Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator instructions

< March 19 Deletion review archives: 2009 March March 21 >

20 March 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee lounge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I request that the page be undeleted, tagged {{historical}}, and permenantly protected to serve as a record of the infamous day-to-day chatter that went on there and was an important part of Esperanza's character.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose undeletion. I can't imagine how undeleting this would be useful; it's more likely to encourage Esperanza-like behavior. I also can't see anything that makes this urgent or relevant after 2+ years. If you want Esperanza's chattiness mentioned as a strike against it, get consensus to include that at Wikipedia:Esperanza; I don't see how you need this history to do that. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per "Messedrocker solution". From what I've heard from Bibliomaniac15, the pages were intentionally kept with their histories inaccessible to discourage future behavior like the Coffee Lounge used to be. That seems reasonable, and I see no reason why that has to change. The risks (future Esperanza-like behavior) outweigh any possible reward (people spend a lot of time reading chats). NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I have to ask myself "What positive good would the restoration of this page mean for the project?", and I can't come up with an answer. Better to leave this one in the ground. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Heck no per lack of reasoning how vomiting back up some years-old chitchat is going to help us build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in agreement with the above. The article isn't needed, and much less needed for protection. It won't bring anything positive to the project. --NewSinew (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose recreation - This was removed for a reason. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm going to give a different voice here. In my opinion, it's going to have a better preventive effect if people know what was on the page. If they can see such discussion leads to deletion, they know exactly what not to do to avoid deletion. Keeping the history deleted does nothing to discourage any behavior. - Mgm|(talk) 21:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So essentially you disagree with the outcome of the deletion debate? Since DRV isn't xFD round 2 I can't see the relevance. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing against all the oppose votes above my comment. I can't see how deleting something has a preventive effect. That wasn't even discussed in the MFD at the time. - Mgm|(talk) 21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, it would seem that if he did want to reargue it, on the basis of either change in consensus or new arguments, this would be the most available platform--one cannot in this instance simply recreate the article. How else would one proceed? This does not mean I am supporting that, but there has to be a a pathway.)DGG (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess we differ, I can't see why we wouldn't apply the same standards as we do for articles. If the community are now willing to accept it's worth, then the concept can be recreated if there is information of value in the old version that can be restored. But we expect people to present new evidence of the notability (community requirement/acceptance) in this instance. I don't believe anyone is arguing this point. The other reason we'd restore an article is presentation of new argument/evidence not available at the time of the deletion. In this case this could be something of the form that the outright deletion has led to copycat's failing the same problems, and an example would stem the flow. (Though quite why you'd not just use one of the copycat's as the example in a more recent "deletion" is another question.). That is the pathway to getting this restored, mere disagreement with the original decision is no more valid here that it is for articles. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per NuclearWarfare and Gavia immer. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted--this was the clearest deletion debate among the various ones that accompanied Esperanza's decline. As for MGM's argument, I don't think the people most interested in turning WP into a chatroom are reading up on the site's ancient history. Things like this probably will turn up again, whether we advertise this one or not, and when they do, we'll delete them. Chick Bowen 18:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that keeping it won't be preventive either because they're unlikely to read it as Chick Bowen pretty much says is the soundest argument I've heard in this debate. - Mgm|(talk) 21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to look at MGM's statement. Esperanza died a long time ago. At the time we were all so horrified that we beat the group with a burning stick 1000 times because we didn't want them to ever come back. At this point however, I think we can all back away from the dead carcass and loosen some of the decisions of the messedrocker solution. First, esperanza is in such an out-of-the-way corner of wikipedia that you have to at least understand WP:NOTMYSPACE before you would ever get there. And as well, the idea of a chat room is not new, the page is unlikely to give any ideas to anyone. Please stop the anti-esperanza mania so we can all understand the site's history.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose undeletion. As I see it, the problem is not that restoring the page would give anyone any bad ideas. The problem is that it would just revive a lot of trivial discussion that took place a couple of years ago. I looked at the last version of this page with content (third-to-last overall) to consider whether it would be worthwhile to undelete it and tag it as historical. Among the discussions on the page at the time were the following:
    • "Who here thinks today (Thursday) feels like a Friday? It does to me."
    • "What specific articles are you working on? I'm starting work on Komodo dragon. How about everyone else?"
    • "Is a Wikipedia page your home page? Mine is Special:Userlogin."
    • "As of tonight, I officially have 1000 mainspace edits.  :) Yay. I've also got some like 2850 total edits...closer and closer to 3000..."
    • "Who's your favorite super hero (or simply hero), and who's your favorite supervillain? Mine are Ash from The Evil Dead, and my favorite villain is Venom from Spider-Man."
    • "An IP, 203.167.171.118 (talk · contribs), wanted to start a quick poll on who has piercings and who doesn't. So I'm reposting it, as it wasn't formatted right. I don't have any piercings."

