Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 7: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SJennings (talk | contribs)
SJennings (talk | contribs)
Line 239: Line 239:
*'''Endorse close''' - Seicer's closing statement looks to be about right, from a perusal of the material. If it can be rewritten to meet the needs of [[WP:N]] and [[WP:RS]], then recreation is fine, but the version I see doesn't really fly. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 16:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close''' - Seicer's closing statement looks to be about right, from a perusal of the material. If it can be rewritten to meet the needs of [[WP:N]] and [[WP:RS]], then recreation is fine, but the version I see doesn't really fly. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 16:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


*'''Overturn and rewrite''': I am one of the supposed canvassed "barbarians at the gates" who commented on this AfD on my personal blog, as it was both relevant to the MUD/MMO community and a topic of conversation on peer blogs. Rest assured although I a somewhat interested party from a professional standpoint, I have no vested interest in the actual topic (I have never played the MUD or are involved in its maintenance, unlike apparently most of the people in this discussion - it's painfully obvious that there is tremendous bias on both sides of this discussion, both pro- and con-. The article also appeared at first glance to fail [[WP:NPOV]] and could have used a rewrite and trimming. However there are many MUD entries on Wikipedia that have survived deletion challenges on notability grounds; MUDs are fictional works by their very definition and internet-based, and there is little to no sourcing that can be applied to these. The self-promotional aspects of the article can and should be removed.
*'''Overturn and rewrite''': I am one of the supposed canvassed "barbarians at the gates" who commented on this AfD on my personal blog, as it was both relevant to the MUD/MMO community and a topic of conversation on peer blogs. Rest assured although I a somewhat interested party from a professional standpoint, I have no vested interest in the actual topic (I have never played the MUD or are involved in its maintenance, unlike apparently most of the people in this discussion - it's painfully obvious that there is tremendous bias on both sides of this discussion, both pro- and con-. The article also appeared at first glance to fail [[WP:NPOV]] and could have used a rewrite and trimming. However there are many MUD entries on Wikipedia that have survived deletion challenges on notability grounds; MUDs are fictional works by their very definition and internet-based, and there is little to no sourcing that can be applied to these. The self-promotional aspects of the article can and should be removed. [[User:SJennings|SJennings]] ([[User talk:SJennings|talk]]) 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


====[[:Talk:Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway)]]====
====[[:Talk:Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway)]]====

Revision as of 17:03, 7 January 2009

File:Luckystarmusicvideo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD|article)

This image was put up for deletion on obscure grounds. The matter was discussed in IFD and the proposal to delete was almost unanimously rejected. The only people asking for it to be deleted were the usual group of people whose main interest in Wikipedia is the removal of images. The closing administrator neverthless decided to remove the image and in his concluding comments he directed abuse at me. Please review the decision. BScar23625 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed header. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The closer correctly pointed out that the image did not meet the non-free content policy, which was established by the delete !voters at the IFD. The policy is a foundation one; no amount of !votes can overturn that, notwithstanding that almost all of the keep !votes were in the style of WP:JUSTAVOTE or WP:PERNOM, which arguments are considered poor. I would also like to point out that Hersfold's closing comment was not "abuse", and that BScar23625's comment of "Sorry, User:QuiteUnusual, bit (sic) the image clearly passes NFCC#1 (whatever that is)" clearly indicated his lack of interest in the actual policy, merely an interest in keeping the image at all costs. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stifle. As you are the original proposer for deletion, you should not make any comment on this. best wishes. BScar23625 (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleting administrator comment: I was not contacted before this review was opened, however I'm not particularly surprised due to the nature of the discussion. The nomination for both clearly gave WP:Non-free content criteria#1 as the grounds for deletion - failure to meet any one of those criteria is grounds for deletion. Yes, there was a strong majority in favor of keeping both this image and the one nominated at the same time for the same reason. However, almost none of the arguments in favor of keeping either had any foundation in policy. Most were along the lines of "per user X", providing no additional comment nor addressing the policy violation brought up by the nominator. In fact, there was evidence to indicate that many of the editors in favor of keeping the image had little to no knowledge of the relevant policies. Yes, BScar, while that comment was not directed at your specifically, you were one of the ones I was talking to. I did not intend to be abusive, however was simply stating fact: any editor should be aware of the relevant policies before they attempt to argue with them in a deletion discussion. As this was clearly not the case for several editors, I used my discretion as the closing administrator to disregard many of those comments and delete the images. I do not feel as though this request for review is made on valid grounds. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SeisQuaRe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Speedy deletion of SeisQuaRe Why did I write it to the Community?

First, I wrote it to inform a community of the existence of this firm. I agree that it could be seen as advertising but in this case why my article was deleted and not those about the Seisquare competitors like CGV Veritas, Halliburton or Schlumberger in the field of the seismic and its analysis. When you talk about a firm, a land or anything, you make it living and you advertise about it. Large companies give often their turnover, their profit, their financial statement. As investor, I can look at them on Wikipedia and make a choice. As client, I know what they do, I know their power, and I have directly access to their website. Looking at the firm like Schlumberger, I also can know the name of people working at the head of the departments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlumberger). At least, I am nearly sure that these companies use advertising agencies to write their article on Wikipedia. I invite you to look at the following list and to explain the difference between information and advertising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_petroleum_companies.

