Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 16: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:51, 18 March 2011 editLiteralKa (talk | contribs)2,804 edits →Gay Nigger Association of America← Previous edit Revision as of 16:07, 18 March 2011 edit undoMichaeldsuarez (talk | contribs)7,715 edits →Gay Nigger Association of America: Comment.Next edit →
Line 140: Line 140:
*'''Allow recreation'''. The mistake this group made was to force so many discussion back when they were quite clearly non-notable that, naturally, this is held against them during any new request. Trouble is, based purely on the sources and policy, they appear to justify an article now. Not all of the sources are both reliable and in-depth, but there's enough here to justify retention under ] (and ] if that's felt to be relevant). ] (]) 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) *'''Allow recreation'''. The mistake this group made was to force so many discussion back when they were quite clearly non-notable that, naturally, this is held against them during any new request. Trouble is, based purely on the sources and policy, they appear to justify an article now. Not all of the sources are both reliable and in-depth, but there's enough here to justify retention under ] (and ] if that's felt to be relevant). ] (]) 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': most of the discussions I witnessed came from the 14 AfDs (or maybe even more), which obviously weren't "forced" by the group. ] (]) 13:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC) :*'''Comment''': most of the discussions I witnessed came from the 14 AfDs (or maybe even more), which obviously weren't "forced" by the group. ] (]) 13:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' &ndash; Some users has claimed that there were about 20 or 30 DRV's concerning the GNAA, so allow me to set the record stray: This is only the eleventh DRV. Of the ten prior DRV's, five of them were speedily closed, and only two of those can genuinely be called trolling. This is only the sixth DRV where a serious discussion is allowed to manifest itself. In comparison, there were 18 AfD's while the article existed, and twelve of them were speedily closed, trolling, or not taken seriously. AfD's #5, #7, #9 &ndash; #17 were indisputably started by trolls, and most of those should've been deleted on sight for disruption and ignored in future discussions. AfD #18 should've been AfD #9 or #10, but the troll nominations were kept for some reason and factored in the official count anyway. Truth of the matter is that there hasn't been 18 constructive, legitimate AfD's. --] (]) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====

Revision as of 16:07, 18 March 2011

< 2011 March 15 Deletion review archives: 2011 March 2011 March 17 >

16 March 2011

Gay Nigger Association of America

Gay Nigger Association of America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am not and have never been associated with the GNAA, but I have seen this issue come up on IRC and have been following it as best I can. I have not been canvassed regarding this issue.

The GNAA article appears to have been given short shrift in its last full-length DRV; most commentors weighed in with statements about whether or not they liked the GNAA, rather than their opinions on the article's improved sourcing. Similarly, the last two DRV closes have mostly been based on the disruption of LiteralKa starting multiple DRVs and/or the commentors' dislike of the issue.

