Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 25

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

Speedied as A7 (non-notable band) by User:Bearcat. I attempted to ask Bearcat about this but have received no reply, so I'm going to bring it up here. I don't have access to the original text of the article, but I do remember seeing it in Special:Newpages and specifically thinking it did not meet A7, as it did indeed contain an assertion of notability (if it did not, I would have tagged it for speedy deletion myself). As such, I think this article at least deserves a full AfD rather than being speedied. Powers ^T 23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The article reveals they got their first album on 22 January 2008, and have so far failed to win any of the competitions they have entered. The article is signed on its face by one of the members of the band. The article just strings together a number of enthusiastically-phrased activities of the band, and this is classic material for an A7 speedy. That it was unusually long for such articles does not mitigate; the material belongs on a publicity website somewhere, which Wikipedia.... Splash - tk 00:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I could have sworn there was some assertion of notability in there. Powers ^T 15:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and speedy close. It was a copyvio from their Myspace page. Corvus cornix_talk 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So it was. If that had been the deletion reason, I never would have brought it up. (I still say there's the barest hint of an assertion of notability in there though. =) ) Powers ^T 13:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Esp@cenet® (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This redirect (to esp@cenet) was first speedied with the edit summary: "R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link or misnomer: db-redirtypo". I then took the bold liberty to restore it while leaving the speedy tag (I created the article), to be able to contest the proposed speedy deletion on its talk page. Unsuccessfully. The redirect was then re-speedied with the edit summary: "Speedy deleted per (CSD r3), was a redirect based on an implausible typo. using TW". I then attempted to resolve the issue with the admin here. But in vain.

The speedy deletion was done under CSD R3, "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers." The redirect was created in November 2005! This is not an implausible typo. While the symbol "@" is part of the official name (see first footnote of esp@cenet), the forms "Esp@cenet®" and "esp@cenet®" appear relatively often because it is a registered trademark (a search on Google Book or Google Scholar for "esp@cenet" reveals occurences of "Esp@cenet®" and "esp@cenet®"). Strictly speaking the form "esp@cenet®" is neither a typo nor a misnomer. Some users do search for articles by just copy-pasting a string of characters into Wikipedia, and some users even create article with a "®" at the end. It makes sense to have a redirect from "Esp@cenet®" to "Esp@cenet" to.. redirect these users. And, since redirects are cheap, ... Edcolins (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think we have these redirects, for example Microsoft®, Dyson®, Microsoft Windows®, Microsoft Office®, Intel®, are red. It seems rather pointless to have gone to the effort of tagging it, honestly, but since it's gone and keeps getting deleted, you might as well just leave it that way. With it and the others red, people are discouraged from creating new ones since there are fewer examples to base it on, and we've had occasional troubles in the past with over-zealoous people wanting their TM and R and it's bee useful to dispose of them by example (and article titles with such symbols in are commercially ugly to my eyes). Endorse deletion, I guess. Splash - tk 23:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• I support what I said on the talk page the first time I saw it; very few, if any, people are going to search for a brandname with a ® or ^TM in the title, so the implausible aspect applies here. As for not being recent, I don't think that that aspect is particularly important. So I agree with the speedy deletion. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• The speedy criteria are specific for a reason, and "[r]ecently created" should not have been ignored. The deletion was improper. However, per WP:IAR, there's also no reason to undelete it just to take it through RfD, the result of which is a foregone conclusion. I strongly remind administrators to check creation dates when speedying under R3. Powers ^T 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, so I guess my !vote is No endorsement of process, but keep deleted. Or something. Powers ^T 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Out of interest why is the wording of this speedy restricted to 'recent'? On the face of it, if the typo is implausible it may as well be deleted. I should be interested in the policy rationale. BlueValour (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The older a redirect is the more likely it is to have been linked to off-site, and there's no point breaking those incoming links for the sake of pseudo-tidiness. (With relatively recent improvements to Google's search functionality, it now might be possible to be more definitive about external linkage to particular links). Splash - tk 11:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Thank you; that's helpful. BlueValour (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If the speedy deletion was improper, let's at least create a proper WP:RFD. The conclusion is not foregone. Other people participate to RfD. --Edcolins (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • My assertion was based not on participants here, but rather on the strong evidence of precedent shown by Splash. Powers ^T 13:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:WAX reasoning. What about: Kevlar®, Wikipedia®, ... --Edcolins (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
