Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:17, 24 November 2009

23 November 2009

Jigsaw (wrestler)

Jigsaw (wrestler) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletion discussion took place in 2007 with the concern that he was a minor league wrestler that didn't pass WP:GNG. It was recreated several times, and I, myself, deleted the page in April 2008. It was later salted by Akradecki. However, it is November 2009 now, and I believe that he now passes WP:ATHLETE. He has made numerous pay-per-view appearances for Ring of Honor (arguably the number one independent professional wrestling promotion) and Dragon Gate USA, as well as several lesser known independent promotions where he also held titles. Within the former promotions, he has had championship matches for the ROH Tag Team Championship and will compete in a tournament at the end of this month to determine the fist holder of the DGUSA Open the Freedom Gate Championship. All of this, I believe, meets the People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport requirement. It could also meet the Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions requirement of WP:ENT, as professional wrestlers are really a combination of the two. I've made a very rough article at User:Nikki311/sandbox, but didn't want to move it to mainspace without permission from the salting admin. I tried to contact Akradecki about unsalting the page, but he/she has not be active for awhile and never replied to my comments. Nikki♥311 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse the original deletion as there was a clear consensus to do so at the time. With regards to the new article, how reliable are sources such as www.onlineworldofwrestling.com and the like in terms of WP:BLP? I don't think anyone would object to a new article being created so long as the references adhered to the biography of living persons policy. JBsupreme (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In my new version of the article, Online World of Wrestling is only used once, and it is used to source a match result, which is not a WP:BLP violation. Nikki♥311 22:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Unsalt per S Marshall. An established editor in good standing wishes to work on the article. They ought to be able to work on it in mainspace. Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Tim Song keeps talking like me. Are you me? ... Unsalt, per me.—S Marshall /_Cont 09:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • <wonders if he should put {{sockpuppet|S Marshall}} on his userpage> Tim Song (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, endorse leaving deleted Examining the sources in the userspace draft, I do not see anything but trivial mentions and name drops. In order to be notable, the subject would need to be the subject of (not mentioned in passing by) substantial, reliable, multiple, independent sources. Seraphimblade 09:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

psyBNC

psyBNC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see 5 keep requests and 4 delete requests, yet the article was still removed. The delete requests were made by JBsupreme, Joe Chill, and Theserialcomma, plus Miami33139 who raised the AfD who are all clearly involved in a case against tothwolf, which is clearly a COI and does not assume good faith to those impartial to this case. If these were ignored, the article would have been kept.