Secondly, I wrote it to inform the community of the new tool this firm has brought to the seismic analysis. Before, the job was just to look at wave going down and up the soil. With its technology, the analysis is thinner. That why some majors like Total, Petrobras, Statoil trust this little firm (turnover 2M€) as well large big companies like CGV Veritas, Halliburton or Schlumberger.

Third, I wrote it because the method using by this firm, quite new, can give a second life to the oil fields. With it you can see where you have to put the pumps and where you have to put the injectors. You can ameliorate the percent of the oil pumped from the field. While drilling, you can reduce the percent of the dry wells.

I did not finish this article. By deleting this article we do not give to the community access to the information, you let the large firm (like Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Total, LVMH,...) alone and do not give a chance to the small. Rules are not made for one; rules are made for all of us. Thank you for reading my English (which is not good) and understanding my position. Cordialy yours, Jsrlak (talk) 07:58 January 7th, 2008 (GMT +1:00)

  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, this was advertorial not an encyclopaedia article. No objection to userfying for reword, but this account has vanishingly few edits so I don't hold out much hope of a properly compliant article. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The WP:CSD#G11 deletion was correct.  Sandstein  16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - as it stood, the article was promotional. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean sutton (closed)

Threshold (online game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The deleting editor failed to understand the debate and did not follow deletion policy. Theblog (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion by the deleting Admin was given as:

"The result was delete. Regarding Threshold (online game), there is a of reliable and verifiable sources. In addition, there seems to be little notability to this particular game, and no major notability was established. The article also suffers from overuse of peacock terms which has the effect of promoting the game without parting with any useful information. As such, the article is not written from a neutral standpoint. Regarding Frogdice, it is entirely unsourced sans one magazine mention -- which has not been verified. There is not much else content on this article to really make it notable. In addition, excessive canvassing from various Internet forums has muddled the AFD process. After careful consideration of the comments, few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article or located additional reliable and verifiable sources."

For these reasons I believe the deletion of the threshold article should be overturned (<- my vote):

  • In the deletion notice, the deleting editor mentions that the concept of "major notability" while novel, there is only notable or not notable, no categories of notability.
  • The deleting Admin also comments that the current quality (peacock terms, neutral tone) of the article (as determined by him) is poor. The article quality does not have a bearing on the deletion and was not mentioned as a reason the article should be deleted in the nomination, this reasons for deletion are described in WP:DEL#REASON and this reason is clearly not in there.
  • The deleting Admin also makes the statement: "After careful consideration of the comments, few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article" this is a new standard and it is not known if those not in support of the article were treated similarly.
  • There was definately no clear consensus as required to delete: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." While the deleting Admin claims that some arguments were discounted due to canvassing, there were still many arguments from established editors to keep the article that had not been addressed.
  • The AFD was also closed one day (correct if wrong) before the required (by WP:DELETE) 5 days had passed.

I have attempted to engage the deleting editor in conversation about these points, but he has not offered explanation, only repetition of his argument. Thank you for your consideration. --Theblog (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am only posting this for the Threshold entry. I believe Frogdice should be separately considered. --Theblog

