Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 13

E-Valid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It is true that we proposed an eValid page last June, and we understand that it was perhaps "too commercial". We accepted that judgement and are acting on those recommendations.

The current proposed page is patterned 100% after the page for HP's QTP (Quick Test Pro), both in terms of organization and in terms of style. "Simple declarative sentences" was our intention all the way.

QTP is also a commercial product, in a similar space to eValid but using a different technology.

The eValid technology alone should be of general interest to Wikipedia users/readers, and in particular to web applications testers, because intantiation of test functionality into a browser trivializes many test activities that are very complex otherwise.

We welcome constructive comments on language and style and we pledge to abide by all of the recommendations made.

If the process here cannot yield an honest persistent eValid entry in Wikipedia, then we would request that the entry for HP's Quick Test Pro also be deleted. That would only be correct, because we believe that a spirit of fairness prevails at Wikipedia.

Reviewers and commenters may contact Dr. Edward Miller (415) 861-2800 or edward.f.miller@gmail.com to have questions and issues resolved if they wish.

P.S. We would VERY much appreciate use of the eValid form rather than Evalid or E-Valid or EValid...eValid is the actual technology name. Sr2008 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

*Comment This is the second time you have opened a deletion review without offering a reason for reviewing the deletion. Rationale now provided. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like to see a proposed version before I register a !vote in this (try creating one at User:Sr2008/eValid or something similar). As for what you've said, I'm affraid that we can't overturn the deletions of either E-Valid or EValid based on other articles or delete other articles based on these (please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). From what you have said, however, it appears that someone else should work on the article; it seems as though you've got quite a conflict of interest here. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you want help. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A userfied version, as Lifebaka suggests, would be quite helpful for this review process. Having a potential conflict of interest does not preclude one from creating or editing an article, but it does require extreme diligence to not allow their POV to become imparted into the article, or to take too much ownership of the article so as to deny others the collaborative freedom to completely change your article. Most people, it has been shown, are unable to make this separation of interest from activity; so it is generally recommended that one participate on the talk page of the article and/ or of its contributors, rather than the article itself. In this case, as you have apparently made quite an effort to product a start article, if you userfy it and allow others to review it, it would be beneficial. It would probably ease the minds of those reviewing this request (my own, certainly) if you were to also pledge to not directly edit the article, should it be moved to mainspace (other than very minor error corrections such as spelling, grammar or numerical fact errors that can be verified through independent sources). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that you should present a userspace version to us. I would recommend against using your competitor's article as a model; instead, look at Category:B-Class .NET articles, as these are software articles of at least average quality, or better yet, anything on Wikipedia:Good articles#Software, which are of reasonably high quality. Any article meeting these quality standards is much less likely to face deletion. I'm glad you've recognized the need for non-sales language in the article, but you must also address independent sourcing by providing citations about your product from the best publications available. If these sources do not exist, meeting a higher quality standard is irrelevant, as your product will probably not pass software notability guidelines. In any event, we will not make a decision on any other article out of a spirit of fairness, because we work from secondary sources, and sources -- like life -- are often not fair. Some products or people just get more coverage than others. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you are referring to yourself a "we"? Corvus cornix_talk 18:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That question and its potential answer and ensuing dialogue are not relative to this discussion, and should be taken to a user talk page. Please stay on topic. The topic here is the merit of the request to undelete this article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and optionally list at AfD. There's enough objective material there to prevent a speedy. The detailed description might be considered advertising, but it can readily be removed. There seem to have been two independent reviews talking about the product, so it might even pass afd. A userspace version might be necessary if it had been deleted via AfD--but the article as it stands is enough to pass speedy. DGG (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless independent 3rd party sources are found. Google suggestes there may be some sources in specialist magazines, but the online versions are all behind pay-walls. The deleted page is here. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that bit about 'deltionpedia' is far more interesting than e-valid. I've opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Deletionpedia--Tikiwont (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Closing editor (non-admin) seems unsure of procedure, ruling "keep" but saying "Merger or redirect is left to the disretion of the individual editors". Also appears to have not taken into consideration that neither keep !vote addressed the notability issues brought up in the nomination. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - Proper closure, no one but the nom supported deletion. Redirection or merging is at the discretion of editors (upon gaining consensus, of course). At worst, it might require a relist, but I'd say we're better off here to discuss it on the talk pages of the articles involved first and see if a merge/redirect is better. Only if that fails should it come back to AfD. -- Kesh (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse-No consensus to delete. Even if every keep or redirect vote was disregarded (not that I'm necessarily saying they should be), we'd have only one person supporting deletion, which would result in a no consensus closure.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn keep decision and relist. AfD was only open for 1 day, with two !votes to keep (and no policy arguments at that), one !vote to merge/redirect, plus nom delete. Not a clear consensus and not enough time elapsed to determine a clear consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC). Sorry, check that. AfD was open for full time period. Still, I would say a relist, not a keep closure, is more appropriate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The point of AfD is not always to reach consensus — it is to evaluate whether there is a rough consensus that an article should be deleted. When there is not, the article survives. This recent habit of multiply relisting is burdensome to AfD and unfair to the authors of the articles since AfD nominations are bound to acquire more deleters as time wastes by. I closed one AfD the other day that had been listed four times, despite having about 20 participants - just because the admin was not presented with a trivial keep/delete closure method! It is possible to argue to relist on a very light debate if the thing is so insipid that it's not even clear that "no consensus" can be concluded. Splash - tk 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. No further support was shown for deletion, thus the correct manner is to close as a keep. Splash - tk 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I guess I am a little confused here. I thought that if a !vote's accompanying argument or reasoning was unsound, then it was discounted. In this AfD, one "keep" was that the articles just needed expanding and made no comment on the notability of the songs (they are all old non-charting singles—I doubt significant media coverage exists), the other "keep" was that since the albums the songs appear on are notable then the songs are notable. I'm not trying to be argumentative or wikilawyer to get my way, I just want to be clear on the rules—if I mistaken about how AfDs should work, I'd like to know. I've seen quite a few AfDs where the !vote count was skewed radically one way but the closing admin took the actual nomination reasoning and arguments into account and closed it the opposite way. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the admin still has to be able to point to a rough consensus among those who are anchored in policy (where in any case policy is a fluid creature developed over time and practise). Even if we dispose of both the keepers in this debate, we're still left with the only person apart from the nom (you) still not agreeing to deletion. You can't have a consensus of one! Possibly your argument about the nature of the keep rationales is enough to warrant a relisting, but as noted above, in cases like this, it is genuinely worth exploring editorially if anything can be achieved through merges/redirects. Splash - tk 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I was thinking of a relist with this DRV, not close as delete. I felt there should have been more discussion. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. Doesn't appear that there was much consensus there. Deletion arguements weren't really addressed, and the discussion was very small. I'm assuming that the nom had a good reason for nominating it, so I'd like to see at least more discussion before closing. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The keep !votes were unsound and should have been ignored. The redirect !vote is actually a delete vote with an additional recommendation to create a redirect so searchers find the corresponding album articles. I could have seen consensus for delete/redirect out of this, or in absense of seeing that, relisting it for more participation. Keep outcome certainly seems obtuse, and thus wastes valuable process time. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep votes do not have to reference our notability guidelines to be valid. Catchpole (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment But they do have to give a valid reason why the article should be kept, otherwise it's just a vote (which, of course, AfD is not) instead of a debate. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reopen AfD when closed one editor (the nominator) thought the article should be deleted, one thought it should be redirected and two thought it should be kept - doesn't really seem like a consensus, with further input one might be formed. Guest9999 (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Noting that the question of merge/redirect is still open and left to regular editorial process is a perfectly routine matter, and is not a sign of being unsure of process. There was most certainly no way any consensus existed to delete, and with that in mind, AFD's hand on the matter is finished. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm just used to seeing "keep", "delete", "no consensus" or "merge", not "keep but editors can merge if they want." And, as I said above, I did not open this DRV to get the articles deleted, but re-listed. As for being unsure of the process, the editor in question still hasn't finished closing the AfD—the AfD tags are still on the articles (except the main one I nominated, which I removed when I placed the DRV notice on it). I notified the editor of this and s/he archived that note, along with my original note asking about the closure, without responding to either. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Charles E. Crutchfield III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Temp viewing of deleted article Kerrygirl (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I am requesting the article to be restored in my userspace or emailed to me so that I can work on it to address the problems that led to its deletion. Thank you.

