Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 29

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< 2020 January 28
2020 January 30 >

29 January 2020

edit
  • Climate Forecast Applications Network – Endorse but draftify. Seems like the original G11 deletion is endorsed as even the people who aren't explicitly endorsing G11 speedy deletion say that a heavy rewrite would be needed to make the article not spammy. There are a number of people who endorse draftification and I don't see a clear opposition so that's done as well but editors working on the draft should take note of the concerns about the promotional tone and notability. Yae4's and JzG's conduct are not for this forum to answer; try WP:ANI Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Climate Forecast Applications Network (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed. Another interested editor Jlevi discussed notability on the talk page, and asked how they could help improve the article, but did not express any concern about spam/ad/promotion. I've written several new articles recently, and this one is not significantly different in how it was written. It uses book, journal, and news sources. A small part of the content was taken from material prepared by others at Wikipedia, at Peter_J._Webster#Climate_Forecast_Applications_Network. Attempt to discuss on admin JzG talk page was summarily rejected with unhelpful response, "please don't write advertorial on Wikipedia." Yae4 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with Yae4 that the speedy delete was unjustified on the basis of WP:G11. I think the article may have been taken out of draft space too quickly and that it likely had some work to be done, but that the article was not promotional and did not justify a speedy deletion. Jlevi (talk)
Draftify Just to clarify. There are some structural problems with the article, and I was probably too indirect in my first comment here. I highlighted what I think remains a notability concern because I see it as a basic stumbling block to mainspacing the page, but this highlight doesn't mean other problems don't exist. Jlevi (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to get you a mop of your own, but in the meantime, happy to oblige. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used to wonder (with a bit of annoyance thrown in) why some admins protect pages after they tempundelete them. I guess now I know why they do that. And since I'm here, yeah, endorse the WP:G11, with no objection to moving this back into draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. We can't have that in the mainspace. It really is an advertorial like JzG says: it reads exactly as it would if it had been bought and paid for by Judith Curry -- although I do see, and accept, that the primary author's userpage says he has no associations or affiliations to declare. Yae4, please would you consider reviewing some of our good and featured articles about corporations before you put anything like that in the mainspace?—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall:, I just had company (non-profit, and for-profit) articles, Precious Plastic (Grade C) and NearlyFreeSpeech on Did You Know, and I previously helped identify promotional sock puppets being used for articles I won't mention here (but you can find from my user page). I understand there is a major problem at Wikipedia with paid editors and promotion of companies. Based on DYK reviews, I know most people who say things look "advertorial" (or similar) cannot explain why, and the changes they suggest are mostly minor. The fact is Jlevi created a red link, and I spent some hours finding some sources and giving bland (aka neutral) summaries of what they said. In the past I've asked for a couple "notability checks" (particularly from Newslinger, but I now have criteria: A book source or two, a journal article or two maybe, and several "news" articles with at least one having "significant" discussion of the article topic. Climate Forecast Applications Network meets those criteria easily. Getting a Draft to Article status will bring it attention of editors who wish to expand and improve the article, sometimes. In my opinion, in this case, speedy deletion has ONLY to do with JzG aka Guy having a very strong personal bias in the area of climate change and associated politics, and Judith Curry and Peter_J._Webster (co-founders) are on the "wrong" side, so CFAN must be suppressed. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support you not following me around the project giving the benefit of your uninformed opinions. Guy (help!) 11:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​​​​​​​​​​So what does it take to get the Draft and Draft Talk back? Also, I invite all those who said the G11 was obviously valid to give some specific suggested changes on the talk page or with edits, because, frankly, it's not at all obvious to me, or to Jlevi or PackMecEng. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the discussion expires, an uninvolved editor (usually an admin but not always) will evaluate the consensus and close the discussion, noting the outcome. —PaleoNeonate – 21:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What @PaleoNeonate: said. Typically, if restored to Draft: space, if the talkpage isn't automatically restored in tandem, you need only ask the administrator who restored the draft article to also restore the talkpage(s) as well, as @SilkTork: did for me when I requested the talkpages to a draftified article also be restored. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're serious about not understanding how to fix that: (1) Remove the company's contact details from the top of the article because we're not a directory; (2) Remove everything about the directors except a maximum of one mention of their names in one place. The company isn't its leaders. Information about them belongs in their articles if they're notable, otherwise it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. (3) Give facts and figures: turnover, profit, staff numbers. (4) After making these edits, get someone else to look at it and tell you whether it belongs in the mainspace, because you seem to be having more trouble with that than I would expect from a person who fights promotional editors.—S Marshall T/C 11:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall:To summarize, the article does not look promotional compared with other articles I've been involved in, or read, and I was cautious to write neutrally, because I am aware of some active suppression and "gutting" of articles at Wikipedia. Thanks for your suggestions. Feedback: Honestly, those are relatively trivial edits (except maybe adding company statistics). So, if that's all, it doesn't justify speedy deletion. (1) No contact details were included; only a link to the contact page. It was going to be the source for their location in an infobox, unless an independent source was found. (2) See a contrasting example below. This suggestion is not entirely consistent with other articles I've worked on with other editors including for Did You Know, but I'm not saying you're wrong. (3) All that sounds like Original Research unless independent sources have it or their About is referenced. (4) I make it a practice not to "fight" at Wikipedia, although I encounter plenty of editors who seem to have trouble with baiting, instigating and insulting.

Here is arguably an absentee vote for Not Endorsing Speedy Deletion. If you look back in this article history, you may notice Keith D made a small helpful edit, fixing a cite date error. Diff At that time, the article was written substantially as it now stands, except it has been expanded. Diff I asked Keith D on their talk page to give an opinion here, but they chose not to. Keith D is an admin; did not tag the article with promotion or similar; did not leave a Talk note saying it was "advertorial" or suggesting changes to make it less promotional.

Compare and contrast this Speedy Deletion with Climate Feedback[1] when I was going to RSN for help.[2] And JzG aka Guy (and PaleoNeonate) were involved in discussion. Glowing (aka promotional) statements in the article: It "seeks out top climate scientists". The Guardian referred to it as "a highly respected and influential resource". "each reviewer has to hold a PhD and be published in top-tier peer-reviewed science journals." (Note: These have mostly been toned down in the current version.) The founder, Vincent, is named 5 times. Their About page is used as a source. (In my opinion, it is weak regarding significant "reliable" source coverage.) Was it Speedily Deleted by JzG aka Guy? Tagged? Criticized for promotion? Nope. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, there's nothing trivial about the edits required to that article. Lede: delete everything except the first sentence, and then provide an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies the first sentence. Background: In the first paragraph, delete everything except the first sentence because everything else isn't about the corporation. In the second paragraph, the first sentence requires in-text attribution. The second sentence is fine. I find the third sentence unintelligible. The third paragraph is not about the corporation and should be deleted. History: The first paragraph isn't about the corporation and should be deleted. The second paragraph is redundant to information that's already in the article and should therefore be deleted. The third paragraph is a long quote by a company director, entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia and should be deleted. The fourth paragraph isn't about the corporation and should be deleted. The fifth paragraph is very trivial and in my view including it is poor editorial judgment. The sixth paragraph is about the director and not the corporation, and should be deleted. The seventh paragraph is very trivial and in my view including it is poor editorial judgment. And the eighth paragraph is about the director and not the corporation, and should be deleted. Once you've removed all the stuff that doesn't belong, there's very little left.—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 3 Februaryry 2020 (UTC)
@S Marshall: Are you saying as a general rule when a source says person A or B from OrganizationC said UVW, and did XYZ, you do NOT interpret that as OrganizationC says UVW and did XYZ? Or is this only a rule applied to selected organizations such as CFAN, but not applied to other organizations such as Climate_Feedback? Same question applies for information taken from organizations' About pages. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of other articles are ghastly pits of promotional material. This doesn't mean that those other articles are acceptable. It means that we consider articles one at a time and we haven't got to them yet. But I'm now concerned that you're addressing a perceived double standard on Wikipedia. Do you feel that there should be an balance, whereby climate change skeptics are given more equal treatment with the mainstream scientific view?