UPDATE: I have tallied the comments (feel free to correct me if I counted wrong) and they come out to 18 Editors for delete, 17 editors for keeps, and only 4 editors with the tag indicating they have posted on few or no other articles than this one (these editors were not counted by me nor were 2 people banned for being sockpuppets). While I understand it is not a vote, I think this clearly shows that no consensus was reached and thus deletion was inappropriate. (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Close massive attempts at AfD disruption through off-site canvassing. As far as major notability, the admin was I believe referring to the fact that Threshold may be notable within a group, but it has no real notability to the outside world which is what this encyclopedia is intended for. This is an often cited argument. In the case of meat/sockpupets which were clearly a problem in this case, closing admins are free to completely disregard their statements and give them zero weight. Consensus is not a vote which is why disrupting the afd through off-site canvassing was a waste of everyone's time. There is zero reason to reward disruption of wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps as a busy administrator (1,370 pages deleted! Impressive!), Seicer did not have time to read the actual information about my blocks, the timeline of the supposed "canvassing", or the AfD itself. I was blocked for reverting edits without discussing them on the talk page. This was my mistake as I did not understand this convention of Wikipedia. I was making WP:GOODFAITH edits at the time and did not notice edits I was overwriting while working assiduously on the entry. The person who banned me did not, as required, assume WP:GOODFAITH, nor did he warn or try to help me understand what I was doing incorrectly. Furthermore, the timing of that block was highly suspect. Once I and all other active contributors were blocked, that is the precise moment that was chosen to move forward with the AfD.
    • The indefinite block was placed due to an ERRONEOUS accusation of sock/meatpuppetry. Those accusations were not only a violation of WP:BITE, but they turned out to be FALSE. This was verified by User:J.delanoy, another admin of Wikipedia. After this verification, User:Black Kite reversed the block. You cannot use a wrongful block as evidence against someone or against an article.
    • The "canvassing" that is claimed to have occurred happened when the people involved were inappropriately banned from Wikipedia by User:Black Kite for sock/meatpuppetry. Again, these accusations were total violations of WP:BITE (don't accuse new people of being sock/meatpuppets), and also turned out to be FALSE. Once these people verified their unique identities, they were unbanned. The people who discussed the issue on Top Mud Sites did so only after they were INCORRECTLY BANNED and had absolutely no recourse. If you ban people from your site, you really don't have any business getting mad at them for discussing things on a different site. That's all they have left.
    • The large number of people that participated in the AfD did not do so because of Top Mud Sites. Unless some of the DELETE-voters want to admit TMS is such a notable site that 1 thread there can result in one of the biggest AfDs in the history of Wikipedia. The people that participated did so because of the merits of the case, and the news it attracted from experts in the field. The fact that this issue attracted so much attention is evidence of Threshold's NOTABILITY, and yet somehow the closing admin misinterpreted this in the reverse.
    • Finally, there was an enormous amount of #irc and email canvassing done by the editors and admins voting DELETE. This was discovered in multiple places. But apparently, it is ok to canvass if you have enough administrator friends to sweep it under the carpet. Cambios (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might want to check your own comments before you start accusing others of assuming bad faith. You've made repeated bad faith statements on this very page. You have no evidence of any canvassing, just people having a private discussion. You have no idea what they're talking about. your Canvassing however was extremely blatant.--Crossmr (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response What evidence do you have of this 'massive' and 'extensive' canvassing? All I see is a forum thread. Other people interested in MUDs picked up the story as a result of that post and shared their opinions. It was made clear their opinions count for nothing here unless they are regular and long standing Wikipedia editors so they shared their opinions on their blogs. Are you stating that a subject of interest to a niche community should not be mentioned on a forum dedicated to that community? If I AfD the 'Corvette' page and that gets posted about on a Corvette forum does that then lend weight to the deletion itself when members of that forum, who are naturally passionate about the subject, want to add their opinion to the subject? A subject on which, by the way, they know infinitely more than the person posting the AFD (which would, in that case, be me). Aardlasher (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the edits on the [Mud] and [Mud::Talk] page by some Wikipedian attempting to stalk, track down and delete any reference to your site attracted my attention and I strongly suspect the respected MUD bloggers who watch the Wikipedia Mud pages. Jlambert (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is one point that I requested clarified on the deleting Admin's talk page, but he (or she) didn't respond. It would be nice to know the breakdown of whose arguments were actually considered and whose were dismissed. As I noted above, only 4 editors were tagged as being new with few other edits with 2 editors banned for sockpuppetry (their comments were struckout anyway), the rest voting Keep I can only assume were long standing editors, as from personal experience I can say everyone was being heavily scrutinized. --Theblog (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion While I am not enthused about the closer's rationale, since it mentions as reasons for deletion some problems that could be fixed by rewriting, the offsite promotional campaign certainly interfered with any chance of holding on to a marginal article like this one. Occasionally a deletion debate will scour up lots of previously unknown sources and lead to an improvement of the article. It did not happen in this case. When the supporters of this article decided to fight rather than cooperate, it hurt their chances. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Excuse me, but the only "canvassing" that happened was the result of abusive administrators banning everyone who was either an original article contributor or voting KEEP on the AfD. Once they were all banned, what were they supposed to do? Just shut up and quietly go away and never speak of the matter anywhere? That's absurd. Furthermore, the admins and pro-DELETE people were canvassing like mad via email and #irc channel discussions. Some of them were even caught setting up such discussions on their Talk pages. You guys need to seriously get over yourselves with some of these insanely insular policies. Most people in the world do not consider Wikipedia their primary social community, and frankly, discussing things by editing the same web page over and over again has to be the most cumbersome way to communicate ever invented. Cambios (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any evidence of that? I see one user asking another to speak with them on IRC about a private matter. I see no evidence of canvassing. and with your obvious bias you don't want to get in to a conversation of people telling other people what they should do.