Nevertheless, the article in its current draft form does show potential beyond what mere "GNAA is annoying" can counteract, and in an effort to put this issue to rest (at least for the near future) to everyone's satisfaction, I have spoken to LiteralKa (talk · contribs). S/he has agreed that the results of this DRV will be binding upon him/her for six months from its close. There is no quid-pro-quo expectation here; however, I very strongly urge commentors this time around to focus their arguments on whether the article meets our criteria for inclusion rather than whether the GNAA may or may not have worn out its welcome here. My hope is that this DRV discussion can be based on the merits of the article, especially its sourcing (in the context of internet phenomena, I would argue that places like Boing Boing and Gizmodo are certainly reliable) and notability, rather than on whether the GNAA is disliked by the WP community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment from the closer of the last DRV. I don't have an opinion on this nomination, but to the admin who closes this, make sure your privacy is pretty tight; I had a couple IPs make a serious attempt at finding my personal information, including my real name and address. It has since been oversighted, but I don't want to see that happen to anyone else. Ed  18:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment from a participant to the last DRV: I voiced my opinion in favour of restoring the article, and just yesterday a friend of mine found his long lost cat who had been missing for weeks. I'd certainly want to see that happen to others. Guaranteed true story. Sam Hocevar (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Overturn: I admittedly don't know how this all works but having been sort of following this drama on irc as well I see no reason at all for this article not to exist. It's got far more factual information backed up by reliable sources than the typical article about pokemon or whatever, and wikipedia definitely has no shortage of that sort of content. 184.247.156.97 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Overturn It's time to be sensible about this. By now, even the campaign to keep it out of Misplaced Pages is an element of notability -- see ref. 16 in the article. WP:OSTRICH, an essay that needs more careful attention. Can be otherwise stated as a combination of NOT CENSORED, and the advisability of not acting like a bunch of priggish fools. (this is not a personal attack with respect to anything that might be said here; it is an attack on a certain attitude.) DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Endorse, with a bit of history. It is not because "GNAA is disliked by the WP community" that we have historically held them to a higher standard. That is, it is not their general trollishness that is the chief cause of concern, but their very long-term history of specifically trolling our criteria of inclusion, which, as DGG concedes just above and is stated in the lead paragraph of the draft article, is one of the principal reasons for their notability. I have never bought this and I never will; no matter how notable WP itself may have become by now, publicly contesting our notability standards cannot itself confer notability. Chick Bowen 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • This is, by far, not "one of the principal reasons for their notability", the two Apple trolls, among other things, are. The only mention of Misplaced Pages is a single sentence. LiteralKa (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • CommentAllow Recreation Is there a concise list of references establishing WP:ORG for this group as distinct from the notability of Goatse Security? I looked at a lot of the references, but most were establishing the notability of specific actions attributed to the group, but did not really establish the notability of the group itself. A separate list of any that do would be helpful. Monty845 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
See the Apple trolls for one such example.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.
See ref #s 7, 8, 16, 17, 20, and 26 (this is excluding GNAA's "activities")
LiteralKa (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be enough there to justify notability, so I'll go with overturn, specifically on the basis of refs #16, #17 and #20. I'm not really sure the others really establish the notability for a variety of reasons, but those 3 are enough. Monty845 (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not arguing for two separate articles. There isn't any reason why the GNAA and Goatse Security can't be discussed in the same article. The problem is that it's hard to discuss the GNAA in detail within the Goatse Security article, but it would be easy to have a GNAA article with sections discussing Goatse Security in detail. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment*I think a GNAA article that contained in-depth discussion on the Goatse Security group would be the best possible solution, *especially* considering weev's statements in the press. Murdox (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment removed. lifebaka++ 23:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 75.54.139.45 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation based on my previous DRV rationale, draft meets wp:gng riffic (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Overturn I'm sure my opinion doesn't count for much in this debate, but I personally feel that the current draft is wiki-worthy. While there are a few iffy sources in there, they are also backed up by strong, legitimate sources demonstrating notability from global media. In an ideal world, wikipedia's deletion policy would work purely based on the quality and notability of the article in question. However, as many experienced wikipedians can testify to, it's extremely hard to separate the GNAA from their continued campaign of trolling wikipedia. That said, I don't feel that an article on the GNAA per say violates WP:DENY any more than an article on Encyclopaedia Dramatica does. As long as the wikipedia vandalism isn't discussed in depth (which, admittedly, would be near impossible to source :P), I honestly don't think it would encourage more vandalism. Murdox (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation As I said last time around, if a new article with the same level of sourcing as the current draft was created I doubt anyone would try to delete it. As best as I can tell, there's a pretty strong argument that they meet WP:NGO. You don't have to like them, but let's try to be fair here. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation – I've been involved in so many of these that I can't really say anything that I haven't say before, but my faith (although not blind faith) in GNAA's notability hasn't been deterred. I've defended the validity of some of the sources questioned above to the best of my ability. I would also like to thank The_ed17 for the critique. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I'm afraid I've no wish to read the remarks next week about how the GNAA successfully trolled Misplaced Pages. And I've no appetite for seeing the many, recent, previous consensuses overruled by a brute-force attack on our deletion processes. When we discussed this two weeks ago, we shouldn't have to discuss it again.—S Marshall T/C 01:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You wish to keep the article deleted because it's more convenient? The GNAA weren't holding web parades when I wrote the Goatse Security article, and the media didn't find the article's creation newsworthy. I believe that your fears are unfounded. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Calling "consensus" into play as a reason to keep an article deleted is funny, considering that in this DRV there is significantly more support to allow the recreation of said article. nprice (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I find it highly amusing that one who calls for the overturn and keep of almost everything here at DRV opposes the recreation based on purely personal, rather than valid (i.e. policy/guideline-based), reasons. Tarc (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • So basically, because you don't want your feelings hurt, you deny them an article? LiteralKa (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • overturn/allow recreation Seems like there's enough sourcing. The trolling nature of the group isn't relevant. Sourcing is what matters and this has it. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation. The mistake this group made was to force so many discussion back when they were quite clearly non-notable that, naturally, this is held against them during any new request. Trouble is, based purely on the sources and policy, they appear to justify an article now. Not all of the sources are both reliable and in-depth, but there's enough here to justify retention under WP:GNG (and WP:ORG if that's felt to be relevant). Alzarian16 (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment – Some users has claimed that there were about 20 or 30 DRV's concerning the GNAA, so allow me to set the record stray: This is only the eleventh DRV. Of the ten prior DRV's, five of them were speedily closed, and only two of those can genuinely be called trolling. This is only the sixth DRV where a serious discussion is allowed to manifest itself. In comparison, there were 18 AfD's while the article existed, and twelve of them were speedily closed, trolling, or not taken seriously. AfD's #5, #7, #9 – #17 were indisputably started by trolls, and most of those should've been deleted on sight for disruption and ignored in future discussions. AfD #18 should've been AfD #9 or #10, but the troll nominations were kept for some reason and factored in the official count anyway. Truth of the matter is that there hasn't been 18 constructive, legitimate AfD's. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Duncorn Hill