—S Marshall T/C 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: In this case, Climate_Feedback was previously, recently discussed by JzG aka Guy, the speedy deleter here, which is why it supports the case that the Admin's bias did play a part here. We're not talking about "more equal treatment" here. We're talking about Climate_Feedback being allowed to violate all the same "rules" while this article is being 100% suppressed, even though you'd have to go read Judith Curry to see she was branded with the "D" label there. Here we're talking about an organization that has been recognized in books, journals, and news, and is notable for predictions, etc. that have saved lives. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are, indeed, great wrongs that need to be righted.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More likely WP:POVFIGHTER and WP:USTHEM. Reference User:JzG/Politics (TL;DR). -- Yae4 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yae4, if you had understood any of that essay, you would realise that my problem with climate change denialists, creationists, white supremacists, MAGA hatters and the rest is that they demand we "balance" factual information with propaganda from terrible sources. I have exactly the same issue with antivaxers, anti-GMO kooks, homeopathists and other woo-mongers. Wikipedia reports facts, they prefer Truth™. But the right wing media bubble is far more dangerous than homeopathy, for reasons that any student of 20th Century Europe could readily enumerate for you. I've been here 15 years. The changes to the right wing media since around 2015 have been profound, and not in a good way. Guy (help!) 18:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. overturn deletion. Yae4, I'm both an academic and view climate change as a very real and important thing to address. That article, while not speedy eligible, is not a good article. It does feel like it was written by a PR person for the company (or by one of the founders). It's easily fixable, so not speedy eligible. Too many name drops, too many words that feel like they were pulled from the promotional part of the abstract of an academic paper ("inundated", "devastating impacts", "unheralded often with devastation" all feel like the belong in promotional material, not in an encyclopedia's voice). It's an article on a company, there isn't a need to repetitively name who did what, just that the company did it. I don't think this should go to draft space, just because I don't think we should be forcing articles that meet our inclusion requirements into draft space--that's not what it is for. But I'm a pretty horrible writer of articles and I think I could fix it in 15 minutes. But it really needs fixing. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2020 (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.
Reggie Arnold (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer concluded, correctly I think, that there was a consensus to keep, "or likely a stronger argument that this results in no consensus", but then overrode the consensus and deleted the article, doing so on the ground that it was a biography of a living person." While the article was lightly sourced (not unsourced) when the AfD began, additional sources were brought forward at AfD, such that WP:BLP does not provide grounds for overriding consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn to NC I just don't see how WP:BLP prevents this article. There are plenty of sources, it's not like we are looking at an unsourced biography. There is a perfectly reasonable argument (which I agree with) that he doesn't meet the SNG due to a lack of meaningful national coverage. But that's not where the discussion got to. I can see a WP:NPF argument, but that doesn't require deletion. We don't just take NC outcomes and move them to deletion due to being about a BLP. A negative BLP might be a very different thing, but that's not what we have here. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC. I suspect the policy TParis was thinking of is WP:BLPDELETE, but that only applies to negative articles. I don't see anything negative in the article, unless playing for Arkansas State counts. And, may I suggest we delete the bit in WP:DELREVD where we suggest talking to the closing admin, since nobody seems to bother anway. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC I can understand erring on the side of delete if there were any actual BLP-based concerns, but there weren't. The AfD was a normal debate about whether the subject meets our notability standards. There is definitely enough coverage of the subject in reliable sources to support every statement in the (very short) article, it wasn't at all negative and it did not state anything even slightly contentious. Hut 8.5 23:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There wasn't a consensus to delete, but equally, those sources don't support a biographical article. We've got nothing about his life, no date or place of birth, nothing about his education or upbringing, nothing about family. They're just tables of sports results framed in prose; I mean, great for him and he's clearly sportsed very hard, but we've got nothing biographical to say about him so we shouldn't have a biography.