Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 October 25
2011 October 27 >

26 October 2011

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

PunBB is well known open source software with 8 years history. 1) the software is used by millions of people and thousands of sites around the world, hence deeming it popular; 2) Google search returns a lot of websites when you search “Powered by PunBB” - discussion boards and sites with extensions developed for PunBB. If it wasn't a significant project, then Google would not return as many results; 3) Facebook Developers were using PunBB engine for a long time, therefore it aided in creation and advancement of Facebook as we know it, pretty significant; 4) There is still an article on FluxBB on Wiki that wasn't deleted after a deletion discussion, hence it is only logical that the project that was foundation of FluxBB should be described as well; 5) there are many books in Google Books about PunBB, nearly 119 items are returned, with at least 6 solid books that can be quoted and referenced. Last 3 month we try explain this to moderator who deleted page, but no results. Its strange and looks like personal interests or double standards. Dimkalinux (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dimkalinux, please retract your speculations with regards to the administrators motivations. User:Jayjg responded to your concerns on his talkpage, but nothing happened because you did not reply back. Had you done so this could have been sorted 3 months ago. Yoenit (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist a Google book search shows a few sources with coverage ([1] being the best, just a couple of paragraphs). A number of academic papers use it as a standard workload [2] for example. I'd say given the very limited discussion and the wide number of RSes that discuss this software at least briefly (I found about 40 RSes total just in books and scholar) that a new/better discussion is warranted. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my speculations. I`m have not much time for discussion in last month because of personal issues. Im just not understand why on deleted PunBB page keeping redirect on page for software with less sources and less well known (its not making its bad). We try get answer to this simple question 3 month. Anyway, our primary goal is restoring page. Many PunBB users waiting for it. What we can do for make possible restore PunBB page?

What you are doing right now. The community will have 7 days to evaluate whether the PunBB page should be restored. It will help if you can find sources (books, newspapers, scholarly articles) which discuss PunBB such as the link Hobit gives above. The more of these sources you find, the stronger the case for restoring the article. Yoenit (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn, relist if desired The AFD atracted minimal attention and the claims that no mentions in reliable sources could be found for the software is obviously false, as demonstrated by the sources that Hobit found. A quick search did not reveal any other sources with significant coverage besides the two Hobit identified, but I agree with his assesment a new discussion is waranted. Yoenit (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no article is re-created, I hope that it can stay as a redirect without being deleted again. It is mentioned in FluxBB and the redirect would have helped me searching. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 00:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Relist. Without even considering the sources that Hobit found, I think it's clear that there was insufficient discussion to warrant deletion of this article. Two deletes and a keep are not enough to establish consensus on anything. Trusilver 06:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Romsey Town Rollerbillies – Deletion Endorsed The new sources at the end appear to have mostly been in the article at the time of deletion and the best of them - stars and stripes - was explicitly discussed and refuted in the AFD discussion. The clear consensus here is that this doesn't past the GNG and by clear precedent, DRV tends not to overturn deletions under a SNG if there is good evidence that a page fails the GNG anyway. This is consistent with the concept that SNGs are supposed to indicate areas where an article is likely to have sources instead of an excuse for them to exist without sources existing. The SNG for this sport appears to be in dispute in any case and there can be no doubt that deletion was in accordance with widespread meta-consensus on where the threshold for inclusion should be – Spartaz Humbug! 03:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Romsey Town Rollerbillies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria, the deleted article clearly includes multiple published, non-trivial, reliable, intellectually and otherwise independent secondary sources.