Duncorn Hill (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The reason I am bringing this up here is not that I have particularly strong views about the article not being deleted, but that I think the closing admin's erroneous decision was not based on policy and has implications for other articles of this type. It is clear to me that there were policy-based reasons for deletion (e.g. it does not meet WP:GNG), but no policy-based reasons for retention.

My initial discussion with the closing admin can be found here, I feel it's not likely to yield a solution so bring this here for wider debate.

The only reason for not deleting I can discern is that the good-faith extensive searches to demonstrate failure to meet WP:GNG by debate particiapants were not deemed to be of sufficient rigour. I've not enoucntered this before in deletion closures - usually the fact the numerous contributors state they are unable to find significant coverage is enough, in the absnece of anyone demonstrating such coverage. Pontificalibus (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  • In DRV terms, I would simply endorse the "no consensus" outcome because it properly reflects the debate. But I think that what the nominator is asking is more of a question of how policy should be understood, so my opinion on that is in the collapse box below.—S Marshall T/C 12:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Conversation between S Marshall and Pontificabilus

This is in the five pillars. Misplaced Pages's so focused on encyclopaedic content that sometimes we forget that we're more than just an encyclopaedia, but in fact we are more than that. We're also an almanac and, relevant to this, a gazetteer. The way I've always thought that WP:GNG and this "gazetteer" status interact, is that when it comes to geographical features, something like a map is a reliable source. What constitutes "significant coverage" is going to vary, but personally I would take the view that for UK geography, featuring on a 1:50,000 scale Ordnance Survey map means that it's probably more than just a minor geographical detail. If it doesn't appear on the 1:50,000 scale map but does feature on the 1:10,000, then I would say that further significant coverage would be necessary before an article was appropriate. This is intended to mean that individual streets or farms should not normally get their own article but I can see why a significant hill might well do.