--Crossmr (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OVERTURN and KEEP: The closing admin abused his discretion and substituted his own personal preferences for actual Wikipedia policy. The AfD was closed 2 days early, and it it ignored the clearly spelled out requirements of WP:DP: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." Cambios (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment some of the outside attention was legitimate. Raph Koster and Richard Bartle both clued in on this during or nearly during the debate. As such their readers wandered over. This is distinct from forum threads where offsite individuals plot to overturn consensus (the scenario we envision usually). I really wish this could have waited a bit before being listed here, but I suppose there was little choice. Protonk (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard Bartle might have talked about Threshold in his blog but only after the AfD was being massively disrupted by sock/meat puppets due to off-site canvassing. He even states blatantly in the blog entry that it was generated in an attempt to establish notability of the subject. It was only mentioned in the same breath as an attack on wikipedia and its processes. In his attempt to try and generate a source to save something from deletion, he also tries to make the claim about some other sites and their notability/reliability. There is nothing about that that screams legitimate. The only legitimate source was a trivial mention in a print magazine.--Crossmr (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, of course, that a chicken-and-egg problem exists. Experts in fields will take information sources for granted, and often assume that their audience knows certain things. The smaller and more niche the field of study, the newer or the harder to locate sources for due to age, the less will be directly written. The issue of academic usefulness was actually raised in the AfD, and subsequently ignored, it seems (except by myself). We see similar issues with matters of pseudoscience - mainstream science takes so for granted the quackery of it that rarely are any formal disproofs ever made. LinaMishima (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeatedly asked for some genuine evidence that either of those sites were considered reliable (the only evidence given that Richard Bartle used the site academically was a game site interview where he namedrops one of the sites twice). No one was able to provide any genuine evidence of reliable sources citing them, any academic papers citing them, etc. What we did have was at least one of the pages about page basically describing the site as a hobbyist site. Those have traditionally never been considered reliable on wikipedia. In addition to that I asked for evidence that even if some of the sources were considered reliable (Bartle's blog is reliable to his opinion) was there any evidence that they were in fact notable and would confer notability to the subject. Wikipedia asks for well known awards. No one demonstrated the awards were well known. No one would provide any evidence to the viewership of these sites or expert blogs (even discounting the fact that they were generated in an attempt to subvert AfD) so that the community could try to establish whether or not those sites would actually confer notability. Even if expert in field Y writes about subject Z, but does it on a napkin in a restaurant, does it confer notability? I don't think so. It might be reliable as to his opinion if you can verify its origin, but that is it. We don't know if Bartle gets 10 viewers or 100,000 viewers on his blog and given the already obvious attempt at source generation any numbers generated now would be viewed with suspicion.--Crossmr (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Raph's blog can be traced as the source for several widely reported stories on MMOs, and has also had his direct opinions expressed there expressed widely, I don't think you can make claim as to his blog not being significant. You might also want to take a look at WP:FICT, which makes allowances for the use of less mainstream sources. A similar problem as to that which WP:FICT is trying to address exists for any niche field - publications regarding it are typically made within a small circle only, and are often supported more by community projects than by the major press. If attempting to document a field properly, this poses a problem. What's worse, any measure of notability for a source would be subjective not just over people, but also over time. Many 'zines grow large, become highly respected, but then their readership and original editing team moves on. Your use of 'subvert AfD' was also unnecessarily loaded, I feel, and ties in with the fact that you mainly made a call to notability (which never really impresses me) rather than actually debate the questions I raised directly. LinaMishima (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring that fact that Threshold isn't a book or movie, WP:FICT clearly states In all cases, if a subject relating to a work or element of fiction meets the requirement of the general notability guideline,it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. and also states All articles must meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, where every statement is backed by research from reliable sources. However, a verifiable article is not necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards and merely being verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion; the general notability guideline requires the use of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For fictional subjects, terms such as reliability and independence have specialized meanings. I don't see anything there that would allow for less than usual sources.--Crossmr (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it matters for this discussion but WP:FICT is proposed, not enacted. Protonk (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FICT is the most appropriate SNG. It states "News organizations and scholarly journals usually ensure reliability through peer review. However, a source may still be considered reliable without these strict content controls". WP:V was never in question, but rather the absurd reliance upon the highly subjective concept of notability. I have already spoken of these issues, and you have cunningly ignored them again. What is worse is how people prefer to call to the WP:N guideline, even when there are extremely good reasons to instead call to the far stronger policy of WP:V. LinaMishima (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    NB: As an aside, you have to wonder what it means when many of the major figures in a field all blog against an article being up for deletion. There seems to a belief amongst some wikipedia editors that "content is free", that there is no harm in deletion, since someone else can rewrite it all. I really hope I don't need to point out the patent absurdity in that. LinaMishima (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not all. Damion is clearly ambivalent on the subject, and Raph, Scott and Richard hardly count as a significant fraction of MMO/MuD experts. Protonk (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused by this. Richard Bartle is a nice guy and an expert on gaming, muds and MMO's. Obviously we shouldn't take his blog post as sufficient evidence that Threshold is notable (I didn't say that), but it would be bizarre to dismiss his interest in the subject as illegitimate. I'm only saying that people who read his blog or correspond with him otherwise have a right to come to wikipedia and join the discussion. This is manifestly different from a WP user going to an outside forum known to be biased and pointing people toward a discussion with instructions. Protonk (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Except there was a post at an outside forum, and it was linked from the AfD. The sock/meat puppeting started before Bartle and the other bloggers came in.