Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
FolderPlay (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The Article was deleted for A&, but this is an article about software product, to which A7 does not apply m656 (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this web-related software, and thus speedyable under A7? Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only web content is speedyable under A7, but not web applications. In addition, this is an application for mobile phone, not for web. It is absolutely not speedyable under A7.

m656 (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is web-related, it's web content. Third parties, please note that m656 is unclear about this criterion in general: on my talk, s/he thinks that it's just for biographies. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, list at AfD, not a valid A7 as far as I can see. It appears to run on the local machine (cell phone). I very much doubt it will make it it at AfD, but I've been wrong before. Hobit (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Quoting the rules about A7:

This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works.

Please not that Nyttend is not clear about this definition, thinking that "web-related" is here same as "web-content", which is simply not so.

This is an article about a software product which is a mobile phone application. It is no more web-related that any software at all, it runch even when the phone is off-line.

But even if it were web-related (which it is not), it still would be software (outside A7 domain), and not "web content". Software is software.

m656 (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


With 5 people saying that A7 does not apply, and none disagree, would it be possible to un-delete the page now?

m656 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Forward 50 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted without due diligence within the group nomination. It was listed (in this order) as follows:

  • 2007 Forward 50
  • 2008 Forward 50
  • 2009 Forward 50
  • Forward 50

While I do agree that separate annual lists may be not notable, the root article, Forward 50, is. I believe that the article fell wictim of being last in the list, so that voters may easily miss its sepatate status to consider its merits in its own. Therefore my first objection is procedural: the list is not homogeneous and cannot be voted by a single vote.

Further, the voters are quite possibly were put off track by a passionate eloquence of IZAK, who attacked both the newspaper The Forward and my intentions. I will not discuss his argument, since they are totally irrelevant: the intentions, neither mine not of the newspaper are irrelevant here, since wikipedia's policy of inclusion is not truth or correctness: it is notability and verifiablity.

The votes of kind

  • Delete Absolutely. --ChosidFrumBirth (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list is just a newspaper gimmick
  • Delete per Izak, this is a self-published list meant for advertising
    • Huh? For advertising of notable persons who already notable?Bar-abban (talk)

have nothing to do with established wikipedia's inclusion criteria.

In fact, it is very easy to verify that "Forward 50" received significant attention.

  • First, google search for "Forward 50"+list gives 30,000 hits
  • The list is discussed in detail in respectable sources, such as Haaretz[1]. Of course, the list is not without controversy, but wikipedia's purpose is to uncover this controversy, no to take one side or other as our colleague IZAK did in his nomination.
  • Finally, (and this goes towards the reason I created this page) the list is mentioned in a number of wikipedia articles, (in fact, this waqs my very first edit of wikipedia) so it is reasonable to expect that this term is explained somewhere in wikipedia.

Once again, I don't care about deletion of the annual lists, but the main article was reasonably referenced from independent credible sources, it was not considered by its own merits according to wikipedia policies, and is necessary for the overall interlinked network of information in wikipedia.

My final remark is about closing of the vote: formally the admin was right, since it was 100% delete vote, and I am at a loss on what I would have done in their position. Bar-abban (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion but allow re-creation with better sources. I did recommend "delete all" in this AfD discussion. I understand why Bar-abban believes that an article about the Forward 50 list in general may be more appropriate than an article about the individual annual editions of the list. However, at the time the article Forward 50 was deleted, the only sources in it were from Forward.com. I have no objection to the article being rewritten to include reliable independent sources to support the list's notability. If Bar-abban wants a copy of the article restored into their user space so they can work on it, that can be done by myself or another administrator. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please restore it for work. I believe the article had independent references, but it is quite possible I forgot to complete the work with he article, since it is of little personal interest to me and I have only occasional time to work for wikipedia. Bar-abban (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion, since a unanimous debate with that much participation could not be closed any other way, and because admins who obey the consensus shouldn't have to take any crap from DRV for doing it. Some brief mention of the Forward 50 probably does belong in the magazine's article. In view of sourcing concerns, I'm opposed to allowing re-creation as a separate page unless a reliably-sourced userspace draft is presented to DRV first.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think some of your remarks are unfair. I was not giving any "crap" to the closing admin. Rather opposite. My goal (achieved) was to have this article restored so that the work be continued. I was doing so out of respect to the labor of the original writer, since it was not big trouble for me to add 2-3 lines into The Forward, make a redirect, and forget the whole story. Please notice that I was not requesting the restoration of the separate annual lists which were my creation. Bar-abban (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow re-creation of a single combination article.. The usual sort of compromise I favor. (And, if it's relevant, I would support articles on each of the people listed, using their inclusion as part of the evidence for notability.In fact, I hope to start writing them .) DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – there was no possible other outcome here. I won't oppose recreation if the issues will be adequately addressed. –MuZemike 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per S Marshall and Allow Recreation per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion. The article was clearly nominated as part of a group nomination, and none of the editors who participated in the AfD (all of whom unanimously voted to delete) commented that this particular article should be kept while the others should be deleted. If this article is restored, it should be userfied until it can be proven that the objections raised at the AfD can be overcome. SnottyWong spout 23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Being a petitioner, I suggest closing this discussion, not to waste other editors time, since I agree with the presented arguments and I am satisfied with the outcome (article reastored). A final afterthought request, I would also like to have the other "Forward 50" articles restored in my user space, since, as User:DGG noted, some of the listed people may deserve a wikipedia article, and it would be good to have the list at hand. Bar-abban (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.