Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 15

Flexible Architecture for Simulation and Testing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Went through AFD and was deleted apparently on the basis that it was felt to be a minor research project / just someone's PhD thesis. Based on 15+ years familiarity with the Computer Architecture literature, there aren't that many similar forwards looking major CA research projects in progress at any given time. Within the field, it's notable. Vote counting should not overrule field specific notability. The AFD close as delete was incorrect; the article should be restored or be allowed to be recreated. Georgewilliamherbert 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with deletion Justification in the AfD was "A PhD project that worked" Individual projects like this are NN--just like individual papers . Here's the link to the project web site. DGG 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait---so if someone writes a thesis about a topic, that's proof that it's NN? As both victim and perpetrator of Stanford's thesis process, I find this logic to be somewhat backward!?Su-steve 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• So, umm, where is the coverage by independent sources? If there is field specific notability, such sources will exist. If they can be shown, there is a case here. Otherwise, I have to say that the right decision was reached in the AFD. GRBerry 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I can put it in context, at least. FAST was one of the low level components of Stanford's Smart Memories and Hydra projects; the 4 authors on the 2005 ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News paper were John D. Davis, Stephen E. Richardson, Charis Charitsis, and Kunle Olukotun. See Sun’s Big Splash, IEEE Spectrum Jan 2005 for why Olukotun is significant - that's Sun's (originally Afara's) UltraSPARC T1 "Niagra" CPU that they're talking about there, which Olukotun did a major part of the design of. That commercial project in many ways conceptually came out of the Stanford Hydra parent project, which FAST is a component of for future research. Sun's releasing the second generation Niagra soon, and the third is being tipped. Does that make sense and help? Georgewilliamherbert 01:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

sounds like any content can go into the above pages somewhere.DGG 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Do not delete. FAST is part of a bigger spectrum of work looking at ways of developing fast, accurate and credible computer architecture research. Processor design is at a point where validating designs cannt be done with any credibility using software simulators. The recent past and current FPGAs makes it possible to develop research and industrial prototypes that run at hardware speeds. This makes application development possible, not to mention credibility. This is one of many (sucessfl) projects that use hard in computer architecture, both from industry (Mentor Graphics, Ikos, Tharas, etc.) and academia (RPM, FAST, BEE, BEE2, RAMP, etc.) The main issue with this article seemed to be the copyright problems with the pictures. I used one of the CC specified on wikipedia and stated, as I have seen on other pages that the pictures, if used show reference me and the source. The picture copyright is a minor issue that can be resolved. FAST is the first chip multiprocessor prototyping platform specifically designed to investigate novel memory systems that can be used to prototype multiple systems, amoritizing the cost and reusing the infrasturcture. RPM was a project in the mid 1990's that tried to monitor multiprocessor systems. Recently, the Berkeley Emulation Engine (version 1 and 2) focused on DSP architecture and later some general conputer architecutres. This work is notable and is explored in other forums: WARFP 2005, WARFP 2006, WARP 2007, as well as using reconfigurable HW for CA research at ISCA. There is also the large RAMP project that is the successor to FAST and pursues FAST's main motivation. Finally, the other thing to note is that FAST is the also suitable for building transactional memory systems like TCC or other hardware or hybrid transactional memory systems. This work started a new hot topic in CA. FAST was the predecessor to the ATLAS work done to realize a real implementation of TCC in hardware. ATLAS is not precise enough to replicate the TM hardware due to its memory hierarchy design and can only be used for software development, not architecture evaluation. FAST can be used for both software development and architecture evaluation of transactional memory systems like TCC because of its flexibility and design. Su johnd 06:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This work was also a part of a dasCMP 2005. This is a peer-reviewed/refereed workshop dealing with the design, architecture and simuluation of Chip Multiprocessors. This fits within the rules of what can be placed on Wikipedia with respect to published work.Su johnd 16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In reading the deletion log, the copyright appeared to be the issue and not the content of the article. The copyright was set so that the pictures could be used if the source was referenced. A CC option presented on Wikipedia was used for the images. Please advise as to why this was a problem. This issue is easily resolved.Su johnd 06:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Do not delete. I have a PhD in Computer Architecture and have been working in the field for over 20 years, having contributed both to academic projects (MIPS at Stanford) and several industrial designs (SPARC, MIPS and PowerPC). I have also taught graduate-level computer architecture at Stanford University. I originally encouraged John to write the FAST Wikipedia article as part of a larger effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the field of Computer Architecture, which seems to be somewhat chaotic but slowly improving...Su-steve 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Do not delete. FAST is the first among several projects marking a much larger trend emerging in computer architecture, the trend whereby FPGA's can mimic or even replace cutting-edge processors, in this case a CMP. FAST provides a crucial historical context for talking about these projects, and Wikipedia is the place where people want to go to learn about this context. FAST, and its parent project Hydra, easily take their place among other seminal architecture efforts that began in Universities, notably Hennessy's MIPS (Stanford), which went on to become one of the world's most prevalent embedded processors; Patterson's RISC (Berkeley), which went on to become the basis for Sun Microsystems' SPARC architecture, Bill Dally's J-Machine (MIT), and so forth.Su-steve 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Who are Su-steve and Su johnd, why do they have similar usernames and edit the same articles, and why are they "voting" more than once here?? wikipediatrix 17:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think that they get the discussion protocols here; it's sort of odd but not going to hurt the discussion. I will discuss on their talk pages later... Georgewilliamherbert 22:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion No flaws in process; close was within discretion. Little evidence from independent sources of notability, and a very spammy, unencyclopedic tone, so deletion also justified from a pure examination of the merits. A major rewriting, with reliable sources is always welcome. Xoloz 16:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I feel that this band has been to quickly deleted as a "non-notable" band simple because the administrators who have closed the deletion reviews have not heard of the band and do not know or care to search for notablity, I am not a fan of this band and I'm not showing bias but even when you do a google search for the band you would understandably find everything about the book or movie on the first page but instead there are two links for the band, and if you put in "the devil wears prada band" in google search you will find over 560,000 pages about the band. The band is ranked first on the charts on Purevolume.com link here and 8th on the Metal and Hardcore charts metal charts link here, Hardcore charts link here. Now if you want to set aside the Purevolume charts, on myspace the band has well nearly 6 million plays and they are ranked 3rd among christian artists. Also I feel that this page would be much better if it is restored to be restored to the original page (not the article that was most recently deleted) Joebengo 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Allow re-creation. Upon searching I find that a reasonable case for notability can be made. The AfD from last year had minimal participation and some of the comments have been overtaken by later events. We should have an article on this topic. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. This is a circus subjective deletion. I believe the article is notable enough to withstand the scrutiny of Wikipedia.--WaltCip 22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. Per what I stated above, I forgot to vote.--Joebengo 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question: is the Rise Records they're signed to the Rise Records we have an article on? If so, it's not a vanity label, like the AfD says. They have an entry at allmusic, and the exact same entry at artistdirect. Allow recreation. Corvus cornix 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is signed with Rise Records, in my mind a very notable record company.--Joebengo 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