These are all actual quotes from the starts of discussions in the coffee lounge near the end of its run. (And, yes, each of these statements/questions generated multiple responses.) They may have been interesting to the participants at the time, but I have no idea whether the participants would want to see them revived and saved for posterity. Furthermore, due to GFDL compliance, I don't know if we could restore the page without restoring all 5,789 edits. However, I would allow a page along the lines of Wikipedia:Esperanza to be created at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee lounge to explain what the Coffee Lounge was when it existed, as opposed to restoring it to show the outdated discussions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AbsoluteTelnet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The reason cited for the deletion was "notability". I believe that over time, AbsoluteTelnet has increased in notability enough to warrant its own article. The measure applied in the deletion to determine notability are no longer true. In the deletion discusson, the notability argument was that a search for "AbsoluteTelnet ssh viewtopic" yielded only 74 results. However, the same query done on google today yields over 1,000 hits, which puts it on par with at least half of the remaining clients on the Comparison of SSH clients page, all of which have their own articles. Brian Pence (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion I get zero hits for "AbsoluteTelnet ssh viewtopic", and even if you were right 1000 google hits is pretty much nothing (see WP:BIGNUMBER. I also suggest a look at WP:COI as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, zero hits is just wrong. By my count, AbsoluteTelnet/SSH has more hits than plenty of the other clients on Comparison of SSH clients. For example, Penguinet has 217 hits for the same search. SftpPlus has 5. Lsh has 239. Why is AbsoluteTelnet/SSH singled out for deletion? Is it fair to compare AbsoluteTelnet's notability to Putty, the OpenSource FREE ssh client? WP:BIGNUMBER could also be used to invalidate the original deletion assertion that "AbsoluteTelnet's hits of X are below Putty's, which makes it non-notable". I know 1,000 is not a huge number, but even putty's number is down to 12,500 now. We're talking about a class of software that's used mostly by Unix system administrators. The numbers for any particular piece of software are not going to be huge. Open Source packages (openssh, putty) are obviously going to be higher. That doesn't make everything else non-notable. --Brian Pence (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, I found the problem with your search. You included quotes around the phrase, which looks for an exact string match. The intent of the search is to look for forum articles that discuss both AbsoluteTelnet and SSH. Try AbsoluteTelnet ssh viewtopic instead. --Brian Pence (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting Google hits is not research. And that applies just as much to your counting here as it does to the original AFD discussion. Research involves actually reading what search engines turn up. The numbers that search engines display in the corners of search result pages indicate nothing about notability. Reading the found pages is what one has to do.

    Your purported counterargument here holds no water at all, because you've not addressed the original argument at all, merely a straw man argument of your own devising. The original argument made by Han-Kwang in the AFD discussion was that all that xyr Google Web searches turned up were random WWW discussion fora postings by unidentifiable people with no determinable reputations for fact checking and accuracy — i.e. things that were not reliable sources.