        • WP:WAX is perfectly valid when we're talking about precedent. It's not "Well, X doesn't exist, therefore Y shouldn't either," but rather "X doesn't exist, and that's strong evidence that Y is unnecessary as well." Powers ^T 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. People do not accidentally type in the "®" symbol. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur, UsaSatsui, people do not accidentally type in the "®" symbol, but they may do so by copy-pasting a string of characters into Wikipedia, with the occasional symbols. Some do so. The purpose of a redirect is to help users to find an article as soon as possible, and we may help them by creating redirects. --Edcolins (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. See also: Rfd:Wikipedia®, Rfd:Kevlar®.. --Edcolins (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kick in the Ass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

In a nutshell, the delete vote was 3-2 and not enough to form a consensus and the keep votes were far more well explained, per wikipedia rules it’s a discussion not a vote. The motivational theory was coined by a famous business philosopher Herzberg on how not to deal with employees and is in academic textbooks. The delete votes were all based on it being “made up” which per the references and the discussion it clearly was not. Any search of google books proves this. I find it hard to believe that this would be deleted on it’s content and believe it has been deleted on it having a funny name. Englishrose (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if I were closing this, I'd have made specific rejection of the 'neologism' claim, since the term is referenced to the Harvard Law Review in the 1960s or 70s and appears in what looks to be a textbook, and with them the spurious notion that it was "made up in school one day" (people should read WP:NFT before citing it). I would go on to roundly reject all the arguments made by Crotalus Horridus, as unreasonable on their face given even a cursory reading of the links provided in the debate (notably a module peer-reviewed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution), and the latter part of Fubar Obfusco's as unhelpfully frivolous. That doesn't leave very much of the delete argument in tact. However, the point that terminology, and not just neologisms need sources about them rather than that use them is important, and this article was, in my opinion, a synthesis of interpretations of occasional mentions making it too close to original research for my liking. This said, I do happen to believe that an article is probably write-able on this, or at least a section of an article. So whilst I find the deleters to be entirely off base, I will endorse deletion, but be happy to see a proper, tertiary, recreation if one can be sensibly written. Splash - tk 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn The closer is supposed to evaluate the arguments as being policy based--& as being plausible. The keep argument said what you said, so the fact that it was not a neologism was raised, and ignored. the article itself gave a 1968 source and later references The delete arguments were based on 1/a trivial fact that the rather common phrase is also a song title 2/sounds like a joke, e.g. IDONTLIKEIT and the nom, another version of IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure (as closing administrator) As discussed on my talk page, The raw !vote count in the AfD was actually 4-2 (people often forget to count the nominator). But it really isn't about the count, anyway. The issues here are simple... we do have a clear guideline for neologism notability. This guideline was cited in the argument. The sources provided use the term, but do not describe it or critically discuss the term itself. The article reads like original research. This is probably because in order to write about this term one must do their own research, because there are no reliable secondary sources that discuss the term. I have stricken my use of the word "neologism, as I agree with the above respected wikipedians, that it apparently is not a neologism. I did not understand that at the time of closing, but I don't think that this actually impacts the closing. The fact is, that there are no sources for information about this term, so any attempt to create new information for the benefit of wikipedia readers who want to know what the term means, would be, unfortunately, own research. Wikipedia is not a primary source, and therefore can not have such content in it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per Splash and Jerry in that sources need to be about the term, not just use it. --Kbdank71 21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endore deletion - We already sinking under the weight of thousands of useless articles on one off neologisms and we don't need one more. It appears that this article was asserting a more recent terminology for a very old term and as such is completely confined within WP:NEO, since it is an article about a single usage of a term and not about the term itself (though I have great doubts if a well sourced article on this term could ever be written). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist calling the term a neologism is a joke, given the clear provenance of the term and its uses. Neither the nomination nor the delete votes make any reference to Wikipedia policy, and the keeps make clear references to why the article should be retained. The only way that a delete could be justified in this case is by counting votes and ignoring their content. Even if the deletes were valid, a 3-2 vote count is hardly evidence of consensus. Even the excuses here for endorsing teh closure are questionable, falling into the same baseless neologism claim and fighting the AfD rather than justifying the improper circumstances of its closure. Given the clear violations of Wikipedia policy here, the deletion should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose then, that you are just straight-up calling me a liar when I said that the process I used to determine the closing decision was not a vote count? I can see coming to a different determination, and even saying that my judgement was poor in my subjective analysis, and perhaps I'd be inclined to agree to some extent, as I referred to the term as a neologism. But to call me a liar? Is that really what you intended? Am I a liar? If I am a liar than I should be emergency desysopped, as the wikipedia project would undoubtedly be seriosuly harmed by a lying admin. And all of the other people who spent their time to evaluate this closing and bothered themselves to make a comment here, who happen to disagree with you, they are just jokingly vote-counting and ignoring content, with questionable excuses to fight the correction of impropriety through clear violations of wikipedia policy? So lucky we are to have you to point out all these very bad people! But please do recount the votes if you are comparing my supposed vote-count to your own, because the actually tally, if you will, was 4 to 2, not 3 to 2 as you just stated above. I assume it was a simple counting error on your part, probably forgetting to count the nom. I am sure any experienced wikipedian such as yourself would not lie. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading a bit too much into Alansohn's comment, Jerry. I don't think he was saying you must have just used the raw vote count, but rather that only a vote-count methodology would justifiably produce a "delete" result. (Thus, then, he is calling your methodology unjustifiable, but that's not the same thing as calling you a liar.) Powers ^T 13:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think LtPowers couldn't have said it better. I do not think you are a "liar". I do not think that you should be emergency desysopped because you are a liar. I think that you need to make a serious reevaluation of your tendency to treat comments that disagree with your actions or opinions as if they were personal attacks. If this problem persists, I agree with you that your status as an administrator may need to be reconsidered. Alansohn (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Then please use more caution before you bandy about the phrase "clear violations of Wikipedia policy". I don't see how I could have made the same overarching assumption of good faith that Powers did with that phrase there. We say "assume good faith", not "assume blind faith". Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• overturn/relist per DGG and Alansohn. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Good call on the close for a topic that, as presented, has no encyclopedic aspirations. Eusebeus (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a motivational theory is in a similar mould that Maslow's hierarchy of needs, McGregor's Theory X and theory Y and Hertzberg's Two factor theory is. Englishrose (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. As noted, the supposed sources are uses not descriptions of the term, and it is in any case not the kind of thing that anyone would bother looking up. "Oooh, someone threatened me with a kick in the ass, better check Wikipedia to see what that means". Not. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This argument is not based on policy and is a prime example of what DDG was talking about. And to answer your question somebody interested in motivational theories and Herzberg may look it up so your argument is not only against policy but is wrong as well. Englishrose (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was my impression from the various discussions that the article was about the concept behind the term, being a specific management technique, rather than about the term itself. If that is the case, we don't need sources about the term, we need sources about the concept, and it seems the ones given might qualify. Is my understanding of this wrong? Powers ^T 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The article focussed on the concept on what KITA motivation was. The cache is actually old and Nesbit had improved the article. I was fairly sure that he'd written and sourced the concept behind the term as well and mentioned that Herzberg had created it as a way not to treat workers. Englishrose (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The point that is being missed here is that there is no question that the term is notable, in that is was created by the Frederick Herzberg. And there is no question that the term is used. The problem is that the article contains only original research, and the sources provided do not support the information. The sources only support that the term exists and/ or is actually used, and give examples of its use. These sources require editor synthesis to come up with the article contents. The official policy Wikipedia:No original research says "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source." We need sources to support the definition and conclusions drawn by the editor(s) who wrote this article. Without such sources, this article is OR, and can not exist. It does not matter that the information is neat, useful, sought by readers, important, well-written, super, and that we all really really like it. It matters that it is original research and the role of an encyclopedia as a tertiary source requires that we not publish original research. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If the concept is notable, perhaps we could compromise by undeleting it to a stub and working from there with reliable sources? Powers ^T 18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• *Overturn and relist Term seems to be common in its area, and keep arguments were much stronger than delete. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)