• Comment - Are you sure about the name? Above links do not indicate a deleted article. Neither does your edit history.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Okay I found at corrected the links (No ',MD', but 'E.').--Tikiwont (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dick's Cabaret (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

User Rudget deleted Dick's Cabaret a few minutes after I posted the article, stating that the article did not indicate importance/significance. The article indicated that "In March 2008, the club was placed in the national spotlight when it was revealed that David Hernandez, a singer and current finalist on the seventh season of American Idol, worked at the club in 2004." That seems like importance/significance. The article was fully footnoted and a simple google search shows hundreds of articles on Dick's Cabaret all over the world. I asked Rudget to restore the article, but I'm confused as to how it could be deleted in the first place. Please help me out and let me know what is going on and please restore the article. Thanks. Fredgremlint (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AfD Being loosely associated with a famous person does not make something notable by itself, so it wasn't a very good claim of importance, but it was a claim of importance nontheless so a speedy wasn't really appropriate, especially in light of the number of Google News hits Fredgremlint offers. I'm not sure the article would survive AfD - most of the coverage looks like brief mentions in the course of articles which are actually about David Hernandez - but it's possible that someone with more patience than me will find some more substantial coverage in there, so it should be given the chance. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn/list-A page needs only to claim notability, not prove it, to be ineligible for A7. A connection to a notable person is a claim. Let AfD decide how good a claim it is.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD; if there is more to say, it might conceivably pass . DGG (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Nominator should communicate with the deleting administrator (if he hasn't already) and ask him to consider restoring per this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Take to AfD - seems likely it will be deleted but not an A7 - or any other speedy - candidate . Guest9999 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD debate was closed per consensus of merge. However, between a possible bad faith nomination and suspicious IP activity between several users, I request the nomination be reconsidered. Please see the relative AN/I discussion here, as well as a report on the suspected sockpuppets here. Before the involvement of several sock/meatpuppets, the AfD consensus was in favor of deletion, but then several single-purpose accounts and possible proxies clashed. Nori198 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that it was closed without consensus. --Haemo (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be clear: are you saying that there was no consensus for a "no consensus" close? If so, that's absurd... we don't !vote 'no consensus'. If you are instead saying that the admin was correct in closing as "no consensus", because at closing there was no consensus, then that seems more logical to me; it is not possible to determine which you mean, or if you mean something else altogether. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sustain close It was closed properly as no consensus, even the nominator says so. The merge was only a mentioned in the close as a possibility to be "reevaluated by active editors on the subject"; this is not binding one way or another & if there is no reason to force a merge on the basis of what the closing admin said here,--he said that the eds. might want to consider it. It didn't even amount to a recommendation. DGG (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Please take into consideration the AN/I / suspected sockpuppetry. There was clearly something wrong with this "consensus." As pointed out, the nomination was in favor of deletion prior to several single-purpose accounts appearing and battling between keep and delete. This only gives the illusion of a distorted consensus, and shouldn't be granted any consideration in the closing decision of the AfD. Hence, why I request it be restored or reconsidered factoring in the evidence provided. Nori198 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - There's at least enough evidence of meatpuppetry that the outcome is dubious. I'd say a new AfD is in order here, to sort out the valid arguments from the multiple solicited accounts. -- Kesh (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What can we do to deter this situation from happening again? There appears to be meatpuppets for both parties involved in the issue. I have been unable to determine a possible sockpuppeteer belonging to the nominee, or any users who might regard the article in bad faith. Assuming the "keep" puppets are dealt with, we still have the issue of those endorsing the article's deletion. They are quite numerous, as well. I would suggest an administrator consider the matter individually rather than relisting the discussion for public nomination. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close as the request is beyond the remit of DRV. We can not establish a new consensus here to overturn a proper closing where there clearly was no consensus. That the debate had no consensus for a variety of reasons, including a botched nomination, is likely; but this may only be reason to renominate it, not to overturn the closing. If your common sense tells you to immediately renominate it, then by all means: be bold. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand, but my primary concern now is dealing with sockpuppetry. Relisting or renominating the article would do little justice if no one can intervene on part of the abuse. I've made several attempts to report the issue, both to AN/I and AIV, and haven't gotten any response. Such discussion is little more than a dumping ground for the accused himself, who is making spurious counter-claims against me for reporting him. I'm still relatively new to dealing with vandals, so I would really appreciate some insight here. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally-speaking, sockpuppets will be single-purpose accounts. This means that their contribution histories will show little or no activity outside of the current discussion or article under consideration, and their accounts will be fairly new. An elaborate network of experienced accounts over a long period of time is certainly possible, but without a checkuser request, there can be no definitive action taken. If you see SPA's contributing in apparent collusion on an XfD, you can add the spa template below their post to alert the closing admin. Most closing admins will ignore SPA's and very new users in debates that appear to be tainted by collusion. That aside, since XfD's are not a vote, even sockpuppetry and meat-puppetry can have a difficult time overriding proper consensus, since it's not the number of keeps, and deletes or whathaveyou, but the reasoning of their comments and their basis in policy, guideline or precedent that is considered. Where a debate's outcome must rely on subjective opinion, and therefore socks have a stronger chance to muck up the outcome, a keep outcome is more likely to be the appropriate outcome anyway, as the deletion policy says to fail to the keep side when objective reasoning with clear consensus to delete is not present. So in a nutshell, just try again, and mark the SPA's with the template, and if it all seems to come down to the majority of opinions, then deletion is not appropriate anyway so just accept the keep outcome and move on the more pleasant tasks to improve the encyclopedia. Just my (slightly more than) 2 cents. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking how to deal with the suspected sockpuppeteer who is vandalizing my talk page as we speak. I've gone through AIV and AN/I, and no response. The vandalism is not ceasing. Please help. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You can find related disputes here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kung_Fu_Man, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Final_Fantasy_VII_article.2C_AFD.2C_and_sock_puppets Nori198 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. There were enough reasonable arguments on the "keep" side, presented by wwwwolf for example, that "no consensus" looks like the correct outcome. Perhaps I agree more with Starblind's arguments regarding such "hack" versions, but they are not deal-breaking arguments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)