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources brought forth at the AfD focused directly on Arnold and his accomplishments. The article in its pre-AfD condition was of poor quality (though it actually did included Arnold's date of birth). Assuming the result is overturned, I will commit to beefing it up with additional information from those sources. Also, I understood that deletion review is a process-based review, not one in which we superimpose one's preferred result. Cbl62 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus "Keep" arguments look slightly stronger to me; this is, possibly, closer to a "keep" but a no consensus is likely the most accurate close. Doug Mehus T·C 01:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - The closer acknowledges that there isn't a consensus to delete, and then made a supervote based on an incorrect interpretation of policy, as stated by previous editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - it's a noble instinct to want to protect individuals, but absent either anything negative or an indication the individual wants privacy or the like, it's not what's accomplished. WilyD 12:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus "However, because its a biography of a living person, I'm going to err on the side of delete until additional sources are available to support an article on a living person" is not WP policy. What is policy is that the sources need to be particularly reliable, but whether the admittedly reliable sources are sufficient is not a matter of BLP policy. In any case whether the sources are adequate in a good-faith argued instance is a matter for consensus, not admin fiat. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - When there is a consensus to keep an article, an admin is required to close that discussion as keep. This admin did not do that. Someone should post a warning or something on their talk page saying that they can't overrule a consensus. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Template:Queen's Park F.C. squad – Endorse but allow restoration. Clear consensus that the previous TFD was not incorrectly closed, but also that it is not necessarily a bar for restoration. There is however a bit of feeling that this discussion should not explicitly restore the template among several participants, thus "allow restoration" rather than "restore". "Allow restoration" meaning that anyone can recreate or undelete the template at WP:REFUND or elsewhere, and that after that point it ought to be handled like any other template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Queen's Park F.C. squad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Queen's Park F.C. squad template was deleted in 2015 because, at that time, Queen's Park were an amateur club and had few (if any) players who warranted a Wikipedia article. They have recently adopted professional status and have since signed several players who do have an article. I think it would now be worthwhile to recreate the template. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, nothing wrong with the original close btw! GiantSnowman 07:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy/procedural close – Maybe I misunderstand, but the 2015 deletion isn't being challenged, and the template is not protected, so there's no reason that an editor can't just recreate the template if the new version would be substantially different and address the AfD concerns (in this case, if the new version had sufficient bluelinks). I don't see why this needs consensus at DRV to be recreated, so I think this thread could be speedy or procedurally closed? Levivich 04:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich My understanding is that a procedural close cannot apply in this case. As the original TfD was not closed as a "soft delete," the applicant would likely be unsuccessful in an undeletion application at WP:REFUND. Thus, rather than having to spend a few hours to many hours, depending on their technical skill level, they are just essentially asking us to permit the draft to be restored. Note you can endorse the close as valid, as I and others have done, but allow recreation (that is, undeletion) as a draft. I see no problem with that, and am not sure why anyone would? Hope that helps. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd happily restore the template - but doing so might be seen to go against community consensus from the TFD discussion, hence why a DRV is acceptable. GiantSnowman 07:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find the TfD mob a bit weird. Why do they obsess with deleting unused templates? You need to look at the template to decide whether it is now appropriate to use it. I suggest userfying the template. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to this; I mean, I can see the point in deleting a template that only links to one or two bluelinked articles, or to using TfD to merge redundant templates, but on the other hand, navboxes are cheap and consume such little storage capacity, why bother? That reminds me of a discussion currently at TfD on whether to delete an rcat, which has spawned a separate discussion at WT:RFD on whether TfD, RfD, or CfD is the most appropriate venue for discussing the rcats. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman I get that, but TfD participation is usually extremely light, such that "consensus" typically consists of between 1 (the nom, sometimes after two relists) and 3 participants. Sometimes there's a fourth person who makes valid arguments, but gets "drowned out" by the SNOW nosecount of the other three. Doug Mehus T·C 16:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore I'm not enough of a template person to know the best path forward (userspace? mainspace?) but consider this an agreement that it should be made available for editing. That said, this DRV !vote isn't saying we *need* this template and can't be played as a trump card in a discussion about having the template. Rather it makes sense to give any editor the ability to have it as a starting place. But if a WP:BOLD addition of the template to articles gets reverted, this DRV (and this DRV !vote in particular) isn't taking a side on if it should be used in articles. Sorry that was so wordy. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2020 (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.
