- DeusM (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- Procedural 1: The article was not properly nominated with reasons for deletion given. The subsequent discussion was based on guessing what the problems might be (apparently notability) and trying to answer them.
- Procedural 2: The closing administrator did not understand his/her obligation to distinguish policy-based consensus from mere headcount of keeps/deletes. See my discussion with closing admin here.
- Policy: Among the handful of editors involved (six, I think), WP:IDONTLIKEIT was supported by guesswork (maybe the sources just reproduce press releases) and invented "policy" (a business must be notable for 500 years to be notable at all). There was no dispute that the article had at least three independent sources (owners of the sources are identified in the discussion) with significant coverage. No evidence that these three articles, with wholly different content, came from a press release (one press release was identified, but each article contained interviews and information not included in the press release; none of them reproduced text from the press release. On its face, in each case, reliable, independent reporting). But in any case, WP:RS does not say that articles which may be prompted by press releases are not reliable sources (journalists refer to press releases all the time as the basis for reporting: that's why press releases exist). If the community consensus is that Wikipedia should not have pages like this, the correct solution is to change WP:NOTE. A topic with significant coverage in several independent sources is on its face notable, and energy should be directed to improving it. WebHorizon (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
Ron Ritzman's nomination explained its reasoning clearly by linking to the deletion review that preceded it; the closing administrator understands his job perfectly well; and User:Ihcoyc nailed it. This material was spam. We can see that you didn't want this deletion to happen, WebHorizon, from the way you replied to every single "delete" !vote: the article must have been important to you. But I'm afraid the consensus was against you. I'm sorry that that's made you unhappy but the appropriate behaviour now is to accept the consensus and move on.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think editors are free to test policy arguments. Can anyone just point to the policy being followed? As I said in the debate, if someone had pointed out a policy reason for the deletion, I've have withdrawn my "keep". If I want to work on Wikipedia articles about social business, social media and B2B marketing, but the articles are going to be deleted because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, better find out sooner rather than later. Why is it so hard for someone to give an actual policy-based reason? (Please refer to [[1]] "Advertising or other spam without relevant content.")WebHorizon (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
- The reasons were quite clearly given; no reliable sources to establish notability of the subject. In what way can this reason be better delivered to you? Tarc (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - No other possible outcome from an AfD with a lone call to keep, closing admin closed based on consensus and strength of argument presented. DRV is not for "I disagree" cases. Tarc (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The procedure was perfectly OK--people wanting to see what motivated the DRV can look there. We often call this a technical nomination--nominated at AfD or other process because it's the required next step. What matters is that the issues are discussed at the AfD, and the AfD argument was about just what it ought to be, the substantiality of the sourcing. The conclusions of the community was clear. I & many of us often close by saying "delete" or "keep" or whatever , "according to the consensus," meaning that the consensus was very clear and we don't disagree with it. A fuller explanation is needed when the opinions were divided, and an admin is explaining which set they're following; it's certainly necessary to explain when a close is made that appears to overrule what might reasonably be taken for apparent consensus. But sometimes the job of the closer is very straight forward, as it was here. It remains open to you to find better sources, or wait till they appear, and try again, bearing in mind the criticisms made at the AfD. But after such a clear delete close, the only practical way to avoid speedy deletion as a G4 will be to create the article in user space and ask here if it is OK to restore it. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The only valid conclusion to the arguments provided at AFD. The policies around what it takes for an article to remain on Wikipedia are everywhere ... WP:FIRSTARTICLE is provided to pretty much everyone. To claim that the AFD did not list those policies does not invalidate the fact that the article did not meet those policies. I note that the article has been userfied - just like you would draft a University-level essay, this is a good time for the editor to draft this article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see I'm talking to myself here, but I'm not disagreeing. I am just trying to find out the policy reason for this consensus, and I am surprised it's so hard for anyone to give a clear one. The only attempt here is by Tarc (thanks for trying): "no reliable sources to establish notability of the subject." Just not the case. There are three, national, indisputably independent sources, and in each case the coverage is just obviously "significant" - main subject of article, article contains research, interviews. I just can't find policy which says an article needs more than this, and I'd be grateful if someone could point me to it or even let me know on my talk page. It's hard to pick a topic for an article if this can just be ignored by editors who (for some reason) are hostile to it. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I understand everyone would prefer me to just go away, but why is it so hard to tell me specifically how the article doesn't conform with this (this - to me - mystery is why I raised the procedural point about the way the deletion was proposed.