deleting admin inaccurately believes wikipedia entry for a 140 y.o. martial art system is an advertorial/COI, would not offer constructive advice for alternatives after two polite emails (can be provided upon request); instead admin reacted by adding article to the protected titles list. Fujowpai 20:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC) — Fujowpai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• List at AfD. I don't know if this was the article that was the original copyvio, but a) a martial arts system doesn't qualify for A7, b) reading only what I can see here, I don't know how spammy it was (not that it's easy to spam a 19th-century martial arts program, and c) COI is no reason for speedy deletion. A history undeletion would be helpful here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Deleted once as copyvio, deleted second time as G11 (note username is same as subject) and A7 (no evidence of significance, no independent sources). Classic vanispamcruftisement is how it looked to me. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist: Proposed content to replace copyvio is still visible in talk/temp; username matches article name to differentiate between my personal edits/comments vs those done on behalf of the organization. Regarding process: would be happy to have admins or other editors recommend changes to a live article, the disatisfaction is with speedy delete. Fujowpai 21:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (J Scribner)
• List at AFD The editor with the username of the related organization is not the one that originated the copyright violation. I can't be at all upset when someone whose copyright has been violated actually helps create a replacement article. I don't see problems bad enough in the replacement to prevent a run at AFD. GRBerry 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• List at AfD. It was not unquestionably non-notable or impossible to be made into an article apart from the . copyvio that has been removed. DGG 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 8 GHits for 虎爪派 ("Fu Jow Pai" in Chinese).[1] One of those might constitute a non-trivial mention in a reliable, independent source [2]. cab 00:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Game (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and I don't care how unencyclopedic you think it is, and there is new evidence that asserts notability and verifiability.
It was mentioned in Company magazine, January 2007, Love it! magazine, at some point in November 2006, and also March 2007, plus it will be in a new issue soon (but that would be crystal balling to mention it!) as a full article. The game was also mentioned on John Moores University and Liverpool University's website plus Motor Trend's website as a joke piece, and in other sources, notably More magazine (where Danielle Lloyd has admitted she is a celebrity player/follower of this game!) These are all non-trivial reliable sources that prove its notability and verifiability, and the article should be undeleted so we can discuss this again. And don't go speedy closing this deletion review like you've done before... discussion is important. Do we have to keep speedy closing this?? People can discuss The Game (game) if they wish to. --Axflower 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. At this point, I think it's probably most proper, seeing as we have three new sources being presented since the final deleting AfD over a year ago, to relist this to see if this consensus still exists. With a renewed focus on verifiability, it'll have some hurdles, but we may as well relegitimize this for our own sake. In a completely worthless personal experience anecdote, I hadn't really heard of it before the deleting AfD, and I hear about it a lot more now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• This trolling is getting old. Corvus cornix 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Niwa niwa niwa niwa tori ga iru (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