YouthHax (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I disagree with the CSD for YouthHax. G11 is used for blatant advertising, and the page for YouthHax was written factually and objectively. I have contacted deleting administrator user:Anthony Appleyard on his talk page, and have been ignored. Raymo111 02:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, as the nom has requested, down below. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The decision to draftify should be made at AfD, not DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way we can use common sense and just keep this deleted? I also think it's promotional, but agree with SmokeyJoe's analysis of G11. Possibly qualifies for an A7 as well. An AfD would be a waste of time. SportingFlyer T·C 11:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but Draftify This application of WP:CSD#G11 was incorrect; this may have some modest WP:NPOV issues and it likely fails WP:GNG, but it's not unduly promotional by any reasonable stretch. On a related noted, I noted this was tagged by PrussianOwl for speedy deletion on the same day they tagged Draft:Pendyrus Male Choir for G11 + G12, but was declined by Espresso Addict and which is still at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pendyrus Male Choir. I have managed to convince PrussianOwl to make more use of the "MoveToDraft" script and {{copyvio}} tagging instead, which have the same practical effect as WP:CSD and which are, notionally, less BITEy. Looks like, in this case, a different admin (incorrectly) took up PrussianOwl on the speedy deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 00:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 – This does not contain a CCS as far as I can see ("hosted a hackathon" is not a CCS). It's pretty close to a G11 too but I think what makes it seem like advertising is its total lack of CCS. Levivich 02:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Thank you all for agreeing that G11 is incorrect. Upon further review of WP:COI and WP:CSD, I would like the page to be draftified if possible. I realize that in its current state it may not notable. If and when it satisfies WP:N, I will then resubmit the draft. Raymo111 06:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn G11 - obviously unsuitable for that. Levivich is correct, I think, that A7 could be applied - organised event, no assertion of significance, no independent sources. So, draftifying would be the only hope to go forward. WilyD 10:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. This does not meet G11 as it is written fairly mostly neutrally, and I suppose being the only hackathon organiser in a large city of Canada is a claim of significance which exempts it from A7. However, I am hesitant to restore this straight to mainspace due to the apparent conflict of interest and lack of independent sourcing. Until it properly establishes notability, it can stay in the draft space. Glades12 (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify In mainspace its a valid A7, and possibly a G11, but in draft space A7 does not apply and G11 is interpreted more permissively in order to give articles a chance to be improved. Unfortunately, it is extremely unlike that this article will end up by being kept, but that's not a speedy criterion. For deletion, procedure is important, because otherwise it will eventually lead into admin idiosyncrasy. (not that I think the nom or the deleter to blame here--the situation is a little ambiguous) DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I respectfully decline to vote, but I do want to say that, while the article seems like it was written a little bit like an advertisement, I'm not 100% sure if it was blatant, like G11 states. Therefore, I remain neutral. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way was it at all like an advertisement? Raymo111 00:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The article in question had a very ad-like tone in my opinion. I'm not sure if anyone else saw it, but I did. I wasn't sure if it was blatant, either. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2020 (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/2020_January_29&oldid=1039554721"