I don't see how a "no consensus" outcome is correct, because when you strip out the arguments not based on policy, you're left with those claiming it fails to meet WP:GNG. Are we suggesting that subjects that don't meet WP:GNG (or don't appear to after a good faith search of sources) should have an article for some other reason? Because that's not my interpretation of WP:N (I recognise the debate on the notability of geographic features, but WP:N states that only WP:GNG applies as there is no more specific policy). I could create 10000 UK geographic feature articles tomorrow sourced only to single-word mentions in reports or maps, and if they all went the way of this AfD they'd all survive, even though none had "signifiacnt coverage about the subject addressing it directly in detail". Clearly that's against WP:N, so is WP:N faulty when it comes to certain subjects? --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • For me, the key question you raise in this reply is: "Are we suggesting that subjects that don't meet WP:GNG ... should have an article for some other reason?" and my answer is, "yes". Broadly speaking, geographical locations are suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, even when they are not strictly encyclopaedic topics, because of this gazetteer function that Misplaced Pages performs. (I would also say that dates and times are also suitable for inclusion even when not strictly encyclopaedic topics, because Misplaced Pages is an almanac as well as an encyclopaedia.)

    This broad statement of principles puts a fig leaf over the obscene morass of argument, opinion, precedent, exceptions and special cases that governs how geographical locations are treated in practice. Our definition of "geographical location" is bizarre and no lexicographer would recognise it. Various things that aren't even on Earth, such as individual asteroids, count as "geographical locations" for the purposes of the GNG, but most streets and farms do not. Some lakes, woods, or hills are suitable for inclusion, and others are not. Which ones get coverage in Misplaced Pages, at the level of individual cases, is down to the consensus on talk pages and AfDs.

    There is certainly inconsistency in our choices. This hill has been kept at AfD, but I'm quite sure that an exactly similar hill in Nigeria would have been deleted; an anomaly that exists because people have written an awful lot of books, articles and semi-informed opinion pieces about the British landscape. Personally, I suspect that the inconsistency and general weirdness of our treatment of geographical locations will never be converted into a systematic, thorough, and rigorous system. I'm sorry that it doesn't make sense, Pontificalibus, but I'm afraid that this is how it is when our encyclopaedia is largely written by monoglot British and American males who write about what they know.—S Marshall T/C 10:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that answers my concerns about our inconsistency and lack of policy on the retention and deletion of articles on geographic features. I can see that attempts to form a policy have failed before, but I had thought the GNG might be helpful as a catch-all. It does seem though that a case-by-case tenuously-policy-based discussion is what we go with, which I don't have a problem with, but it's nice to know. I guess I will go with the advice at Misplaced Pages:Geographic_imbalance#Solving geographic imbalances.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: I've taken the liberty of collapsing all this discussion because it's not strictly within DRV's purview and the DRV closer does not need to consider it—though I think that all the admins who close DRVs are the kind of people who will open the collapse box and read it anyway!—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Endorse per both of SMarshall's rationales. An argument based on policy/guideline analysis which a nominator disagrees with should not be disregarded out of hand as "not based on policy."Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised that Pontificalibus brought this matter to Deletion Review. We were discussing this matter on his talk page, & because he had told me to "take your time", I was: since he hadn't understood my earlier explanation, I was thinking on how to better explain myself. (I admit readily that my explanations aren't always as clear as I would like.) In any case if he disagreed with my closing, she/he was welcome to do further research & nominate this article for deletion -- or better, to merge it with another article so none of the information or sources used are lost.