- If some one was willing to say that Folio or DMN or Crain's are not in fact independent of DeusM or that the coverage in the articles is not significant, at least I could understand where this is all coming from. Anyone?WebHorizon (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
- Here's an idea: why not stop pissing people off and go fix the userspace draft? Call me crazy, but since it will be deleted shortly if it's not improved, I'd think you would take WP:RS, WP:CORP, WP:GNG seriously and actually improve your work instead of browbeating every respondent to this poorly-considered DRV. I know it's you're right but was is the right thing to do? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse own close/call for speedy close to this review. It is clear from the remarks at User talk:Beeblebrox#DeusM AfD that WebHorizon is fully aware there is a consensus, but wants it ignored because they believe consensus is wrong in this case. I understand my role in closing perfectly well, and it does not involve ignoring consensus. Neither my talk page nor this forum are AFD round two despite their attempts to make it so. It is this review that is deeply flawed, not my AFD close.Noting also for the record that I have already userfied this at WebHorizon's request. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than simply disagreeing with the consensus, I have been very civilly asking someone to tell me what policy it was based on, other than five editors repeating WP:IDONTLIKEIT in various forms. Clearly it is not based on WP:NOTE as currently drafted. It is telling that nobody will step up and deny that the article was supported by multiple, independent sources.WebHorizon (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
- Note: I think it's pretty funny that, while Crain Communications and Haymarket Media are not considered (here anyway) reliable, they are apparently considered notable.WebHorizon (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
- Yes, the fact that reliability and notability are two completely different concepts is hilarious. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, of course it's not funny, but in this specific case we attribute notability to publishers of unreliable magazines. Also, as I said at your Talk Page, please let's not make this personal. It's not about your skill as an Admin.WebHorizon (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
- Then perhaps you would care to strike out the portion of your comments at the top of this review that directly contradict that statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not challenging the value of your two years' service as an Admin. Anyone who is interested in the specific disagreement referred to above (headcount v. policy-based consensus), can follow the link to our earlier discussion. I was seeking to discover whether you had included deletes based on things like notability implies being notable for 500 years and this article might be based on a press release from the perceived consensus. There are plenty of deletes on that page: actual reasons for deletion are scarce. But this isn't at the end of the day about you or me.Regrettably, after posting this, I see Beeblebrox has made some seriously UNCIVIL remarks about me [[2]], closed the discussion, and asked me not to post on his Talk Page again.WebHorizon (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
I can see there is little value in discussing this with you, but "The closing administrator did not understand his/her obligation to distinguish policy-based consensus from mere headcount of keeps/deletes" is pretty clearly about me and my ability to properly close an AFD. Again, if it isn't about that, then please strike that statement. Or don't, since it's obvious to everyone but you what the outcome of this discussion will be no matter how fast you try to tapdance around the facts. As such I won't be commenting here further. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really sorry this has degraded. All I did at your Talk Page - and here - is try to find out what the notability problem is. I am not deaf to the answer. Anyone is welcome to show me a diff where the question was answered. Do editors think the sources are not independent, not reliable or not numerous enough? If I know, I can see whether the article is fixable. The original AfD was a bog of non-policy reasons (the topic needs to be notable for 500 years, and so on). I am reluctant to drag this through the Reliable Sources Notice Board, which has generally been entirely supportive of properly edited trade magazines, only to find out there's another issue out there. Why the agony? I myself can't believe this dragging on. Someone here must have a simple answer to the question. I thought, as closing Admin, you were the right person to ask first.WebHorizon (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
- to explain it to you very simply, Press releases are not RSs, and publications of whatever repute who reprint them do not make them the more reliable. Good journalists use them as a source for an independently written article. ("based on" not " derived from"). Most trade publications contain a mixture of proper journalism and press release copy. Telling them apart is a matter of judgment and experience, and in matters off judgment like this, Wikipedia relies upon consensus, in this case consensus of the editors at the AfD . How else can we decide? No one is has the right to speak as an authority. The problem with the article can be solved by finding additional sources that are clearly not press releases or derived from them. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This illustrates my problem with the way the AfD was handled. Although a press release was identified from the time the company was launched (standard practice to issue a press release), if anyone had looked at the three primary sources for the piece, none contained language from the press release, all featured interviews and information not in the press release, all were different. Nobody adressed those considerations, and WP:RS nowhere says that articles from reliable sources should be discounted if the authors may have had access to press releases. Of course not, because that would cause chaos. Hence my impression that the AfD was closed on a headcount rather than looking at the arguments. But I do thank you for responding DGG. If that is the sole reason for deletion, perhaps it is understandable that I am frustrated?WebHorizon (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
- Endorse Deletion WebHorizon seems to have a personal interest in this article, arguing for it being kept every step of the way, from speedy deletion onwards. The consensus is clear that the article should not be on Wikipedia. I am involved as the admin who Speedy Deleted it, but I still feel that the deletion was correct, and no indication of notability has arisen since then - nothing that is independent/reliably-sourced/significant-coverage. As such, deletion was and is the correct result here. I'd be interested in knowing why WebHorizon is so keen on this article being present - is the editor connected with the company (either directly working for them, or for an agency representing them, etc) - as I type, only 26 out of their 147 edits (including 2 deleted edits) were not about either DeusM or Internet Evolution (both conceived by Stephen Saunders) - so 83% of their edits are about these two subjects (either directly editing the articles, or campaigning for the undeletion of DeusM) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Postscript The Internet Evolution article is also supported by non-notable awards and press releases, so I am considering putting that up for deletion soon, but as I must get ready for work, I'll do that another day -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 15:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not let an unfair record stand. Compare the percentages of my content edits, ie my edits of articles, not the edits aimed at trying to discover policy reasons for admin actions.WebHorizon (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizo n[reply]
|