--Crossmr (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that mean? All I'm saying is that some of the new users at the discussion may have come in good faith. We will probably never know how many or which ones, but it behooves us to behave as though some were, given the evidence. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some may have, some might not have. The forum thread [1] was generated 2 days before the blog post, so that would probably give you some idea. I've never said his opinion isn't reliable, but there has been no evidence provided that it would confer any notability, and with threshold only being mentioned in the context of an attack on wikipedia, there is no reason for the community to reward that. Bartle was showing an obvious bias in his blog post, so any comments he makes about how reliable, notable, etc a site is really have to be taken with a grain of salt.--Crossmr (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I submit that some of the users coming to the AfD came from a forum post saying 'effectively' "save Article X". As for treating Bartle as a 'biased' source on the subject, I'm not so sure. And I'm not sure why you are returning to the question of using Bartle's post to establish notability for threshold. I haven't suggested we do that. Protonk (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but plenty have, because its really all they have. Bartle's post was being clung to to try and establish a lot of things: 1) that Threshold was notable, 2) that TMC was reliable and notable, 3) that topmudsite was reliable and notable, etc. You made the comment that there was some legitimate outside attention. My point is that the vast majority of it was generated as a result of the deletion discussion and even then it doesn't really amount to anything that would indicate a keep of this article. Bartle clearly states in his blog post that it was generated to give notability to threshold and in that same breath he suddenly proclaims notability and reliability for debated sources. In that context there is no way the community could accept it at face value.--Crossmr (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not to invoke WP:WAX, but you could argue that lots of media attention fell on deletionpedia only because its article was up for deletion (makes for a pithy article subject for newspapers). Obviously the level of attention isn't anywhere near the same but it wouldn't be reasonable to discount those stories due to their apparent motivation. Protonk (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbelievable. The link from the AfD to the TMS forum post was made by User:Black Kite - the ban happy admin who voted DELETE, and who banned all the people that went there to discuss the issue because they were UTTERLY UNABLE to discuss it on the Wiki. The circular logic that has been used all along here is absolutely bizzarro world type stuff. A delete voting admin links to an external forum post, and the people voting KEEP are blamed for canvassing? Cambios (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith and keep the level of vitriol down. It doesn't help the debate to say "ban happy" or "delete happy". I know you are upset about this but please just help us see things clearly. Protonk (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Available for review by non-admins at User:Cambios/Threshold. Protonk (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn reason for deletion, however I am undecided on if the verdict itself should be overturned. To put it frankly, Seicer screwed up bigtime. On a heavily debated AfD, which has became popularised off wikipedia, any verdict must seem calm, free of bias, and understanding of all positions (despite having to side with one). Yet Seicer chose instead to:
    1. Criticised the content of the article as a reason for deletion. These appear to be entirely new arguments in the discussion. In formal debate, one does not ever raise new points in their closing arguments, especially when one is doing it as judge & jury, and in a manner which displays clear bias.
    2. Fall down to notability, a matter highly disputed in the discussion, when WP:V was, in their opinion, also an issue.
    3. Make a critical typing mistake "there is a of reliable and verifiable sources". Under normal circumstances this would be ignored by all, but in this case the opening reason manages to have a typing mistake which makes its meaning completely ambiguous.
    4. Fell foul of recentism and internetism by declaring a better reference for the article 'unverified'. In this case, the reference was certainly verifiable, and indeed most of the discussion regarding this reference seemed to focus on if that made the MUD notable, rather than on if the magazine even existed.
    5. Seemingly cited canvassing and a muddled AfD as a reason for deletion. I can't see how, when presented in that matter after already reaching a conclusion, that statement could be intended as anything but "canvassing & muddled AfD = autodelete". This statement of issue should have really came first in his summing up prior to conclusion.
    6. "few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article or located additional reliable and verifiable sources" Here Seicer sets a dangerous precident - that keep-voters are required to work heavily to improve an article and to locate sources to the peculiar tastes of those arguing for deletion. To make matters even worse, there have been allegations that attempts to do just this were actually blocked and reverted.
  • In conclusion, I feel Seicer maked a grave error in the reasons they gave as to why they closed this AfD. LinaMishima (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Close Oh come on! We've had such a long discussion, and the vote tally isn't reliable as many of them are suspected SPA/of the canvassing. The AfD itself had >3 links where canvassing occurred! In addition, AfD's are not votes. There's been enough forum shopping, canvassing, and overall attempts to game the sysetem where many established users have stated that the current version should be deleted and/or refuted the ad infinitum messages of the various SPA's due to canvassing (read:we've wasted enough time on this, and I feel the AfD was proper). Also, Cambios should stop his accusations against other admins and editors. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see a reason to speedily close a deletion review there. I think there is substance enough to discuss the merits of the close in this request. At the very least we can determine why it was closed >24 hours early. Protonk (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to what I meant to say due to edit conflict. So you want to reopen it for another 24 hours?
