Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 March 27
2014 March 29 >

28 March 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Akbar Golrang (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed the original discussion as delete; the main problem with this biography was the absence of reliable sources proving Golrang's notability. Since then, an IP editor has come to my talk page asking me to restore the article so that he could add a couple of sources. I have moved the page to the draft namespace and, in these edits, he actually added the sources he mentioned. These, however, are in a language I don't understand (which prevents me from ascertaining their reliability). On my talk page the IP also added that 7 books of his are in the Library of Congress ([1]). I'm starting this drv to determine whether, in light of the new evidence, Golrang qualifies for inclusion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Based on the evidence in the draft, I'd still say there is no evidence of notability. Publishing books in itself does not make someone notable, we need evidence that they have been noted... However, I have no time right now to search for book reviews or anything like that right now, so I won't !vote yet. The original closure was fine of course, but I don't think that's really an issue here. --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the draft is at [[2]]. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have his full name in his native tongue? Akbar means great in arabic and may not be a part of his proper name. VIAF is also confused about his name, I've asked them to fix it. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, "Akbar" is his first name. The Swedish-Persian dictionary is written in collaboration with Bahman Golrang.

Erik Holst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.17.25 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2014 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
AlphaCom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I found another source providing information on AlphaCom which I believe satisfies Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources. The source is http://aplawrence.com/Security/ssh.html . The author of that article has been mentioned in TechRepublic with regards to the author's knowledge in the area of terminals: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ap-lawrence-delivers-sco-unix-linux-information151and-lots-of-it/#. 121.99.164.96 (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The biggest problem with using self-published sources is that in many instances we can't entirely guarantee that there has been any editorial oversight. That's generally the biggest issue when it comes down to it. I'd also like to mention that opening a new deletion review the same day that the previous one closed is generally not seen as a particularly good idea unless you have multiple sources to use to show notability or argue for inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if the self-published source has been referenced by a more authoritative source? I see other articles in the same category where most if not all of its references are self-published and in some cases are what I would consider less authoritative than those in the AlphaCom article.
  • Previous closer's comment. I'm a bit confused about what is being reviewed here. If it's a review of my DRV close, then frame the review in that way. If it's a review of a single self-published source, this doesn't seem to add anything substantive to the draft which was discussed earlier. I think this discussion should be speedily closed. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse prev DRV and AFD. Its borderline disruptive to list something again the day the previous discussion closed. Spartaz Humbug! 08:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Dieselpunk – Mu. This isn't really about endorsing or overturning the original AfD. It's about several years have gone by and the environmental factors that went into the AfD closure may no longer apply. So, closing this DRV, restoring the article, and re-listing it on AfD, where the proper discussion can take place. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dieselpunk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) ((AFD1 - closed as Delete)) * ((AFD2 - closed as Delete)) * ((AFD3 - closed as Delete)) * ((DRV))

Before I express some viewpoints, I am requesting an Overturn and Restore regarding Dieselpunk the article not only passes all forms of WP:GNG, has been covered by numerous reliable sources, but is also inherently academic.

This article's AfD history is extensive. The first one in 2005 had deletes citing a lacking in WP:GNG and some forms of WP:OR which during the time, may be true. However the genre and the article has come a long way since. Today I have found multiple independent reliable sources referencing Dieselpunk as a distinct genre separate from other cyberpunk derivatives and sets a clear definition as to what it means. Here are some sources:

News publications:

Book publications:

Game publications (I was unable to access some sources due to corporate blocking):

Unknown:

Just a note, the article changes significantly with every AfDs. The article should always have been notable enough to be independent. OR and unreliable sources can be removed and cruft can always be clean and the article should be retained per WP:PRESERVE.

I am requesting that this version be restored. There are already copious citations and seems to meet Wikipedia standards.

This article remains a Wikipedia conundrum. From a non-policy standpoint I have an interest in deleted articles with extensive debates and articles that can never seem to stay in the grave. To me it represents a form of notability which exists on a sub-cultural level. I have great enthusiasm and hope that with new sets of eyes and a great expansion in the genre since 2005, that consensus can change! Valoem talk contrib 23:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI is a strictly procedural debate. I am questioning the outcome of both the thrid nomination and DRV. Both outcomes were certainly controversial and AfD results should have pointed to no consensus. Once again if OR is an issue it can be resolved per WP:PRESERVE. Also I did a bold restore in 2011 and the article had been edited since. Looking at that version some cruft can definitely be removed, however the core context is maintainable. Due to the history of the article, (also what happened last time I did a bold restore) I thought it be wiser to follow standard procedure and receive permission. Valoem talk contrib 01:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid you're making up your own rules. As far as I'm aware, there's no review of deletion review. If that did exist, the challenges could go on forever. There also is no such thing as a "bold restore". (In fact, if you search for "bold restore", the top results are about your attempt to sidestep the previous decisions.) It may be possible to create a viable article on this subject, but the book is closed on this version. - Eureka Lott 02:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its perfectly OK to ask DRV to revisit a discussion that last took place in 2010. In wiki terms that was the middle-ages and standards and sources move on. Lets drop the history lesson and old grudges and just concentrate on the sourcing since that is the only issue that a decision will be based on here. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 12:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for the nominator. Of the sources above, were any of these discounted by previous discussions. Secondly, please take what you consider to be the two best sources and describe how they meet the GNG and RS. Everything else in this discussion is froth and irrelevant. The only question we have to answer is whether the article now meets inclusion standards, so those two sources are what we need to understand. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 12:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is enough reliable source material to support a standalone article. Also, as of March 2014, there still does not seem to be agreement on the meaning of the term: dieselpunk -- "the grafting together of 1930s and modern technology", dieselpunk -- "a heresy in which diesel fuel and nuclear power replace steam power", Dieselpunk -- "from the 1920s, when diesel fuel began showing promise of more power", Dieselpunk is "a steampunk spinoff with a concentration on World War II iconography", U.S. Trademark 85,727,626 Dieselpunk beer trademark, "Steampunk and its competitive sibling "dieselpunk" take stylistic cues from H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, Edgar Rice Burroughs and other authors and feature machinery powered by something other than electricity or batteries." In fact, Shimeru's close of AfD3 noted "This article appears to have been constructed by defining a genre or style and then finding things that fit that definition." Wikipedia is not the place to pick one of the several meanings for dieselpunk and then find things that fit that definition. Requesting permission to recreate an article requires that you first note how the prior reasons for deletion (in each of the prior 3 AfDs) have been overcome. Perhaps you can cover the dieselpunk topic in the Steampunk article. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to note that we aren't actually considering a deletion. There have been deletions in the past, but what we're actually deciding is between having a separate article (as the nominator wishes) or whether to cover the topic of Dieselpunk under Cyberpunk derivatives#Dieselpunk (as now). "Endorse", strictly speaking, does not mean "delete" in this case.

