Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 3

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

It does not meet any requierments for deletion, for some unkown reason a few people want to delete this article I do not know why. The tag has already been taken off once but now it is back on. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

• Speedy Close as nothing to do here. Article is currently being debated at AfD, this DRV is premature. -- Kesh (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment, already done below as well TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Speedily deleted. Requesting temporary copy in my userspace to determine if the speedy was rouge. Andjam (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• User:Andjam/Agavi, I was the deleting admin. I do not think this can be construed as rouge but if you want to take a look go ahead. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• It's identical to the first paragraph of [1]. Speedy deletion as spam is entirely proper, even if it weren't for the copyvio issue. —Cryptic 04:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

First we will address the idea that the site is not notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes get 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranked above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches until it was removed from the list of searches. So notability is not a concern. The outcome of this review will be based on whether or not the sources which cite Encyclopedia Dramatica are reliable or not. If consensus says that they're not, then there will be no reason to propose a recreation of this article unless it is mentioned in reliable sources in the future. Period. If consensus says that the sources are reliable then the article will be recreated. What it boils down to is whether or not the sources are reliable. A link to a draft of the article with all of the sources can be found here. And also, I ask editors to remember that Wikipedia is not censored and to only vote against recreation if they truly believe that the sources are unreliable, not simply because of personal feelings they have toward the site. Pretending that something doesn't exist just because one hates it is juvenile. So are the sources reliable or not? Urban Rose 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, if notability is a concern, I definitely think the site is notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes get 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranks above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches. So notability is not an issue. The next issue is that it is not covered in reliable sources, which I believe is also false. For a list of sources, see here and here (and please read the latter of the two pages for a list of further rationale for the article's recreation). And a third point that I need to address is that I realize that it is impossible for many Wikipedia editors to vote on this objectively, as they have been the subjects of articles created for the site. I myself have been the subject of an article and have had my image uploaded to the site (though I have since created an account and have been accepted), and I haven't allowed my annoyance at this to cloud my judgement. What this boils down to I believe is that some Wikipedians simply aren't willing to give ED an article regardless of it's notability or coverage by multipe reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored, so unless you are willing to vote objectively I suggest that you not vote at all. I do believe that it is possible to vote in favor of the article's deletion and be objective, but I have my doubts that most deletion votes this nomination will receive will be objective. (Also, to all those ED haters out there, try thinking about creating an article on ED this way: The more people who no about the site, the more people will realize how offensive the site is and will support you in your hatred of it.) Urban Rose 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the sources:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y6LqhrdAxg
• http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/17/PKG6BKQQA41.DTL&type=printable
• New York Times ED is a parody site
• Guardian on Bush tl;dr
• Note 140,000 Google hits
• List of references--Urban Rose 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, but fully expect you to get shouted down rapidly in the standard visceral emotional reaction that comes up here whenever the dreaded name of ED comes up. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment there was a really fantastic draft article written up and proposed here a few weeks ago, but I forget who did it. It was thoroughly sourced. Chubbles (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It was probably deleted. Apparently even subpages that mention edit are deleted.--Urban Rose 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I feel that the only reason this page was deleted was because anonymous users defended it, despite some of their arguments. Mark Prindle is a notable personality and has done many interviews of other notable personalities. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claim? D.M.N. (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The AfD brought up these books which reference him: "Enter Naomi" by Joe Carducci, "Hey Ho Let's Go: The Story of the Ramones" by Everett True, and "Hip Priest: The Story of Mark E. Smith and the Fall" by Simon Ford. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 19:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The sources appear to have been considered at the AFD. You haven't said but have you discussed the close with the deleting admin and notified them of the DRV. Offline sources are acceptable but need to discuss the subject in depth as any other sources. Not having seen them I can't comment on them. Can you help with some detail of what the sources actually say about this individual. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The admin that closed to review has retired from Wikipedia. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Strings of socks and IPs do not a consensus make. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse The commenters assessed correctly that is was an internet music critic that has managed to have no web coverage by notable sources after 10 years. The editor who listed the books did not explain what sort of coverage the books gave (trivial coverage, usage of one of his reviews, or long explanations about Mark Prindle himself?), and the books were there a long time enough that commenters could assess them. Notice that the commenters at the AfD even overestimated the importance of this person by WP:GOOGLEHITS saying the name gives 24,000 hits, but "Mark Prindle" with quotes produces only 11.400 hits on google, but if you try to reach the end you realize that the list actually ends at 445 hits[2], with all the rest of hits being repetitions. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Then I will endorse with you. Thanks for interpreting for me why the article was really closed with real logic. This can be closed. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 21:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. He has a non-notable music review website. And the rash of KEEPs from unsigned IPs only confirms this non-notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Now played in a professional football game [3] as per WP:WPF Kingjamie (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Undelete - Now passes notability criteria. – PeeJay 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete per PeeJay2K3. D.M.N. (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored it.--Bedford 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I've been wanting to do this for a long, long time. This Internet buzz band made a big splash before their debut album came out...with the result that their Wikipedia page has been A7'ed no less than twelve times (under the cab, not currently protected, and The Cab, which is). As of last Tuesday, they've finally released a physical full-length album. I'd like to have this title Unsalted and my user draft moved to mainspace. Chubbles (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Recreate from Draft another Chubbles rescue job completed. The closing admin may wish to undelete the history when they unsalt the page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Recreate new draft clearly establishes passage of WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Recreate from draft Althought they have released only one album (WP:MUSIC asks for two albums) they have been covered on several media and made two national tours, so it passes WP:MUSIC --Enric Naval (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Recreate from Draft, seems a very marginal pass of WP:MUSIC, but certainly a well-sourced article that deserves to be given a chance in article space. If anyone still thinks it's not worthy, they can make their case at AfD. --Stormie (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