No, I think that would make a bigger mess of things. I really wish this DRV could be pushed back a week or so to wait until people aren't so hot under the collar about the issue (on both sides). Barring that, we can reasonably look at the propriety of the close here, with the shortened length a part of that. I still haven't decided whether or not it should be overturned. Hopefully people will improve the sandboxed version of this to the point where we can render the close moot and restore it. That would be the best outcome. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think pushing it back a week would change anything AfD/DRV/whatever, but I do agree that if the article is improved and restored, that would be best (although that is assuming it can be improved to the point where there would be no AfD, which I don't know if it can be, just a disclaimer from any promises, not saying it can't). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably true, anyways I don't think there is any history or provision to close a DRV and have it reopened later. It was mostly an empty lament. Protonk (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the nature of what is going on here no version should be restored to main space until its been vetted at DRV, simply to prevent another episode like this. While people often restore non-contentious rewritten articles, there aren't sufficient sources on this subject currently presented to be restoring a completely different article on the subject to mainspace.--Crossmr (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to open it for another 24 hours, go ahead, it won't change anything, as essentially, we are continuing the AfD here alread. I disagree with the notion that closing this sets any precedent as it doesn't, but its already been stated above more concisely (you just have to read closely for implied meanings). Improvements aren't "forced" on a article. If none occur, it doesn't mean auto-deletion. However, if a article is not notable, or fails other inclusion guidelines, it will be deleted, therefore, if it does fail, then improvement is by fault compelled if one wishes to keep the article, be there a policy, precedent or not. Its common sense. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse — This is not AFD round 2. Why the fuck am I not surprised???? MuZemike (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT: Have you stopped and wondered why this abusive, policy defying deletion is getting so much press? Every step of the way, policies have been violated by the "powers that be." Incorrect bans (that had to be overturned). Bans timed RIGHT before an AfD proposal. Bans of almost everyone voting KEEP to try and guarantee less KEEP votes. Accusations of canvassing by people who were already BANNED from Wikipedia and had no other place to discuss anything. As if Wikipedia has the right to silence people beyond its own borders. Canvassing by pro-DELETE admins/editors via email and irc (documented and linked to already), but that's just considered no problem and accepted. AfD closed 1-2 days early. Rampant accusations of sockpuppetry of anyone who votes KEEP, despite WP:BITE forbidding that. Closing admin totally ignores the arguments in the AfD, and substitues his own personal opinions - including opinions on issues totally not germane to an AfD. Despite 17 votes delete, 22 KEEP, somehow it is declared to be a "consensus to delete." Sure, its not a vote, but when more people vote KEEP, you sure as heck don't have a consensus to delete. Take all of that together, and of course it is no surprise that people take it to the next step. But honestly, does anyone believe it will matter? Since when has anything related to this situation been handled fairly or according to Wikipedia policy? Cambios (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MuZemike (wikipedia administrator): "Why the fuck am I not surprised". Wow. Grossly inappropriate and incredibly immature. Cambios (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been pointed to WP:AGF several times at this point and referenced it yourself. I'll also point you to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. These are policies, WP:BITE is a guideline and you can't attempt to disrupt wikipedia and hide behind BITE when someone calls you on it.--Crossmr (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one big problem with that statement above. I am not an admin. MuZemike (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per the clean hands doctrine. In short, the behaviour of Cambios and other editors here and at the AFD has disinclined me to consider whether their request should be granted. I will, however, point out that the AFD was quite a train-wreck and that Seicer's closure summary was completely necessary due to the length of the debate. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The ones who failed to understand deletion policy appear to be the fans, not the closing admin. Seicer's close (give or take a minor typo) is clear and unambiguous: lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. Set against this fundamental issue, things like WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:ITROCKS cut no ice. Sorry, that's how it is. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the result. Canvassing tends to backfire on Wikipedia, and when a bunch of new users suddenly show up on an AfD (which is a consensus discussion, not a vote) people are gonna want to investigate to see if there's any skulduggery going on. Even assuming good faith, there's more issues here than a Reader's Digest back-catalog - Vanispamcruftisement, off-wiki canvassing, Shadows calling Sora a Heartless, and character-assassination. Whatever possessed you to think that these would help save your article, please tell me where you got them so I can avoid that particular place, because they're slipping you some heavy-duty drugs. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 09:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Referring to anyone who joined in this debate as though they were here to subvert the Afd is ridiculous. I dont think canvassing is a problem here at all, and should be dropped on BOTH SIDES. Anyone who is interested in Threshold, or mud's in general was entitled to a voice. Please dont throw how this was about a single entry back as an argument. All the Wiki rules / policies use Afd's as examples.. therefore in principal every Afd is important. The majority of new people voting to keep who were new users took time to read all the rules / policies thrown in their face on every single post, learning how Wiki works should be applauded, not slammed. I have an incredibly bad taste in my mouth at the dismissal of new users by some long standing admins, who just "appear" to be elitist biggots. Thresholds entry does not interest me personally, though the dismissal of every existing MUD site / expert does. Threshold will not be harmed by this nonsense, so I dismiss conspiracy theories as noone would be so stupid as to think removing Threshold from Wiki was a win. However there is a loser, Wikipedia has yet more bad press on some incredibly high profile blogs about the terrible way information is decided on by personally biased, nd potentially unifomrmed individuals. The handling of this Afd has been appauling.. and as already stated one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia on entry deletion has been broken. To me though there are several issues that needs to result in admins being suspended pending investigation as to their ability to edit such a high profile repository of knowledge. The questions are - Why, when the entry was editted as requested, where some edits reverted by admins voting to DELETE, and why were long standing editors who disagreed with Deleting admin blocked from entering this debate. Conflict of Interest is apparent. --MudMannUK (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (Minor edits as made unfounded statements) --MudMannUK (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if my words came off as inflammatory (I can speak or nobody else), but posting to an off-wiki forum, board, or elsewhere and telling people to vote one way or another *is* canvassing, and generally nets the canvasser's side a loss. The only COI I can see here is on the side of the user who brought this for review (I'm not a MUD player, and looking at the article as it sits in OP's userspace it read like vanispamcruftisement). I have not seen any long-standing editors barred from this DRV (on either side) by any means, technical or otherwise, so please redact that sentence unless you provide diffs or links to logs as evidence of such. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 11:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually check out the post on the Top Mud Sites forum where the supposed "canvassing" took place? There is no call for people to vote - at all. The post says "I'm not sure if there is anything we can do about it". saying you don't know if there is anything one can do is about as far from canvassing as you can get. It is the OPPOSITE of suggesting action. The post is about the MUD community banding together to figure out a way to shore up its history. Before just blindly accepting accusations of canvassing, it might be a good idea to GO TO THE SITE and READ THE POST that supposedly represents canvassing. If any canvassing happened, it was the DELETE voters via #irc and email. That post on TMS is definitely not canvassing by any stretch of the imagination. Cambios (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Overturn Deletion No consensus was reached. AfD may not be a vote, but the fact that the majority voted to keep clearly indicates lack of consensus. Attempts at improving the article were stifled by repeated reversions of edits being made to do just that along with banning users without justification. Accusations of sockputtetry and meatpuppetry were thrown around without proper supporting evidence. Accusations of canvassing were thrown around despite admins who were clearly engaging in the same behavior. AfD was also closed improperly before the process was supposed to conclude. Samson (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not a vote, period. There is no but there. you can't pile on and claim consensus in the presence of obvious indication of offsite canvassing.--Crossmr (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So then how exactly is consensus reached? Surely it isn't the will of two people? Or three? Or even five? There has to be some way to measure consensus and in the real world most of us accomplish that by looking at who voted one way or the other. It seems entirely counter-intuitive that it should work opposite to reality here on Wikipedia. Even disregarding the obvious non-consensus here, you don't get to fling accusations of off-site cavassing when those who had legitimate reason to comment were prevented from doing so because of preemptive bans. You also can't use canvassing as any kind of excuse when your own administration was engaged in the same thing over IRC and their own talk pages. In the end though, it would be extremely helpful if someone could explain just how consensus works here so that it can be better understood by everyone. Samson (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, which notes (in part): "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:DP#Deletion discussion also makes quite clear that asking others outside of Wikipedia to come to the discussion is quite inappropriate, and that such comments may be ignored. seicer | talk | contribs 13:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So why did you not ignore the users (one of which was the nominating one) who apparently went over to some IRC channel? Was there canvassing going on there? Jlambert (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close I see no problems with the closure --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would also stand not to resort to making personal attacks with those you disagree with. seicer | talk | contribs 13:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn delete - No clear consensus for delete was reached among "long standing editors" even throwing out the 4 to 6 so-called meat-puppets. Deleting admin apparently ignored the blatant CoI of the nominating user (being banned from the game), the unusual repetition of arguments by same user (what 60+ argumentative posts!?!) that led to the ridiculous length of the AfD (another indication of an axe to grind), the Wikipedia User::talk shopping by same user in the edit wars of the page (what 6 requests for help?). I'd also note the blog authors who picked up on this are all major MMORPG developers and creators ("experts"), none of which even participated in the AfD to my knowledge (so much for the canvassing), and no doubt their largely negative views of Wikipedia contributed. Frankly, had the request for help editing the article been placed on the Mud:Talk page long ago, you might have seen a better article on Threshold by "experts" instead of the usual summoning of ignorant Wikipedia policy morons apparently far more interested in the destruction of information than adding it. My two cents. Jlambert (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. There was not overwhelming consensus here, but I believe there was sufficient. Policy-based arguments seemed predominately for deletion, though it's always tricky when it comes down to the questions of how many and what type of sources meet WP:N. There are good faith, well-informed contributors on both sides, canvassing notwithstanding, and this closure would have been unpopular no matter which way it went. I think the deletion rationale was well advised. Typo is unfortunate, but oops. We're human. :) (Perhaps the admin should add the word "lack"?) If the userfied article can be expanded with sufficient reliable sources to address those concerns, than then restoration to article space would not be inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at afd. I completely understand the contentious nature of this AfD, and I am inclined to defer to the closer due to the massive external pressures on the case. Some of the newly-registered users may not appreciate just how disruputive canvassing is to a process that relies on consensus of a subset of users to acheive results that follow policy. The closer had the uneviable task of deciding how much weight to give all of the various arguments in light of the canvassing. However, these difficulties were exacerbated by closing the discussion a day early and deleting. In order to declare a rough consensus to delete based on that discussion, the closer necessarily had to afford little or no weight to the arguments of the 15+ contributors. Fine, sometimes it's appropriate to do that, but I think that absent a WP:SNOW-type case, the full allotted time should be allowed in order to give the contributors every opportunity to provide reliable sources (what a radical idea that would be) or to hone their arguements into something more policy based. I could understand, and would have supported, a speedy close/relist due to canvassing. In controversial cases most of all, process is important. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I highly suggest that people not just blindly accept what the "powers that be" say is canvassing. Honestly, the higher up the chain we go the less honesty I have seen around these parts. Did anyone actually check out the post on the Top Mud Sites forum where the supposed "canvassing" took place? There is no call for people to vote - at all. The post says "I'm not sure if there is anything we can do about it". saying you don't know if there is anything one can do is about as far from canvassing as you can get. It is the OPPOSITE of suggesting action. The post is about the MUD community banding together to figure out a way to shore up its history. Before just blindly accepting accusations of canvassing, it might be a good idea to GO TO THE SITE and READ THE POST that supposedly represents canvassing. If any canvassing happened, it was the DELETE voters via #irc and email. That post on TMS is definitely not canvassing by any stretch of the imagination. Cambios (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it is in all of our best interests to fight against the erosion of our historical significance" reads very much as a call to arms to me, particularly in proximity to a link to the AfD. Per Wikipedia:Canvassing: mass posting, biased, partisan audience. Check. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