    The last time we considered this was in 2010. The first few sources the nominator cites are from 2013, 2011 and 2014. I don't need to read any more: obviously the term is still current and is generating lasting, if not particularly widespread, interest among critics and journalists.

    DRV doesn't make content decisions at that level of detail. With four-year-old deletions all we do is make sure that nobody's doing an end-run around a previous consensus without any new sources. That clearly isn't happening: the conversion from a redirect was a perfectly normal BRD edit and should be dealt with accordingly, on the relevant talk page. In view of the amount of anger this extremely trivial decision is causing, please would the DRV closer consider specifically directing that the redirect is not to appear at RfD unless an actual consensus about that emerges.—S Marshall T/C 21:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far I as know all the sources are new and not referenced in the previous debate, I removed one of the dups for the books, but the sources would suggest the definition as "Genre focusing on futurist diesel based technology influenced by the interwar period to the 50s". Some strong sources that define this are the Gatehouse Gazette and The Daily Dot. Though still an emerging genre the sources should more than suffice a separate article. The purpose of DRV is that I want to retain the core context of the version I highlighted with cruft removal and additional sources, I do not believe a complete rewrite is necessary in this case. Valoem talk contrib 01:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty plain there are new sources and so a new article can be created and a new AfD held (if desired). Given the request for a restoration of an old version, I think DRV does have something of a role (though of course an admin could move into user space on their own). So allow recreation/restoration without prejudice to a new AfD (though it would be a good idea to give folks a few days to get the new sources in...) Hobit (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new refs don't cut muster. This is a procedural mess. FWIW I voted keep at the last afd. Szzuk (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I took another look at them. The Daily Dot cuts muster, I was scanning it expecting it to be a blog, shallow or from a mickey mouse organisation, but I think it is ok. Szzuk (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse In general terms DRV looks at process rather then substituting its own view of a discussion for that of the closing admin (unless the close is so manifestly wrong it can't stand). Usually we would relist an AFD if new sources come forward as AFD is the correct place to look at sourcing. However, since the Gatehouse Gazette looks like a self-published magazine and most certainly does not pass muster as a reliable source, I can't see the point of relisting this at AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 08:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about [3] which looks to be reliable (staff writer). It's an entire article on the topic. And the NYT at least defines the term and places it in context--something that was the crux of the AfDs. All published after the latest AfD. Hobit (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also Epulp] this source off google books and this source which briefly defines dieselpunk. Valoem talk contrib 13:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One article on its own isn't enough and I looked at what Valoem defined as the two best sources. If the second is clearly not good enough then we are still shy a required source.. I don't know if daily dot is RS but happy to defer to Hobit on the subject. Spartaz Humbug! 13:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not impressed by epulp - if this even a physically published book? Its an anthology of stories and I can't work out who the publisher is. This isn't an RS for the GNG and one mention in a book isn't substantive enough. Spartaz Humbug! 13:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times mentions the definition, and how about the The Register-Guard source and the term appears in video games as well. I can not access this links from here, so if someone can take a look at Altered Gamer and Lazy Gamer that would be great. Valoem talk contrib 14:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions don't cut it and the Register Guard article is not only about Steampunk but also looks like a reprinted press release so doesn't count. If you haven't see the sources then how can you expect me to evaluate them? You are desparately scraping the bottom of the barrel here and I suggest you just wait to see what other people think. I am after all towards the delete end of the spectrum. On the other hand, if I'm happy with the sources then you know they are solid. Spartaz Humbug! 15:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation :::Correct WP deletion process , like all WP process looks at the result. If a discussion leading to deletion is obsolete, there has to be a way of starting a new one. There has to be a way of creating a new article if there is new material and getting a new community decision on it. Fortunately WP has no ability to make irreversible decisions. The guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY, and IAR. If any statement on this page or elsewhere is inconsistent with that, it is overridden by basic policy considerations, which take precedence over process. I have no way of knowing in this subject field if a new article will be acceptable, or what the community will think, but the only way to find out is to try. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation per new sources provided above. As Szzuk said, The Daily Dot cuts muster. Cavarrone 21:28, 2 April 2014 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_28&oldid=1136459980"