While I cannot fault Mailer Diablo's counting of the !votes, I think the reason for deletion (that the subject is a Japanese phrase) weak. I pointed out (after the initial pile-ons) that there is no reason for the English Wikipedia not to have an article on a Japanese phrase, and seem to have turned the tide - later !votes agreed. (Moving to an English translation, like Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den, is another question; the problem is that part of the interest of the phrase is its ambiguity.) Relist for further consideration Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Any sources to demonstrate some notability of this particular phrase? Absent that, I believe that the consensus in the AFD is clearly for a delete. After Septentrionalis's opinion there was one keep opinion, and one unusual opionion of delete, create a new article on a different topic (via translation from ja.wikipedia), then merge this into the new article. I recall looking at this AFD last night, and refraining from opining delete because the consensus was clear, so if someone is so inclined they can count me as a delete opinion subsequent to the keep opinions. Accordingly, endorse delete closure. GRBerry 18:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (Clarifying if needed, I have no objection to userfication. GRBerry 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
• Endorse The deleted article had no sources. The afd asked for evidence of notability, since we can't just document every phrase we find interesting with zero sources. While "this is the ENGLISH wikipedia" is a bad reason for deletion, the legitimate reasons to delete were never addressed. If you can find a source talking about the phrase, I'd have no objection to bringing it back. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse In the AfD PM asked to have this userfied in case it gets deleted. So let's do that rather than try to find procedural errors that aren't there. ~ trialsanderrors 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The nomination statement was bad, but the other arguments still apply. Such as the lack of sources. -Amarkov moo! 03:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — If you're only worried about notability, it's guaranteed to be notable as a "Japanese tongue-twister" (Hayakuchi kotoba). See this list of Japanese tongue-twisters. Two variations from our deleted article (#22 & #30) show up on this short list (containing only 31 entries).--Endroit 16:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • we need someone to write about it, not just repeat it verbatim. A list of blonde jokes isn't an encyclopedia article about them, and a list of tongue twisters isn't a sufficient source to write a proper article about one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Would it help if I translated the Japanese Wikipedia's Tongue-twister (ja:早口言葉) article, although most of it reads like a list? It covers mostly Japanese tongue-twisters, so I'll make it exclusively about Japanese tongue-twisters (and call it that). Since userification has already been done at User:Pmanderson/Niwa niwa niwa niwa tori ga iru, I can merge the two articles after translation.--Endroit 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If that article doesn't cite any secondary sources about the tongue twisters, it won't be any better. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        • It cites 2 sources:
          1. http://www.uebersetzung.at/twister/ This one is essentially the same as this one I mentioned above.
          2. http://www.nobi.or.jp/i/kotoba/hayakuchi/index.html This one is in Japanese, and lists various Japanese tongue-twisters.

        --Endroit 14:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

        • Also, I found this nice wiki site in French (not related to Wikipedia), which we can use as well.--Endroit 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John Alves Arbuthnot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Opinions had changed from delete & keep to merge. Closing as delete prevents a merge from occurring. John Vandenberg 05:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. A tough choice, but the dicussion was a valid AfD (seems to on consensus, over 5 days). Of course, I can userfy if you wish. Sr13 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge. Consensus to delete was not present. No consensus and merge would have been more reasonable conclusions than delete. Arguments to delete did not consider options to merge, and references to WP:N ignored its applicable section on merging. --SmokeyJoe 06:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion looks like a reasonable interpretation of the debate. --pgk 06:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Part of a mass of arburthnotcruft - mostly with circular referencing or to the creator's own site. The merge target may be dubious as well, so I suggest we let the deletion stand.--Doc^g 07:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Userify, in Kittybrewster's space if he wants it. A redirect does not require DRV, and I recall the data here as limited. Kittybrewster's documents are mostly online. (I see several deletes after merge was suggested.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Notable enough. Don't go calling it arbuthnotcruft - WTF?? --Axflower 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This editor account has been blocked indefinitely as a troll (see Axflower (talk · contribs)). --Kinu ^t/_c 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question Why do we need to overturn to permit the rewriting of the small amount of usable content within a Arbuthnot family article? DGG 00:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Because there has been a spat of Afds of Kittybrewer's contributions. I would prefer to see the history of this article underneath the "John Alves Arbuthnot" redirect rather than a redirect without a history; that way the content is accessible after all of these Afds have finished. Note that Arbuthnot family is also up for deletion, so its hard to know where to merge this content at the moment. John Vandenberg 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, but userify if wanted. The discussion was wide-ranging and polarised, but at the end there was a clear swing towards delete which makes that the best interpretation of the debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, agree with BrownHairedGirl's reading of the debate. Eusebeus 11:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)