So much for WP:AGF huh? Instead of interpreting, how about go with some direct, actual statements: "I'm not sure if there is anything we can do about it" If the guy wanted people to go VOTE, he wouldn't say he didn't even know if there was ANYTHING they could do. Sheesh. You have rogue admins BANNING people without warnings in violation of the rules, and have the gall to expect them to just logoff the internet completely and go read a newspaper?
At this point, I'm waiting for one of these admins to yell in a Jack Nicholson voice: "YOU WANT ME ON THIS WALL! YOU NEED ME ON THIS WALL! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Look, why don't you save us all a lot of time and frustration and just tell us how this is your little fiefdom and policies and rules are happily ignored if they get in the way of your personal wishes. The rules are for the peasants, right? It really insults our intelligence the way "the powers" make up totally bogus excuses for their actions and (*choke*) decisions. Actual Policy has been completely ignored repeatedly by the people with the power. Somehow, it is only the newbies, readers, and "minor editors" that bear all the burden of showing good faith and proving every single statement with enough proof to satisfy a RICO jury. But the more power someone has, the less actual justification they need for their actions, the less suspicion their "questionable" actions receive, and the less they have to follow rules. Isn't that backwards? The best part of this is major media outlets are watching this whole situation, which is why every 4 hours or so the story hits another news organization or blog. You people are embarassing Wikipedia with each one of thise blatantly crooked "decisions." Cambios (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Side comment: To those who say the AFD was closed early, can you please point out where it says that AFDs have to be open for five days? The top of WP:AFD says "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days" (my emphasis). Stifle (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is one of those things that isn't uniformly agreed upon. WP:Deletion process#AFD states "Every day, the day page (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Year Month Day) that is more than five days old should be moved here. The decision to keep or delete a page is to be implemented only after this move has been performed." I personally close non-SNOWs/non-relisted discussions 120 hours after they are nominated. I know many admins close after 96 hours. Reasonable minds and all, but I think when there's likely to be a dispute, allow the full time for discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion is clear: "The discussion lasts at least five days."  Sandstein  16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion While not an overwhelming consensus, many arguments for keep are erroneous either in their interpretations of policies and guidelines or in their identification of sources. Even if my nomination were in bad faith, and my own !vote stricken/discounted, my rationale still stands and is still valid, as evidenced by the number of long-term editors endorsing the same view. In fact, even AfDs brought by editors banned from Wikipedia can and do remain open if there are good-faith delete !votes. Furthermore, Cambios' (and others) accusations of "administrative canvassing" (note I am not an admin, despite what User:Arthmoor AKA Samson claims on his blog) have already been answered, and the explanation accepted by Cambios. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I retracted a statement regarding ONE OF MANY potential acts of canvassing, that's all. Don't even begin to say I "accepted" your denial in general. Since you've chosen to claim to be able to speak for me about my own opinions, I think I have the right to correct you: in my personal OPINION, I think you were emailing and ircing people like mad, and that every single action you have taken from the beginning was personally motivated in your vainglorious drive to gain adminhood. There was definitely some kind of #irc canvassing going on, because it was right there on your User:Talk page. Furthermore, as already noted, you were selectively canvassing through User talk pages by cherry picking previous editors of the article. That is an action expressly forbidden in the Wikipedia article on canvassing. Further, as you almost admit, your nomination was indeed in bad faith. You accused others of COI, while hypocritically never revealing your own. You are GAGGING for an adminhood, and know deleting articles is an easier way to "score points" than creating them. Your 63+ comments on the AfD were outrageous spam, and speak to your desperation to win the AfD at all costs for your dreamed of RfA (you even have RfA tips on your user page. LOL). Cambios (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not go back into WP:ATTACK mode, please. WP:TEA ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - Seicer's closing statement looks to be about right, from a perusal of the material. If it can be rewritten to meet the needs of WP:N and WP:RS, then recreation is fine, but the version I see doesn't really fly. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and rewrite: I am one of the supposed canvassed "barbarians at the gates" who commented on this AfD on my personal blog, as it was both relevant to the MUD/MMO community and a topic of conversation on peer blogs. Rest assured although I a somewhat interested party from a professional standpoint, I have no vested interest in the actual topic (I have never played the MUD or are involved in its maintenance, unlike apparently most of the people in this discussion - it's painfully obvious that there is tremendous bias on both sides of this discussion, both pro- and con-. The article also appeared at first glance to fail WP:NPOV and could have used a rewrite and trimming. However there are many MUD entries on Wikipedia that have survived deletion challenges on notability grounds; MUDs are fictional works by their very definition and internet-based, and there is little to no sourcing that can be applied to these. The self-promotional aspects of the article can and should be removed. SJennings (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

There was an ongoing merge discussion here; therefore it was "useful to the project" and did not meet criterion "G8". NE2 00:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]