It does not meet any requierments for deletion, for some unkown reason a few people want to delete this article I do not know why. The tag has already been taken off once but now it is back on. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

• Close. This is a place to review articles that have already been deleted or had a deletion discussion. This article has not. It's currently under discussion here. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The company is obviously notable. See my arguments on User_talk:Orangemike#Deletion of XtremeData. Some examples of third-party coverage, some several years old, was on the now-deleted discussion page. Oxda (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — Oxda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• List at Afd seems to be enough for a debate. DGG (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose overturn - No assertion of notability in article; creator and only editor is a s.p.a. with an admitted COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just noting, but WP:COI doesn't ever say that having a COI compeltely disallows a user from editing on the topic they have a COI in. Now, if they do they'll have to bend over backwards staying neutral, but it appears this editor has from what I read at your talk page. And being a WP:SPA doesn't mean we should ignore the user. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please confirm or deny the requirement that notability be established in the article itself, please? I didn't see anywhere that that was necessary. And here is some of third-party coverage which is not just reprints of PRs: 2008 - [4], [5] (starts with a large picture of XtremeData module); 2007 - [6], [7]; 2006 - [8], [9], [10] -- just a random selection, there's a lot more. Oxda (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• List at AFD there appear to be sources... [11] some are press releases but some appear not to be. I can't see the article, so if it's unsalvageable I guess the admin who closes this DRV can just opt to allow recreation. --Rividian (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Unsourced article on a company written by a single-purpose account whose username suggest a connection with the subject. Article describes it as a "small company". Yup, looks that way. You need a directory of companies, not an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  Huh? There are many articles about companies, large and small. How's this not a directory of companies? "Unsourced" -- sorry, forgot to add a link to the company web site where all the information can be easily verified (that was the first version, to be improved by everyone -- that's the spirit, right?) Oxda (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  No, articles have to be verified by reference to reliable, third-party sources. The company's own website does not qualify. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  Look at this page: List of Google products. Each item is backed by a link to Google's page about it. Would you require that third-party articles be tracked down and referenced instead? Would it make the page better, in your opinion? (If I have to, I can provide references to third-party sources about XtremeData products, but since they mostly re-hash the information from the company web site, some not even very accurately, I'd rather not.) Oxda (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The article, as deleted, did not provide any indication as to why the company was notable. Like all other speedy deletions, if the article is recreated in such a state that it no longer meets the CSD, there is no problem. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  Alright, re-reading Wikipedia:CSD#A7 which was the stated reason for speedy deletion, I note this: "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." So if I add this sentence to the article: "XtremeData products have been mentioned in technology publications numerous times since 2006 when XtremeData went public with its first product", the article will be acceptable?
  I also would like to point out the following from Wikipedia:NN#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines: "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." As an obvious Google News search readily provides many reliable third-party articles about XtremeData, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Oxda (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  Certainly. Remember that it's the article that was deleted - there is not a blanket ban on ever having an article about that company again. If you recreate the article including proper assertions of notability and strong references, then there is every chance it will not be redeleted. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Doesn't look remotely notable. Once you get to this point instead of quoting policy back at us you would be better advised to show us the sources an article will be written from. Has anyone ever written in depth about your company? Surely you will know this so please cite the sources or stop wasting your time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  Look above in my comment in bullet 2 ("Oppose overturn" from Orangemike). Does it do it for you? Oxda (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the register isn't a reliable source. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) I don't see anything in WP:RS to disqualify The Register as a RS. Got an explanation why it isn't? Do you mind updating The Register to say that it's not reliable? I can see 427 Wikipedia articles citing it as a source. (2) There's been coverage in many other places, just that those were the easiest to find, with free archives and no registration required (although one other was included in the list above). You can easily see other sources in Google News search for "XtremeData", though in most other cases you won't be able to access the articles themselves without registration. Tomorrow I may also scan a few pages of printed publications that talk about XtremeData -- although I'm spending too much time on this as it is, while it seems that others can't be bothered to look through a couple of pages of Google News search. Oxda (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Relist per oaxdude's sources on the company's activity, speedy is not adequate and it should go throught AfD Endorse deletion Trivial or almost trivial coverage on some sources. The sources make clear that it's a minor company the register, enterpreneur.com and ZDNet. The register articles look more as promotion of the company by repeating whatever the company has said than like independient coverage. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  Trivial in some, a lot more than trivial in others [12] [13]. And Intel and AMD execs talking about a company, with coverage of that in independent mainstream technology publications doesn't make a company notable? (good find, I didn't see that ZDNet article before) And you're now requiring that not only the WP article itself, but the third-party coverage be neutral? Oxda (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  It would be absurd to require that third-party coverage be neutral. But it must be reliable, and reprints of press releases are by definition nothing of the sort. There would be no purpose to scanning pages of printed publications, by the way; cites to printed publications are perfectly valid; whereas scans, aside from being copyright violations, can be doctored. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  This is more than enough notability to include it on a "List of FPGA manufacturers" and to mention its product on a list of "FPGA chips", but probably not enough to have its own article as a notable company. I can't help but notice that the company is not even mentioned on the list of manufacturers at FPGA, wtf?. Could you list those paper sources? Maybe another editor will be able to check if it's only reviews of products or if it's something that asserts notability --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  

