised settlement is not notable will not get you anywhere. If you want to argue that it is not a recognised settlement, feel free to take it back to AfD with my blessings, but no one was arguing that in the original AfD. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reopen AFD, no AFD, unless it's a blatant bad faith nomination, should be closed within 38 minutes of it opening, regardless of the circumstances. No one argued that it was not a recognized settlement because no one had the chance to do so. --Coredesat 14:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reopen the AFD. I agree strongly with Coredesat that speedy-closes should be very tightly limited. This was clearly inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure. The nomination was for a "non-notable location". Geographical locations have long been considered to be notable, regardless of their size. Therefore, the speedy keep. I see no reason to re-open this when the result will be exactly the same with some more keeps piled on. If there is a different reason to want a deletion (the nom thinks it may be a hoax, for example), then it can be listed in another AFD. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• I have no opinion on the closure of this particular AFD. What does concern me, though, is that the village of Vanderbilt doesn't exist. There is a town in the Netherlands called De Bilt, several Dutch Americans are called Vanderbilt, but there is no town, city, village or hamlet in the Netherlands called Vanderbilt, whether on the island of Texel or elsewhere. This article should be deleted as a hoax, regardless of the AFD. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Regardless of whether this discussion results in a "endorse" or "overturn" result, the article will go back to afd anyway. In the case of the former result, it will be nominated for deletion again as non-existent, and in case of the latter result, the afd will be reopened, with combined concerns of notability and existence. Is this deletion review, to decide whether the closure was correct, worth having, while an article on a possibly non-existent place remains? Or shall we call this discussion moot and reopen the afd right away - since that's the effective outcome either way? I'm in favor of closing this as moot unless anyone really wants to see the discussion through to the end. Thoughts? Picaroon (t) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd be for that. Just re-list it with a legitimate concern. No real need for this DRV if that is going to happen. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy reopen AfD - whatever the merits of this article it is incontrovertable that this AfD was wrongly closed out of process. BlueValour (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Re-list on AfD as a hoax/error/non-existent place, re-opening the original AfD will just muddy the waters needlessly (as any nomination of a geographical location for deletion as non-notable is going to be speedy kept, precedent is extremely well established). --Stormie (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Re-list AFD obviously the debate was not non-controversial. Wider input is required to determine concensus. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Closure was premature, 38 minutes is not long enough for consensus to be demonstrated. And besides, new arguments like non-existence might crop up. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reopen / relist with an explanation there is concern the place doesn't exist. Addhoc (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• • relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanderbilt, the Netherlands (2nd nomination) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

It's Legitmate Now JK (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey -- never tried posting in this section before, so hopefully I'm following protocol.

I was having a discussion with friends about the definition of "butterface", and one person in our party hadn't heard the term, and we recommended they wiki it. Surprisingly, there wasn't an entry, and it had been protected from creating one.

The original discussion back in 2004 seemed to favor deletion on the grounds that it wasn't a well known phrase, and that only Howard Stern appeared to be using it. Now, however, I think "butterface" is a pretty common phrase among the under-30 set, and I count 90,000 google entries for "butterface" (all with the same general description/usage), and another 60,000 for a two-word variety, "butter face" (again, all seemingly consistent).

At the very least, wikipedia should redirect to the existing wiktionary definition of butterface (which is correct.) This is what "MILF" does (redirects to the wiktionary def), and would therefore be consistent. JK (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, do not soft-redirect. Consensus was clear in the AFD and there's nothing here. Google hits aren't an indicator of notability, and neither we nor Wiktionary are Urban Dictionary. --Coredesat 03:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm arguing more on the grounds of consistency, based on similar terms. Most terms, like "BBW", get their own page. Others, like "MILF", redirect to wiktionary. Still others, like "Boy Toy", redirect to similar concepts (in that case, an article about age disparity in relationships.) I can't come up with a single similar term that is treated like "butterface" (i.e. no entry, banned from creating, no redirect, etc.) Maybe it belongs with the "perjorative terms for people" section?
• Endorse all 15 of the prior deletions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The entry already exists at Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and no soft redirect per Coredesat. Consensus was pretty clear in the AfD. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not consistent. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the AfD was properly closed. As it happens, butterface is a widely known term but the there is no evidence that it can be expanded from a dicdef to an encyclopaedic page. BlueValour (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Sounds similar to Zachary syndrome. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  Isn't it Ed Zachary syndrome? Will ^(talk) 11:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, deny soft redirect AfD trumps google. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is a slang dictionary definition that could not be anything more without original research, thus unencyclopedic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)