    In a nutshell, & as S. Marshall points out above, for one to successfully show that a subject fails notability by WP:GNG -- & I hope by any measure -- one must perform due diligence. That is, find the appropriate reliable sources in which one would expect to read something about the subject & verify that it is mentioned there. (That is why I pointed Pontificalibus to the sources on her/his talk page: the publications of the English Place-Name Society, the Victoria County History (VCH), & the Ordinance Survey's historical maps of Great Britain -- all of which should be accessible through his local library.) Now it is difficult to find appropriate works for geographical landmarks in many parts of the world. I struggle with this problem when writing articles on Ethiopia where if suitable sources exist, in the vast majority of cases I either need to resort to buying them thru Amazon or Alibris (despite having the largest book store in North America located in my home town) or to using Interlibrary loan. However, concerning Europe -- & especially Great Britain -- there is an incredible wealth of historic, archeological, cultural, & scientific information about almost every square inch of the continent. Due diligence in this case would be to spend an hour or an afternoon in his local public library. Maybe I'm an unusual example of a Wikipedian, but I can think of far worse things to do with my time than to thumb through a copy of the VCH or John Leland's Itineraries. (FWIW, I've read both of these; but then, I may indeed be an unusual Wikipedian because I love to read obscure stuff.) And if Pontificalibus had shown interest in moving past my closing to performing the due diligence I had mentioned, I would have volunteered to help with the research: I happen to own copies of several of the Ordinance Surveys historical maps of Great Britain (which show information on reported archeological finds), although I bought all of them in 1984. Instead I can't help but wonder from all of Pontificalibus' actions if we have a case of WikiLawyering here; I'd rather extend good faith & hope that the two of us can together determine what importance Duncorn Hill truly has -- even if it the one unnotable place in all of Great Britain. -- llywrch (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for endorsing your own decision. Your extensive commentaries on "due diligence" are what prompted me to bring this here, as it seems you are missing the point. No other closing admins at AfD insist on anything other than a "good-faith attempt to confirm that sources don't exist". Hundreds of AfDs are closed every month as delete for failing WP:N where the respondents are unable to significant coverage in reliable sources. If Llywrch had applied the above to all of these AfDs, I suspect none of them would have been closed as delete. You admit these sources you require analysis of are obscure - however most are available on Google books and so would have been encompassed in most people's searches. The fact is, no one demonstrated the subjects meets WP:GNG, so I am wondering by what other criteria articles about non-notable subjects are retained? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, these other Admins ought to hold deletion nominations to the same high standard I held you. I'd be happier when I nominate articles for deletion, & the articles are deleted, had other Admins done the same in my case. I would then know that people were thinking about my nomination, & that I was doing the right thing, instead of left wondering if any article listed at AfD would end up deleted. -- llywrch (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Endorse a no-consensus close is just that: no consensus. Note that this is an article for a real location for which offline sources are likely to exist. It is entirely reasonable to expect that those arguing for deletion have demonstrated (not proven, for that's impossible) the likely lack of such sources. Notability is not an end in and of itself--it is a filter to keep random crap no one cares about (except the editor who created the article...) out of the encyclopedia. The pendulum has swung too far when people are demanding deletion of an article on an unquestionably real place just because they can't find enough online sources that discuss it in detail. Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Endorse There is , in fact, no policy saying that an item must be notable to have a Misplaced Pages article; what we actually do have as the relevant policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE , which says we distinguish what things are and are not worth articles, and a guideline, WP:N, giving some of the criteria for what we ordinarily consider sufficient reason for there to be an article. A view that we should include every hill on earth would be indiscriminate, & I don't think anyone is arguing that. a view that we should include some hills is in conformity with the policy. The position that verifiable information about a significant geographic feature is sufficient to over-ride WP:N is a firmly policy based argument, on the basis of the two most basic of the policies, one, that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia , and two, IAR. The only guide for how to interpret IAR is the community, considering the particular instance. The discussion about how evidence of a fort was not found there, is actually sensible, because a very large number of these geographic features are in fact fortifications of other artifacts. That this was worth investigating, & was investigated, is relevant and encyclopedic . DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec)Overturn to Keep  (FYI: I !voted "Keep" in the Afd.)  There was not a single viable delete position, with the possible exception of one referencing an essay.  The few delete !votes that mentioned a guideline opined that if a hill does not have a hillfort, it does not satisfy WP:GNG.  As I noted at the AfD, "...the 'hillfort non-notability guideline' (WP:HNNG)...says that hills that don't have hillforts are not notable, for which no supporting examples have been provided."  A closing admin could have dismissed this line of reasoning as having no weight, as the concept of "non-notableness" does not exist in Misplaced Pages, instead there are multiple paths to notability/inclusion.  There were no other delete references to relevant guidelines.  There were no references to policy by any delete participant (unless you include the misunderstanding that WP:N is a policy).  Closing admin could also have dismissed several delete votes as drive-by's.  