  (replying to User:Orangemike) The Register articles are not re-prints of press releases. I think people making a positive claim that they are should back up their assertion, as I'm not sure how to prove a negative here. Their articles are written by staff writers, who seem to know what they're talking about and do their homework -- as evidenced for example by them talking about similar products from other companies in the same article. Yes they include the same info as PRs, and they read as promotion of the company, but maybe that's just because they're excited about the products -- and hey, I'm not the one to blame them (and by the way as I said before, that's the reason I didn't include them as references in the original article). And by the way I've seen The Register articles about new products talking the products down, so the fact that their articles about XtremeData read as a PR is a big positive for the company IMO. Oxda (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I left a note for the Electronics Wikiproject here --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  XtremeData is not an FPGA manufacturer. FPGAs are these monstrous chips that are hugely expensive to develop and manufacture, and which are comparable to the latest processors from Intel and AMD complexity- and technology-wise, so there are very few FPGA manufacturers. XtremeData makes FPGA boards utilizing FPGAs from Altera. What distinguishes XtremeData from most other FPGA board manufacturers is that they allow the FPGA board to be inserted into a processor socket of a multi-processor motherboard. Other FPGA boards connect into some kind of I/O slot, but then there are problems of supplying adequate power and cooling and high-speed access to system resources such as memory. These problems are significant and complicated enough that most companies utilizing FPGAs opt to design their own boards. By putting FPGA into a processor socket, all these problems are solved automatically, in effect allowing FPGA use in markets that previously had no chance of using them, such as financial analytics. This approach is novel enough that it's been generating lots of buzz in these circles. AMD and Intel have started big initiatives with catchy names to promote these applications: Torrenza from AMD and Geneseo from Intel (don't know where the Intel's Geneseo article went, it used to be there). Here's a couple more references of XtremeData, now from EETimes: [14], [15] (BugMeNot works for the second article). Both of these articles have appeared in the print versions of EETimes, one with a big picture of XtremeData module. Oxda (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  Hum, we should have an article on "socket-compatible coprocessors based on FPGA chips" and then list XtremeData, DRC computer, and all the other companies that manufacture this sort of product. On that articel we can mention what distinguishes ExtremeData from the other companies. That would be the ideal solution --Enric Naval (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• List at AfD - There's enough to warrant a full debate.--Oakshade (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)