Hm2k (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• On reading the discussion I agree with Sandstein that the strength of the arguments was on the "delete" side. However, I am perplexed by Sandstein's refusal to userfy the article, which strikes me as bizarre. I hope he will explain.—S Marshall /_Cont 12:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Commment: I didn't participate in the AFD to attack Tothwolf. I have been participating in software AFDs for over a year. Most of my participation is in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe you too. Hence my reply to Hm2k as well as my comments here and elsewhere. While we may not always agree, I don't think you were acting maliciously. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment In addition to that, I was not implying Joe Chill had done anything in bad faith, but instead was merely pointing out that he is involved in both the arbcom case and the psyBNC AfD. --Hm2k (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. I was checking sources and giving the historical background for this software. There was a mass deletion of IRC related articles going on at that time and I remember that the tone was hostile, to a point where it was pointless to discuss and work on issues together. When one article that I worked on was dragged into AfD (possibly as a sort of revenge ), I stopped participating. However, you can see an old article version here with 14 references in online and print media. Cheers! -- 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. One of the keep arguments was to WP:IAR, despite the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Citing a doc file isn't really "non-trivial coverage", either, so the closing administrator was well within his/her bounds to find reason to delete. JBsupreme (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse AfD is not a vote. (I am involved in the Arbcom case. I don't see that as important to independently judging this article on its own merits.) Miami33139 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a direct correlation between issues with User:tothwolf and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_IRC articles being deleted. Articles should be deleted on their own merit, not to get back at another user. Your point of view on this subject is clearly not neutral. --Hm2k (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You are accusing the discussion participants of bad faith. This is not a user conduct RfC. Sandstein judged this article on its merits. Miami33139 (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment I am mealy pointing out the facts. If there has in fact been bad faith, which it does seem to indicate then that is not an accusation. User conduct is not in question here. Sandstein judgement was influenced by the comments left on the AfD, which is one of the topics I am disputing here. --Hm2k (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse: only one of the keep votes made any attempt to establish notability, and the closing admin was justified in deciding that the other keep votes could safely be discounted. I don't often agree with closing rationales that say (in a context where "votes" seem equally split) that one side was "stronger" than the other, but in this instance that conclusion seems perfectly reasonable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It's likely because notability is clear and obvious. As I keep pointing out, there are over 12 references (see User:Hm2k/psyBNC) and numerous entries on reliable sites for psyBNC such as Dmoz, SourceForge.net, Ohloh and freshports. It also appears in the FreeBSD and Ubuntu operating system distributions. I find it absurd that such obviously notable software is even questioned, which is yet another reason why I put it down to this drama surrounding tothwolf. I also don't see how claims such as "Wow. I see a flood of keeps here, again a sign of systemic bias on Misplaced Pages for certain internet related things" make a strong case for delete. --Hm2k (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The AfD addressed those sources and found them lacking, which is what Sandstein judged. Miami33139 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment What about this unquestionable reliable source? Was it overlooked by mistake or was it deliberately ignored? Are you speaking on behalf of Sandstein? --Hm2k (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn I was the keep voter in the original debate who went out and did a google search to find some sources to establish notability. I found a number of sources but they were dismissed by the delete voters as being self published or merely reflections of the developers documentation. At the time I was much less experienced in AfD debates than I am now, and I didn't think to check google books for better sources. A quick check of google books shows several published references to this SW including at least two, and , which strike me as non trivial. I don't know anything about the dispute between the other parties (I just sometimes look for AfD debates to participate in when I don't have anything better to do), but I don't think that this article was given a fair shake in that I seem to be the only participant in the original AfD debate who made a good faith effort to really search for sources that might establish notability. Given that "psybnc" generates more than 10 hits on google books alone, and more than a million hits in a normal google search, I find that a puzzle. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse: the sources do not pass WP:RS enough to prove WP:N. despite claims otherwise, the article was deleted on its lack of merits. furthermore, if notability exists for this software, someone should present some reliable sources that show mainstream, independent, third party coverage. then there's an argument. i wish hm2k, before accusing multiple users of bad faith efforts, would read WP:RS and WP:N to see that article was rightfully deleted. and to rusty cashman: i checked and . these books have 3 sentence mentions of psybnc. this is hardly anything but a trivial mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Your wish is my command for I am more than familiar with WP:RS and WP:N which is another reason why I raised this deletion review. The reference in the book Securing IM and P2P applications for the enterprise By Paul L. Piccard, Marcus H. Sachs is from page 379 to 386, possibly more (we can't see them all), that is not 3 sentences, that is more like 10 pages. The term "psyBNC" even appears on 4 of the pages. Are you deliberately being dismissive? --Hm2k (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The first of the books I mentioned devotes an entire paragraph of 8 sentences to the SW and includes a diagram illustrating how the SW works. However number of sentences (or even pages) is not the issue. The issue is whether the book discusses the topic in any detail. A trivial mention would be something like "one of the IRC bots out there is psyBNC." That is trivial because it gives no real information about the specific topic. However, both the books I listed describe specifically what the SW does, and how it can be used. The second also describes how the SW has been used in criminal activity. In most AfD debates I have participated in either of those sources would be enough to establish the notability of a topic. The original AfD may have been closed in good faith, but the new sources (all published books which gives them more weight) indicate that the subject has notability and that should be enough to overturn the original deletion. Notability is a threshold an article has to meet, but it is not supposed to be an impassable obstacle. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Request I invite editors to read the following related AfDs which resulted in keep, which should assist you when making a decision: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/PsyBNC, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/BitchX, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/PIRCH. --Hm2k (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WeeChat (2nd nomination) (among others). I listed as many as I could here and there have been many more since then. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Here's a current AfD that may also be of interest, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MacAmp (2nd nomination). I didn't follow the AfD under review here, but it looks like it was part of the IRC AfD Death March of Sept-Oct. 2009.--Milowent (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is one that just closed: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gordian Knot (software) (there have been dozens, if not hundreds of these). --Tothwolf (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote. In order to be kept, an article's subject must be the subject of multiple, independent, and substantial sources. Mentions in passing in such sources do not establish notability, even if there are a lot of them. The closer of an AfD is to evaluate the arguments, not simply count them. In this case, even the "keep" arguments pointing at the "sources" used, which invariably mention PsyBNC only in passing or are simple use documentation rather than sources about it, strengthen the case for deletion. If those are the best sources available, the subject is not appropriate for an article. And a good job to Sandstein on reading the arguments rather than counting them. We could use that with some other types of articles where a flood of "keep" votes (! omitted intentionally) without presentation of a single decent source inevitably result in a "no consensus" outcome. Seraphimblade 23:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment You raise some good points. However, if you actually look yourself you'll clearly see that there's more than just a mention. Although there admittedly aren't as many reliable sources I would like or expect, there clearly is notability, especially it the realm of IRC, which due to it not being logged is difficult to reference. The outlined security issues alone should give it justification to have a Misplaced Pages article as there is clearly sufficient coverage, as well as all the entries in operating systems such as freebsd, ubuntu and gentoo. --Hm2k (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst I endorse the delete close, for reasons eloquently expressed by Seraphimblade above, I agree with S Marshall that the refusal to userfy was indeed very peculiar. It is always possible that participants in the debate missed some reliable sources on the subject - one cannot prove a negative - so IMO good faith userfication requests by an editor in good standing should be granted as a matter of course. Tim Song (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per seraphimblade's remarks. Ray 05:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn but with no prejudice towards the closer as I feel he did his best to close this AfD to reflect the apparent consensus based on the information that he had at the time. In reply to Seraphimblade, neither AfD nor DRV is a vote.
  This book is not a "mention in passing". While there are other sources that in my opinion absolutely should be added to the article for the purposes of verifiability, the notability of this software is not the issue here and the remaining issues can be handled via the normal editing process.
  I do believe Seraphimblade is misunderstanding part of the notability guideline though. The notability guideline does not actually state that multiple sources are required. To quote WP:GNG: ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." The text is quite clear that multiple sources are preferred but it absolutely does not state that multiple sources are required for the purposes of notability (although, of course, I am personally still of the opinion that the more the better). The wording in this section seems to cause confusion where people believe that multiple sources are always required.
  The verifiability policy and the notability guideline are also not a combined policy/guideline. It is perfectly acceptable to establish notability via one means and use other sources for the purposes of verifiability. In the case of software, it is common practice and perfectly acceptable per WP:SELFPUB to use the software's own documentation and/or website for the purposes of verifiability when covering such things as the features and functionality of the software itself.
  All that said, having also personally spent 100s of hours compiling documentation on the behaviours of individuals named above over a span of months, it is pretty clear that there was something more going on here. Even when 3rd party reliable sources were provided or already present in articles, these individuals still wanted those articles deleted at AfD, and in many cases made false statements or claims against either the sources or the person presenting the sources in an attempt to sway the outcome. In addition to some of the other related AfDs linked above, the AfD for Konversation (AfD), which was also initially closed by Sandstein as delete is also very good example of these behaviours.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'm not sure how you figure. I don't believe I misunderstand notability, it would be very rare, though not impossible, for a single source to establish notability, and that source would have to be of extreme reliability. In this case, though, the book mentions psyBNC several times, but doesn't go into much depth about it. That's pretty much the definition of a trivial mention rather than a substantial source. Seraphimblade 07:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought during the original AfD potential sources like these: , , and were too quickly dismissed. As for the books, I think this is an example of a mention in passing: as is this: . On the otherhand this: is very much not (passing mentions don't generally include diagrams) and this one (that I don't think has been mentioned in this discussion yet) is arguable: . I understand that notability is a hurdle that an article has to clear, but it shouldn't be a mountain that an article is required to climb. I don't know whether any part of the original AfD process was done in bad faith, but it sure seems like the article wasn't given any benefit of the doubt, which is not how I think the process should work.Rusty Cashman (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Alison Rosen