[3][4][5] Therefore I believe at least five editors on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romsey Town Rollerbillies are mistaken and this deletion should be overturned. Dualus (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First source is good, though their independence can be debated. The second one is hardly a reliable quality source ("Brighton’s honour is at stake, so make sure you come on down to support your local derby team."), and the third is purely local coverage, which is usually dismissed, certainly for sports teams. Fram (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, which reflected the consensus of the discussion (even the recommendation to keep from Nemonoman seems sensible to the argument that the available coverage is insufficient at the moment). There is also consensus that this may be revisited once a ranking system is established, but the discussion was closed just a few days ago so the circumstances remain the same. In the meantime, a redirect should be placed to United Kingdom Roller Derby Association, as suggested by The Bushranger (I didn't want to create it now in case the article is restored for review) — frankie (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dualus (talk · contribs) has asked me to userfy the article, which I've done at User:Dualus/Romsey Town Rollerbillies. causa sui (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative request Given the comments from Fram and frankie, I also request undeletion so that a rescue tag can be added for a three month trial. Dualus (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, what? An article is deleted, so you want to restore it for three months with a "rescue tag", which is only supposed to be on the article during an AfD? Why would we start keeping articles around for three months instead of the 7 days of normal AfDs? Bring it to the incubator and ask for help at a Wikiproject of your choice, but assuming this DRV doesn't overturn the deletion, it should not be brought back into the mainspace without serious improvements (meaning a lot more authoritative sources or other clear claims of notability; and for the record, if there would come a championship with only one or even two divisions, being one of the "top division" clubs still wouldn't count for me: highest level appearance only counts when there are a sufficient number of other levels, otherwise "highest" becomes meaningless). Fram (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your evaluation of the sources is generally good, but the extent to which it shows that this is a borderline case reinforces my belief that it deserves a rescue tag with a three month trial per WP:NOTPAPER and [6] and I would be interested to learn if there are any reasons to the contrary. I was unfamiliar with WP:INCUBATOR#Incubation vs rescue and I have moved the article to the incubator and will alert the correct Wikiprojects, while still arguing that deletion should be overturned based on the fact that the deficiencies of the second and third sources cancel each other out. Thank you! Dualus (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternative request withdrawn while request to overturn the deletion stands: BBC News source mentions team. Dualus (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, that would be the best example of a trivial mention I have seen this year. Yoenit (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The BBC announces a match, and it's trivial? Why, because the team name is in parentheses? Because it's in a sidebar? The BBC is the national news authority in the team's country. Dualus (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Doesn't matter if it is scripture divined from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is a mere namedrop with no substantial information provided about the team. The example at the bottom of the notability policy might help in understanding the difference between a trivial mention and substantial coverage. Yoenit (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have never read such deletionist drivel in my life. Are we honestly discouraged from sourcing the name of Bill Clinton's high school band simply because his biographer only gives mention of it one sentence? You may submit your definition of what is and is not trivial to the desperate vagaries of deletionists' attempts at policy footnotes, but I maintain that an announcement by the BBC, or any local news authority, is not trivial, even if it is only one sentence. Dualus (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • We can source Clinton's biography for the name of his high school band, but you can't use it alone to justify notability, as the notability guideline requires significant coverage. You really can't argue with a straight face that the BBC mention is "significant coverage". Sceptre (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The consensus in the AFD was a clear delete, although several participants expressed they would support recreation if additional sources could be found. The only source added to the article since the deletion is a trivial mention BBC News, which does not establish notability in any form. Yoenit (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubated and ready for WP:GRADUATION. I added another news source mention and their facebook, blog, myspace page, forum, and team email. There's plenty more on Google so I'll just keep adding stuff until someone moves it to mainspace. Dualus (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore & list as desired No real discussion of sources at all in that discussion and discussion of GNG was highly limited. Two good sources [7] and [8] that are reliable sources with solid coverage (and I can't see how Stars and Stripes (newspaper) isn't reliable.) Hobit (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have added four sources, reworked all three paragraphs, identified their current practice location and schedule, added seven external links including three videos, and now I think I'll check out their Facebook. Dualus (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- close adequately reflected the discussion. DRV nominator should remember that DRV is not AfD Round 2, and that calling people names is unhelpful. Reyk YO! 23:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source Official UK government source. Dualus (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no