Drive-by votes cannot be reduced by the force of reason.  While some keep participants also joined in the WP:HNNG debate and could have had such positions given zero weight, one or more keep participants identified and supported at least one policy, guideline, definition of notability, relevant notability essay, and fundamental principle.  For whatever reason, deletion votes included invective and hyperbole: "a whole lot of nothing", "blatant", "rocket science", "hard to believe that we actually need to spell out", "bunch of terribly bored kindergarteners", "plain laughable assertions", "spectacularly devoid", "creative use of ellipses", and (referring to a notability essay that was briefly a guideline) "it's an editor's opinion".  Also for whatever reason, again by deletion positions, there was disruption by commenting on other participants, including one redacted comment, "tying yourself in knots", "the line you misquote", "leave that spin out of it", and "insulting our intelligence".  Another participant brought a "facepalm" icon to the AfD, 20 hours after this comment about a participant in the AfD.  FYI, see also this response.  In the end, the closing admin has taken a variation of my challenge to a delete position, "What I don't see are metrics that separate 'just a hill' hills <WP:JAHG> from those that are more than 'just a hill', and where within the current guidelines and policies WP:JAHG should fit (i.e., WP:IAR, the definition of notability in WP:N, a new SNG)," and rehabilitated the entire delete position with an idea that no single delete position advanced.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hindsight always has 20-20 vision. Had Pontificalibus mentioned in his nomination the fact P. had lived for 17 years near this hill & never knew it had a name, I might have closed this as a delete. Had you taken the time to go to the library & perform the due diligence I told P. was lacking -- & found materials which proved this hill was clearly notable -- then I might have closed this as a keep. Or, instead of simply citing part of an essay, had you explained why it made sense here -- viz., why a named geographical feature is notable -- I might have also closed this as a keep. (Then there is the issue no one seems to have raised: why not merge this article with another one? Articles listed at WP:AfD aren't a black/white, keep/delete issue.) I'm an old-school Wikipedian; I like making decisions on articles based on common sense assumptions like, "How likely is an average user going to look for this subject?" When it gets to arguing just what policy is & what the words mean, I get uncomfortable because I know the discussion will end with garbage. That is why I put the burden of proof on proving that the article needs to be deleted: we are talking about removing content from Misplaced Pages, & once removed it cannot be easily restored. That is why I'm kicking this back to the community: I want someone to actually research this subject & explain to the rest of us whether or not it deserves its own article, or even part of any article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - While the delete thinking regarding the application of WP:GNG to geographical landmarks is faulty, it does represent an IAR view such that no consensus was within the closers discretion. Being a named geographical landmark does not make it notable. However, logic dictates that you generally cannot have a named geographical landmark without their existing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Government paperwork is needed to create the existence of the geographical landmark and that paperwork alone should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. RS need not be in the article: The actual reliable sources need not be in the article or presented at AfD. The logic of their existence itself is sufficient to conclude that the named geographical landmark meets WP:GNG because of the strong likelihood of the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is particularly true in an area like Somerset England, which has been around since at least 845. An assertion that in the last 1,166 years people have not written enough information about Duncorn Hill to maintain a standalone Misplaced Pages article on the topic is absurd. No need to produce source material: The fact the numerous contributors state they are unable to find significant coverage is irrelevant because the AfD test in this situation is not the actual finding source material; rather, it is a likelihood of its existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Since the delete positions at the AfD all avoided addressing this likelihood in view of the past 1,166 years in a populated area, their position was very weak and essentially conceded the point to the keep positions. The no consensus close is in deference to the consensus feature of the AfD discussion rather than an overriding application of WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Overturn, delete - No offense, but the close rationale reads like "I don't know what to do here, so let's just split the baby and call it a day". We have a simple general notability guideline; either it satisfies GNG, or it does not. The estimable Duncorn Hill does not. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • IIRC, King Solomon was quite successful in that decision: the true mother was found because she was the one who truly loved the child. Given the choice, I'd rather split the baby than split hairs. (God grant me the wisdom to know when I have the choice.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • enodrse close Uzma's remarks and DGG's remarks seem strong especially in the light of one of the sources explicitly calling the hill an important landmark. No consensus seems reasonable here. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Endorse per DGG. WP:N (and thus the GNG) is a guideline that is subject to common sense exceptions and setting aside by consensus. It is not a rigid policy to be enforced by admin deletion in the face of a real consensus to keep, or the lack of a true consensus to delete. Often a spurious lack of consensus can be generated by sock puppets or new users making arguments that ignore existing guidelines. But in other cases, such as this one, existing users made the reasoned argument that the guideline shouldn't apply in this case. Such arguments are fully within policy, WP:IAR, and should not be simply discounted by the closing admin. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting

TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

First, I tried to work it out with the admin who deleted the page, but he suggested that I request a deletion review. I am requesting undeletion of the Tricentis article. The reasons in support of this request are the following:

  • Tricentis is notable as evidenced by Gartner’s Magic Quadrant 2011.
  • the article only provides basic information on Tricentis and does not use any promotional language or content
  • the topic is no more specialized than any other software automation company already listed on Misplaced Pages
  • the alleged COI on its own is not a reason for speedy deletion

Jkoprax (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

done. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think an AFD on this would be reasonable, though I have my doubts. I'm not sure Gartner's is sufficiently independent to qualify as a reliable source. Google News Search turns up a half-dozen entries in German, but most are just reprints of press releases. The only actual article I found is this one in WirtschaftsBlatt. Chick Bowen 20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Personally I think that this should be an article for the German Misplaced Pages. Phearson (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I broadly agree with Chick Bowen, and I think it's part of DRV's function to provide FairProcess on request from a good faith editor. List at AfD if the nominator insists, though it might well not survive.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • List at AfD - Founded in 1997 and now has about 100 employees. It is possible that reliable sources wrote about TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting. Likely, that info is in Vienna, Austria and won't be revealed in an AfD (because it is in German and most English Wikipedians only read English. Also, a software quality assurance company doesn't seem the type to generate news coverage. However, Jkoprax seems a good faith editor and the deleted article wasn't too promoty. A 7 day AfD might bring forth some reliable sources, so list at AfD. Jkoprax, you may want to look over WP:GNG before the AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • After reading your feedback and checking the GNG, I would have to agree with you that there are not enough independent and reliable sources at the moment to justify the English stand-alone article. Is there any way to put the article on hold? If not, does getting deleted now make it harder to rewrite and post the article at a later point? I know Tricentis is expanding to the USA and there might be enough information available in English in 6 months or so to justify an article. But in the meantime I will probably try to post the article in German since there are a number of sources ranging from Wirtschaftsblatt to der Standard to Computerwelt and Monitor. Thank you for your commentary – it has been very helpful. Jkoprax (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Userfy to Jkoprax in accordance with his reasonable request. Also, Jkoprax, if you write the article in German, then provided there are reliable sources, it will be in order to translate it into English. You can have an English-language article with German-language sources (and I have personally created several such).—S Marshall T/C 13:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)