Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 4

User:TJ Spyke/PPV Win Percent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article (which is obviously a subpage) was speedy deleted yesterday by User:Alkivar. His reason listed was that it was original research, which is NOT a reason a article can be speedy deleted according to WP:CSD. The subpage was also being discussed at WP:MFD and had only been listed 1 day earlier (and had 1 keep vote and 0 delete votes), I had set up a discussion at WP:PW asking the other members for suggestions and help in turning it into a full article. Alkivar also has a potential COI here since he has indefinitely banned me twice before (the first time was when he accused me of violating WP:BLP, but this was overturned after a few hours after I showed that I had not violated it. The second time is more complex, but basically he unilaterally decided to give me an indefinite block while my situation was still being discussed at WP:AN.) While the page could end up being deleted (although I hope not), I think it's pretty clear that it shouldn't have been speedy deleted by anyone yet alone someone with a COI. TJ Spyke 19:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn. Anything that has survived any kind of XfD discussion should never be speedy deleted. Also, the "no context" arguments make no sense as it was a page being created on userspace. If it was actively being edited, there is no reason to speedy delete as "no context". And I'm not entirely sure about the arguments about "Wikipedia is not your webhost". When the creator argued in the first MfD that he was trying to create a sourced article of statistics, that argument should have died. However, the big point here is that this is an extremely out of process speedy deletion, as it had already survived an MfD once.Smashville 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Already went through Mfd. There are no fundamental problems on this page. --- RockMFR 22:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. "OR" is not a reason for speedy deletion. Expecially on a user subpage which may still be under construction. Plus, I'm pretty sure that if you have admin powers, you're not supposed to speedily delete something flat-out, you're supposed to put the tag on and let another admin look at it before it's deleted (a second set of eyes). Was this the case? If not, we have misuse of admin powers in addition to an improper deletion.--UsaSatsui 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Alkivar has had a problem with me for quite some time, I think that may have had something to do with it. If it had been from someone else instead of me, I don't think he would have deleted it right away. TJ Spyke 01:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was sent the link on IRC, and was unaware of any MFD in progress at the time. Overturn and send back for completion of MFD.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This page was deleted after (only) three delete votes (counting the suggestion of deletion) on the grounds that it was referring to a Conflict of interest with no Reliable Source and it not being Noteworthy. I argue against all these points in sequence: * Conflict of Interest: Yes, Vinay Gupta the inventor of the Hexayurt contributed to the page making corrections and additions. But several other people also did so. The neutrality of the article was never disputed and this would not have been brought up as an issue if Vinay had used a pseudonym for a username. * Reliable Sources: The article referenced at least two reliable sources, both of which Vinay restated during the deletion discussion: The New York Times [1] (which I believe is a fairly Reliable Source) and the book Architecture For Humanity [2] (which is perhaps not typically encyclopædic but is nontheless authoritive). It perhaps should also be noted that the Hexayurt has been featured repeatedly on Treehugger [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], which is considered by people in the Sustainable Technology industry (such as myself) to be a first source of information. Not to mention mentions on Appropedia, an appropriate technology encyclopedia. Google for more sources. * Noteworthiness: It seems noteworthy enough to catch the attention of the New York Times and Treehugger.com. Is Wikipedia better than the New York Times? Does it have a higher bar for inclusion? No. The opposite applies. The bar is lower. Everything that has been mentioned anywhere by anybody could be noteworthy, and this is significantly further up the Long Tail of mentioned ideas. Honestly... (Disclaimer: I happen to live close to Vinay and often meet him at coffee shops, but am not otherwise affiliated with the Hexayurt project. I am however a Bureaucrat on the Icelandic Wikipedia and as such very well versed in the rules which govern the Wikipedia ideology. Oligarchy is not one of them.) Based on the aforementioned arguments I would like to Overturn this deletion, claiming the deletion to have been wrongly and hastily conducted without the admins and editors in question having checked the article's sources or content thoroughly. Further correction of citations and sources could be done to the article after it is undeleted. -- Smári McCarthy 11:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If I may comment: the above text addressing Reliable Sources is not true. There were no sources actually cited as references at the time of deletion; merely external links. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I can agree that the citation format was not being used correctly, but at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hexayurt the user pointed these sources out again, and that was not taken to be relevant during the deletion discussion. Why not? --Smári McCarthy 12:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I call on the comment made my sysop Carlossuarez46: Delete none of those are independent WP:RSes. fails WP:N per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - In regards to the section addressing Conflict of Interest, the user name is hardly the point. The fact is that he has revealed himself to have a COI, and it wouldn't matter if his username was Joe Green; he still has a COI. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. But the articles neutrality was never disputed, and actually after he mentioned the dispute I did tell him not to edit the page any more, precisely because of the COI issue. He complied. -- Smári McCarthy 12:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Neutrality was disputed by both the nominating of the AFD, and the COI tag that was placed as the final edit before deletion. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse w/o prejudice - Endorse with no prejudice against rewriting the article using and footnoting to reliable source material. I found some information that was not addressed in the AfD and the nominator lists some more, but it does not seem to be "substantial" enough to actually overturn the AfD, which the closer interpreted correctly. Creating a draft article in your user space and then presenting it to WP:DRV for review seems to be the best way to approach this. Here are the references I found: (1) Siegle, Luck. (May 14, 2006) The Observer Observer Magazine: Design: Give me shelter: Solar-powered tents, inflatable housing, buildings in a bag ... (2) Markoff, John. (August 28, 2006) New York Times This Is Only a Drill: In California, Testing Technology in a Disaster Response. Section: C; Page 1. (3) Berton, Justin. (September 2, 2007) San Francisco Chronicle Burning Man's green focus raises concerns of corporate contracts. Section: News; Page A1. (4) Preparedness Now!: An Emergency Survival Guide for Civilians and Their Families - Page 126. -- Jreferee t/c 16:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - treehugger.com seems to be used in Wikipedia as a reliable source. -- Jreferee t/c 16:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - so is myspace.com about 100 times more often. Other users' errors do not make it right - and no amount of usage at WP will convert a source to reliability. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - if these additional sources can be used to create a better article, put it together in user space and resubmit here. If this just gets overturned, there will be no assurance that (a) the sources provided can add anything to the article; (b) that any one will actually bother to add it; or (c) that the additions overcome the issues raised in the afd. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as a reasonable AfD discussion and conclusion, but, permit re-creation in usre space to see if a proper article can be written. One paragraph in the NYT is not quite enough, but it sounds like the subject might possible now have sufficient sourcing. DGG (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome but permit re-creation in userspace. Burntsauce 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Metroid Prime (creature) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No-one other than the nominator suggested deletion outright, and the Universe AFD was utterly irrelevant to the AFD (as the supposed merge that the nominator was talking about was opposed for this particular article). At the very least, the AFD should've been allowed to run on another few days to gain more consensus. Will ^(talk) 10:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• overturn per nom. JoshuaZ 15:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as closer - Judgesurreal777, Arrowned, and FastLizard4 each presented reasoning for deleting the article. Only Will presented reasoning for keeping the article. The keep reasoning lacked any basis in policy. The delete reasoning was clear in that there was a lack of independent reliable sources for the topic to meet General notability guideline. Rough consensus was delete. -- Jreferee t/c 15:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Apparently the article listed at the now ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chozo has a history similar to Metroid Prime (creature). -- Jreferee t/c 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This is just me talking, there isn't a policy, guideline, or even AN ESSAY about this as far as I know, but if the participation is SO LOW that only 5 people show up, the discussion should be relisted until some sort of reasonable consensus or non-consensus is achieved. Less than a handful of people is not a reasonable consensus by any stretch of the imagination. Burntsauce 17:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• There is no quorum for consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce was quite correctly giving his view as opinion, not policy. To me, though there is no formal quorum for consensus, the very concept of consensus implies a sufficient amount of participation to give a fair representation of the community. If even that general statement is denied, perhaps we do need a policy. 22:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While AfD works by rough consensus with discussions without participation regularly relisted, most other XfD procesess work by something cloer to unanimous consent, with deletion the default outcome if no one objects. Thus if deletion is supported by policies or guidelines there mat be no need for additional discussion even if only a few people participate. After all, to get a statistically valid sample of the community we'd have to set a quorum of 30 or more users which would be very hard to meet in many cases. Eluchil404 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Excluding one admitted joke Delete vote, the majority of votes were Keep (See votes here) topher67 04:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - The delete reasoning of MrZaius and Whpq looked dead on and were not sufficiently challenged. Jac16888 seemed to challenge any potentially valid points made by the keep reasoning. The keep reasoning was weak. -- Jreferee t/c 06:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as the closing admin. AfD is not a vote; it's decided on the basis of the most compelling arguments, not the number of votes. -- ChrisO 07:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse to close an AFD, an admin needs a brain, not a calculator. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse; It's not a vote for deletion, it's a discussion. The discussion was clearly delete. — Coren ^(talk) 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This is a discussion, not a vote. Burntsauce 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - discussion was interpreted properly. Voting is evil. --Haemo 03:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Perhaps needed editing to resolve advertisement issues, but didn't warrant deletion. Jackk 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn (substantial new information) - The last post to the AfD mentioned "I know at least 4 independent medical studies by universities (praising the device)." When I ran Volcano Vaporizer through Google Scholar, shazam! Also, Google books has some material for the article as well. The book info also is summarized here. The company also has operating manuals that may provide usable material. The operating manual listed the patent on the Volcano Vaporizer, which is at 6513524. Maui Wowie! I think this topic is sufficiently rolled and ready to be toked. -- Jreferee t/c 01:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; but not objection to a fresh recreation— the previous version I remember was little more than ad copy and the AfD reflects that; but given that academic sources were found a good article might yet be written. — Coren ^(talk) 03:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• endorse on the information available at the time, but permit re-creation. Seem likely that it's notable--somewhat to my surprise, but there it is. DGG (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but permit re-creation in userspace. Burntsauce 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)