good reason to overturn. I would note that this is being undeleted by stealth, with a redirect in mainspace that's been added to multiple articles and mainspace categories added to the article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closing admin's decision properly reflected the consensus at the AfD. AfD review is here to determine if the discussion was closed correctly, it's not AfD round 2 for you to continue arguing the merits of the article. Trusilver 03:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not arguing the merits of the deleted article, I'm arguing the merits of the incubator version which now has thirteen sources (seven more than when it was deleted -- all secondary), a new logo, seven additional external links, and a complete re-work of all the prose and reference formatting. It's a completely different article. I just added a half hour Affinity Radio Cambridge program from a noted sports broadcaster. The incubated article is now so far within the inclusion criteria I see no need to prolong this absurd DRV. Dualus (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apart from the fact that none of the sources you added seem to meet the standards for sources from WP:N. Note that your BBC source, or the Newark source, are truly extremely passing mentions, that your "government source" is an ad for another roller derby team on their community website, mentioning again this team in passing only, that the wereallneighbours source is clearly not an independent reliable source but an advert, and so on. While the page now has a lot more sources, it still isn't any nearer our guidelines than the deleted one, and isn't ready to be brought back to the mainspace at all. Oh, and please don't reactivate the categories, Lifebaka helpfully deactivated them but you just turned them back on. I have deactivated them again. Please stop your efforts to get this page as it stands listed in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "None?" You completely ignore their coverage in the regional match reporting authority, the half hour radio interview, and other sources I've added. And you deleted the redlink from the United Kingdom Roller Derby Association leagues' template -- a completely Orwellian attempt to erase mention of them from other editors' work. I most certainly will not stop any efforts to get the page listed in the mainspace, and I intend to raise issues pertaining to your conduct with other administrators. Dualus (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Feel free to do so. Deleted articles are routinely removed from navigational templates, because, well, you can't use them to navigate anymore... Euroderby.org is passing mentions, not significant coverage, leaving only affinitydab. This "noted sports broadcaster" (in your words) is a local digital radio station from the city of the league itself, which started on April 8 2011. While it is indepth coverage, it hardly is the kind of reliable source we are looking for. See e.g. the guideline WP:ORG: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". An interview on a local, recent, digital radio station doesn't meet the standards of our notability guidelines. If any of the other new sources are better, please indicate which ones you mean. Fram (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can you point to another example of a deleted article from a well documented set (of leagues in this case, or teams, or any set where the membership is not in dispute) being removed from a navbox instead of being left as a redlink or unlinked? The word you are overlooking in the guideline you quote is "solely." Roller derby has been identified on the Wikimedia Foundation's Gendergap mailing list as a frequent subject of systemic gender bias, and I urge you to reconsider your decision before it is necessary to scrutinize it further. Dualus (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Modern Athletic Derby Endeavor is an example. There were several red links to the article after it was deleted that were removed: one and two. --LauraHale (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, you got me there. I removed a redlink to this article in a navigational template because I'm a misogynist. No need to scrutinize this any further, I confess. I'll think I'll stop discussing this with you if that is the level we have reached... Fram (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am not being sarcastic. You speedily deleted the article, then nominated it for deletion less than an hour after it was recreated, and subsequently have heavily involved yourself in both the AfD and DRV. Do you think sarcasm is appropriate when you are asked for an example which would show that your actions are not out of the ordinary? The article now has 17 sources and I again urge you to reconsider your decision. Dualus (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Original AfD was fine, clearly reflecting the consensus to delete. The incubated version still does not pass the general notability threholds, and is typical of what you see when a fan of the subject matter scrapes the google searches for any and all name-drops of said subject. Primary sources, calendar entries at the local government webpage, and so on. An encyclopedia is not a platform from which to advertise one's favorite Parks & Rec activities. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I am not now, and nor have I ever been a fan of roller derby. I have never attended a roller derby match and I have no desire to do so. I have never been to Cambridgeshire or anywhere closer to it than Heathrow airport once in 2000. I have not seen the movie which recently sparked interest in the sport. My sole source of information about this topic before I started editing the article was the Wikimedia Foundation's gendergap mailing list. Dualus (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In response to the original deletion request for this article, we worked to hammer out a set of notability requirements for roller derby leagues that can be found at Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Roller_derby. Most of the notability requirements that appear in the criteria were reasons why this article was originally deleted. I'd argue the league is now notable because of July 2009, they participated in the first European roller derby tourney, "'Roll Britannia, at Earls Court.". That said, I would like to see the article expanded to include more information on tournaments of this type they participated in. It is on the margins of being notable by these standards but could use more help getting there. (Almost, not quite.) --LauraHale (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proliferation of yet another so-called WP:SNG (single notability guideline) would be precisely the way I would not want to proceed here. The ones we have lying around the project at present are thin enough as it is, but crafting one specifically for roller derby of all things, just to squeeze in articles that are an otherwise notability failure is an awful idea. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roller derby is one of the fastest growing women's participation sports in the Australia.[9] and possibly the world. [10][11][12][13][14][15] So yes, there is a need for such a guideline to distinguish between what leagues are notable and what ones are not. --LauraHale (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because disk space is too expensive? Because readers will somehow be confused if we have an article for every Podunk team? I hate how much attention sports get on Wikipedia, but I see no reason for these ridiculously exclusionary notability criteria. What are the actual reasons for them? Dualus (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines as they were proposed were intended to help demonstrate who would pass WP:GNG and protect those on the margins. I'm all for being inclusive, but unless it can be shown in general that almost every roller derby league that exists would pass WP:GNG, then we'd be opening a can of worms that I'd rather not see open and having to fight. --LauraHale (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded at WT:NSPORTS citing WP:CREEP after the roller derby section break. Dualus (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn The use of a specialized notability guideline is exactly the way we ought to proceed here, and according to the evidence just represented, the league can meet it. I would certainly be much happier if the sport did have a ranking system we could instead refer to, but in the absence of one we have the right to do whatever is reasonable. My view is the opposite of Tarc's, which will surprise nobody: special guidelines usually more often correspond to the facts of the matter, and lead to more rational choices. The GNG has its place, but its not for specialized topics for which there are rational subject-based criteria. And I consider this to holds in both directions: if a specialized guideline were more restrictive the the GNG, it will usually still be the better choice. I think of myself as wanting to make subject based decisions--if that leads to a tendency to include more articles in some fields than the GNG would do, it shows merely the lack of real-world applicability of the GNG. It equally in some fields will lead to fewer articles, similarly showing the inadequacies of the GNG. The only thing which would show its adequacy is if it led to generally the same result. DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have to agree, SNGs are the best way to keep articles that otherwise wouldn't meet our GNG. Let's lower the bar for our pet articles if keping them otherwise would be impossible! Your circular reasoning is that the GNG is incorrect, because the SNG will lead to mroe articles, and the fact that these articles would be deleted under the GNG shows how incorrect it is... Claiming that this are "rational" subject-based criteria is irrelevant, the GNG is also a set of rational criteria, and it has global consensus, while you are suggesting to overturn a deletion on the basis of a not accepted local SNG... Fram (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The purpose wasn't to be more inclusive but rather to make it easier to delete ones that clearly weren't going to pass WP:GNG. Melbourne Men's Roller Derby League is not going to pass WP:GNG and the guidelines work to exclude them. Light City Derby is not going to pass WP:GNG and the guidelines again keep them out. (So we have some one suggesting that the guidelines are too exclusionary, and another person arguing that the guidelines allow everyone. Isn't this jolly good fun?) --LauraHale (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: people have taking into consideration tha the league supposedly "participated in the first European roller derby tourney". However, the team did not particiapte, some members of the team were part of a mixed team of people from different leagues... Fram (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are conflicting sources on that. Dualus (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? Please tell us which reliable, independent sources disagree with my note. Fram (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2011 (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/2011_October_26&oldid=1089641402"