    You want to counter that argument and show that the AFD discussion came to the wrong conclusion? Then find sources that document the subject, in depth, that are written/published by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy who are independent from you the author/creator of the subject. That is what demonstrates notability, as Wikipedia:Notability tells you outright. That is what Han-Kwang argued in the AFD discussion that xe could not find. You've shown no evidence that the AFD discussion came to the wrong conclusion on that point. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse – this is not AFD round 2. The reason given for challenging the deletion wouldn't even hold up in an AFD let alone at DRV. Otherwise I agree with those who have rebutted said WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE (as well as other logical fallacies included) argument. MuZemike 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Brian asked me to drop by and have a look after we discussed it at Talk:Comparison of SSH clients. The only thing I can see as possibly wrong with the AfD is that it might have merited relisting after only garnering two votes. That said, relisting is at the admin's discretion and it is not a reason to overturn. The real issue is whether AbsoluteTelnet has increased in notability to the point where it can have another go. What I am not seeing is much RS coverage that would justify this. Reviews on download sites like CNET are not RS. The best is the isp-planet article (not sure if it is RS but it looks encouraging). That is an article which is entirely about AbsoluteTelnet. I am not sure it is enough. I do feel a bit sorry for Brian. SSH clients are not the sort of sexy applications that get a lot of press or have people falling over themselves to write Wikipedia articles about. I would like to reassure him that, although a hell of a lot of perfectly good software is never going to make it to Wikipedia, this doesn't matter because Wikipedia is not a software directory anyway. People may well come here to learn about SSH or Telnet on a basic technical level but they will be looking elsewhere for lists of products to evaluate. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments Daniel. You're right in that ssh clients are a *very* *very* niche application and don't get a lot of press. Don't underestimate Talk:Comparison of SSH clients as a resource, though, for people researching client software. It's my belief that it is the most comprehensive unbiased feature-by-feature comparisson of ssh clients anywhere on the web. As such, I truly believe it would be a more valuable list to wikipedia users if my software were listed there. I keep getting told that wikipedia is not a software directory, but considering the amount of software listed here and articles like Talk:Comparison of SSH clients, it makes me wonder why Absolute keeps getting singled out for removal. I would like it if Absolute were un-deleted and I had the opportunity to complete the article with verifiable source information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpence (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I change to relist per some new sources indicated that are coming up. I already mentioned above that at least one of the sources above are good. I was informed that there are indeed other print sources out there, as well. If they provide a decent amount of coverage, then I don't see a need to keep it deleted. MuZemike 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to examine the new sources fully. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Foo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) ([[1]]|XfD|restore)

I worked for several hours adapting this article from my graduate work. I was returning this evening to continue working on references and add a bibliography when I found that it had been removed as "implausable". I was never contacted by the person doing this "R'n'B". I have written this person but also wanted to check with this site to inquire about return of the article. Weismantel (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Picute was deleted although relevant permissions were there. It belongs to www [dot] swaminarayan [dot] org [dot] in and I took their permission before uploading it here. There was an issue with another pic from the same website, some time back: Mumbai Swaminarayan Temple.jpg and I forwarded an email giving me blanket permission to use all their information and pictures here under GDFL from their website to permissions-en [at] wikimedia [dot] org on 14 October 2008. I mentioned this on the deletion discussion - eve then this picture has been deleted. Someone mentioned that it should be deleted unless what I said could be verified - I think permissions-en could easily verify this!! Its exasperating having to go through this even after getting relevant permissions. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to This this image is not covered under the 'blanket' permission. Skier Dude (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iv just justified here. I was given a clean image when I requested for one - the only diff is the website logo on the one on the website. Its covered under the permission. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 17:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that information. As far as I was aware, the image came from another, as yet unknown, site, and you were trying to use it under the permission from the original site. With this having been a real possibility, I tried to error on the side of safety. Now that I have further evidence that the image actually did come from the site in question, the formerly presumed absence of permission should no longer be an issue: This image has permission under OTRS Ticket 2008101410045759, and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2 or later. – ABCD✉ 06:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the confirmation, ABCD. I wld like to raise another point here. Iv uploaded loads of pictures (mayb close to or more than a 100) - not only from this website but also others, under the same permission (I think I have blanket permission from 3 websites whch hv been fwd to permissions) - now MOST of these do not hv OTRS tickets - how do v stop further problems like this? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image restored & talk page annotated correctly, image needs to be restored to article(s) by uploader as appropriate. Thanks :) Skier Dude (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Skier Dude - however my question still stands - any ways out? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_20&oldid=1138435946"