Alison Rosen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject is an accomplished and well-cited journalist and tv personality. The article was completely rewritten since the first deletion to include legitimate references, yet I feel it was deleted because such differences were not noted by the deleting party Karpaydm (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Because we are a collaborative encyclopaedia, Misplaced Pages benefits from providing good faith users with FairProcess on demand. In this case I do not see any reason to deny it, so I will run with restore and relist in order that Karpaydm may see that his rewritten article, which at first glance appeared impressively-sourced, is not deleted without a supporting consensus.—S Marshall /_Cont 12:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• I nominated it for deletion, both times. I used AfD the second time because the second version was indeed rather different from the first, and I was surprised to see it go via G4. Obviously I think it should be deleted (the vast majority of references were to her own writings, not people writing about her) -- and while I'm not keen to see people spend more time on an article I don't think has a future, I'm not averse to having it done via AfD. So: indifferent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks guys for giving the page another chance. Is there something I do now (like re-create the article)? I couldn't find a cached version... when I looked at page history, my original addition was not available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpaydm (talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Wait until the DRV is over, please. The administrator who closes this may (if there is a consensus to do so) place a copy of the deleted article in your userspace for you to work on.—S Marshall /_Cont 15:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Invalid G4 deletion, there appears to be no dispute that the most recent version was substantially different from the version previously deleted after AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist I have no idea if it will be found notable, but it deserves a new AfD discussion--it is a considerably improved article. There is no reason to return it to user space instead of mainspace, since it should not have been removed. .I see the deleting admin was not asked or notified--so I just now notified him. Perhaps he might have reverted himself had he been asked to. If he does not do that or quickly move it himself to your user space, any admin may , & I will do so during this discussion to facilitate things. . DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• overturn and relist If the cached version is a decent judge then this should have a full discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from the deleting admin. The article was originally deleted because it failed WP:BIO. The basic criteria of WP:BIO is that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. As was fairly obvious, the new article did not address that issue. The vast majority of the sources used in it were articles published by the subject. Of the few remaining, most mentioned her only briefly or in passing (e.g this and this), while others were simply database searches (e.g. this and this). In addition, the article content, while somewhat less gushing and more neutral than the deleted version, significantly overlapped with it: for example, the lede paragraphs of both were essentially identical. I do not doubt that, as a freelance writer, the subject has had many articles published in OC Weekly and Time Out New York. However, given that that the "new" article did not meaningfully address the issue raised in the original AfD (WP:BIO), and given its similarity to the originally deleted article, I felt it qualified under WP:CSD G4. Jayjg 00:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I do not see how G4 would not be applicable here. While the article had different words, the new article did not address the core AfD concern—lack of notability and lack of source material. The number of sources in the deleted article do, at first glance, look impressive, they do not impress so much after looking through them. Most of them are by (and not about) the article's subject. The ones that aren't are simple "about the author" blurbs or name drops—trivial mentions. To address the notability/sourcing concerns, a new article would need to present multiple reliable, independent, substantial sources that are wholly or mainly about (not by!) the subject. That type of material doesn't seem to exist here. G4 requires only that the new article not address the AfD concerns that led to deletion, not that it be word-for-word identical. That's the case here. Seraphimblade 01:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• My feeling when recreating the article was that the original article had the main problems of 1) no real proof she was a journalist/editor/tv journalist since references were to blogs and online videos and 2) there were no cross references to Ms Rosen. I tried to fix this problem by a) showing multiple references showing she was indeed a journalist for many different publications, b) showing articles about her (even if the mention was sometimes short) that in dicated her positions held and awards received at these publications, and c) making as many as 5 different cross references (she is referred to in the pages Maggie Gylenhaal, Kevin Connolly, and Courtney Cummz). She also has articles that she has written referenced on other pages that do not indicate she is the author. I also referenced her IMDB page which, though incomplete, clearly indicates she made TV appearances. I guess my case also would be that we probably all agree that a) a journalist and TV journalist can indeed be notable and b) by nature, a journalist is typically not referred to often in other sources - they are not meant to be featured, but are notable for whom they have featured. For example, Dan Patrick is a major television personality/journalist for ESPN that we are probably all familiar with, however, his reference has fewer secondary sources than Ms Rosen. Ms Rosen regularly appears on multiple national TV shows, mainly on Fox News, which is why I searched for her in the first place. Courtney Friel is a less well known TV personality, and she has her own page, yet she has not one reference. Journalist/author Anna David (journalist) has even fewer items listed on her page. The point is that journalists (both on TV and authors), even some of the most notable, are rarely part of a story and are therefore rarely referred to in secondary sources. Again, I would argue that notability for a journalist is not defined by articles about them, but by the notability of the articles they have written and the subjects they covered. The proposed article on Ms Rosen clearly establishes notability of subject matter. Because journalists are rarely written about, I fear that the deletion of the article is due to lack of familiarity of those voting for deletion and that the Misplaced Pages community in general could routinely suffer such unfortunate deletions. Karpaydm (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.188.12 (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm familiar with the fact that journalists are not often the subject of publications themselves. Neither are many professions. That may mean we don't have as many articles on individuals in that profession as in some others, not that we set different standards. That just means Rosen's articles may be sources for other articles, rather than she being the subject. It does seem her star is rising, so it might be that in the future there will be enough written about her to write a full biography on her. If that happens, we'll write that article after it does. Until then, though, we don't have the sources. I commend your efforts in the undertaking, but in this case, there's simply not enough. Seraphimblade 02:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)