Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 31

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

Greetings. I recently closed the AfD discussion on the Jollix article, primarily in that insufficient discussion and agreement had been reached in support of the only realistic argument. The argument in question was for "delete", and primarily stated that the Jollix project was inactive, and was thus non-notable. However, no further comments in support or opposition of this were made, and I felt it would not be suitable to accept that viewpoint with such a lack of support. Due to the lack of any further consensus either way, I closed the debate as "no consensus" and no further action was kept.

However, I later recieved an enquiry on my talk page (it was still listed at the time of the DRV opening) as to why I felt that argument was unacceptable; after explaining myself, there was still a lack of agreement on the article being kept, and I offered to forward the matter to Deletion Review, where further discussion could be undertaken. I would ask that participants comment openly on the decision, and reach a consensus by which I will happily abide by.

As a final point, I wish to point out that I have no feelings either way on the article: I closed the discussion on the basis that no agreement on the article's notability was reached, and not that the arguments put forward (that is, that Jollix is or isn't non-notable) were invalid.

Anthøny 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Overturn: I respectfully disagree with Anthony's summary of the argument in the original deletion discussion. The debate centred on notability: it was argued that the subject was non-notable, and also was no longer being actively developed. No references exist in the article to support notability, and notability has not been asserted in the article itself, though it has been asserted by a dissenting editor in the deletion discussion on the basis that there are now many references in the article.

Activity is, however, relevant to the question of deletion in this case, because an active software project stands some chance of becoming notable. If it were proven that the project were under active development, then I would support a merge and redirect to a more general article, but all the article's current references indicate that the project has been inactive since 2004. Technobadger (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment having read the articles discussion there doesn't actually seem to be much question regarding notability. The keep arguement seems to be that (1) It is on other wikipedia's (which is irrelevant since their inclusion standards maybe different and even if not per a WP:WAX style argument) and (2) There are references which demonstrate that it exists, and that current article content is verifiable, there doesn't seem to be much argument concerning if it reaches our inclusion standards (Beyond the broad assertion that seems to equate to, it has references and is therefore notable).

The deletion argument notes that the references fail to meet the multiple non-trivial mentions from independant reliable sources, this is not refuted by the keep. i.e. I can't agree the question of notability was indeterminate in the discussion. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sustain close It's odd to complain bout a non consensus close--isn't it much simple to wait a month and renominate? As for this particular close, there were indeed references, from sources which are arguably suitable for the subject. Given the inapplicability of an argument from non-notability for being no longer current, I dont see how a delete close would have been possible. DGG (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The sources cited may be Linux-related, but they uniformly and uncritically repeat the information on the distro's page, basically announcing that the distro exists. You can find sources like this for any of the hundreds of non-notable Linux distros brewed up annually by enthusiastic but temporary project teams: none of the references asserts or supports notability.

Also please note that argument from non-notability for being no longer current is not what was argued in the deletion discussion: please see my comment above for explanation.

Regarding renomination versus DRV, please note that Anthøny suggested DRV or AfD on his talk page, and I agreed. Technobadger (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Sources were provided in the original page. Anna-girl-08 (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced nomination moved here. No opinion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete as contested prod. Listing at AFD is at editorial discretion. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops, missed that. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

A simple Google search meets the notoriety requirements. In addition, the publishing company has produced books, games, and articles for 30 years under multiple authors. If thats not enough, the company has appeared in at least two newspaper articles in Baton Rouge and New Orleans (Advocate & Times Picayune respective), and the owner has appeared on local TV news to discuss the company. What more could you ask for? Malakai Joe (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of this promotional page and question whether its creation was a conflict of interests. Google hits and number of publications aren't a measure of notability and press releases aren't considered. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• endorse' continues to have no evidence for notability. DGG (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Although A7 (corp) would be a better CSD criterion than G4 in this instance, this still appears to be a valid deletion. Caknuck (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete This article should of been deleted in the first instance, because:

1. Per WP:N No non-trivial references exist for this machine, nor is it notable per WP:PRODUCT.
2. No Keep consensus was actually reached.

Thanks for your time -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Relist at AFD. The AFD was closed properly imo: there may not have been a consensus to keep, but there was also no consensus to delete, resulting in no consensus, defaulting in keep. But I feel that the discussion was flawed. The nom and several !voters raised valid concerns that the article didn't make clear how the subject was notable enough for Wikipedia. And while WP:N is not a policy, it is an important guideline that can't just be ignored at random. Most of the keep !votes boiled down to WP:ITSREAL. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Listing at AFD again can be done at any time. I see no pressing reason to overturn this AFD closure... there actually do seem to be sources, [1] at least one of those is non-trivial and seems to discuss gameplay in detail. --W.marsh 14:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps you could actually point to the "non-trivial" sources instead of providing some vague link to a google search? furthermore, you didn't put corvette pinball in "" which only brings up 4 results, none of them non-trivial in anyway? what are you trying to achieve here? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

here is the fixed up search [2] 0 non-trivial as you can see. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a very condescending and unnecessary attitude. --W.marsh 02:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was born perfect, been that way ever since ;)!

Sorry, I was a bit riled up over something else at the time, apologies, but you can see my point? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn (relist unless someone sources it first). The policy which drives WP:N is WP:NOT, in particular Not a directory and Not an indiscriminate collection of information. I thought we were done with this kind of discussion for at least half a year now? What WP:N means is that we have adquate evidence or indicators that an article can be written that meets our core policies and that goes beyond a mere directory entry. The Afd attracted enough attention from keep opiners, the topic is not so obscure that source might exist but are hard to access, so the keep opiners had made no case for retention. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (Not to forget WP:V, which applies first and foremost before any WP:N discussion: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it..) ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep Firstly, the AfD appeared to be valid and was closed correctly. In addition, the nominator appeared to be severely misinformed in calling the machine "short run", implying low sales. The machine actually sold 5000 units, which is considered strong sales for a pinball machine of its era, roughly double the production numbers of an "average" pinball at the time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That aside, where does it meet notability criteria, and where are the (non-trivial) refs? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If the "strong sales for a pinball machine of its era" had been discussed in the AFD, I would probably have agreed with you. But it wasn't. The key contention of the keep !voters/opiners was that "the notability issues are taken into consideration in cases of possible vanity" (Mikkalai), that key policies WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, etc. "all appear to be followed" (Masterzora) and that WP:N is not a policy but a guideline (Masterzora). All of these assertions are to a degree incorrect: WP:N applies to all articles, with the understanding that e.g. countries and subdivisions, town/cities/villages, stars/planets/comets, chromosomes, etc. are by definition notable; the fact that an article follows key policies is irrelevant if the subject is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia; the fact that WP:N is a guideline and not a policy is irrelevant, because WP:N is still a guideline, a key document on Wikipedia, and because it is derived from the policy WP:NOT (WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:NOT a directory, as Trialsanderrors has indicated). If this pinball machine is notable enough for Wikipedia, the article should obviously be kept. If this pinball machine is not notable enough, it should obviously be deleted. But none of this was discussed during the AFD, so the article should be relisted. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Closing was valid as there was no consensus to delete the article. I also remind The Librarian that DRV is not a second AfD. We only consider if the closing was valid given the comments. We do not judge notability here, that is the job of AfD. --Farix (Talk) 12:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would also like to point to those trying to argue to be overturned the results of the AFD to read Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates above. --Farix (Talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hello! Is this your first time at DRV? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)