< 2009 November 5
Deletion review archives: 2009 November
2009 November 7 >

6 November 2009

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

No consensus, closed as keep. A few days ago on DRV several of this companies products were all deleted as it was shown that the pages were made in an orchestrated campaign to spam Wikipedia. While they were at DRV, this was at AfD. In the interests of WP:RBI, I think as a unique case this AfD closure should have been no consensus, delete. (I have not notified the closing admin, but I will. I find no fault with their rationale.) Useful discussion to read User_talk:JzG#ConceptDraw_DRVs. - Miami33139 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both DGG and I opined in those DRVs that the G11s were improper before they were speedy closed. If you insist on using those speedy closes as precedent here I'll have no other choice but to bring a new DRV for those. Endorse. Tim Song (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such close, and there never should be, as "no consensus, delete". All such closes are not merely out of policy, but completely opposed to policy. Had such as close been made, that is what should have been appealed here. If you wanted a second AfD you should have asked for one, & if consensus remained the same as for the previous ones for the same reason, you might be able to get it that way--it would have been less complicated than trying it like this. My own view is that the close on this one is the correct close, and there is no good reason to delete the article no matter who made it. I am quite bothered by the early DRV close on the others, but I on my talk p. advised against pursuing it further on the grounds it would likely not be successful. My advice may have been wrong. FWIW, Tim and I make most of our joint appearances at AfD or DRV on opposite sides. The discussion of JzG's page shows the inadvisability of judging articles according to who wrote them. That and the present discussions shows the utter inadvisability of closing a contentious DRV or AfD early, or of assuming from the first few responses that no other response is possible. The simplest course, in any event, is for someone other than the sockmaster to make an article good enough to stand--a course JzG would apparently not object to (indeed, how could he possibly?) I'd adopt it myself except it's not really my subject. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (unfortunately) Policy dictates COI is not a reason to delete. Triplestop x3 02:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per DGG and Tim Song (and even a bit of Triplestop!). Hobit (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, per. G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConceptDraw_PROJECT. AlsoSpam case --Hu12 (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was not aware of the previous versions which were deleted, but after looking at those revisions I don't think WP:CSD#G4 really applies. The deleted revisions do not only describe the software, but also extolled the product's virtues, such as how easy it is to manage resources is with the software. That content was probably the type of content targeted by WP:CSD#G11. The current revision lacks the reviews which were brought up on the AFD, but the descriptive text is fairly neutrally worded. There was not a blatant violation of core policy which mandated deletion in this case. Regarding the closure, I saw several established and regular good faith contributors supporting retention, for instance Davewild, Eastmain, and DGG all made reasonable policy based arguments. JzG, and Chick Bowen among others made a reasonable case for deletion, so there wasn't much of a consensus. The deletion policy says that a rough consensus is needed for deletion, and I couldn't really see that here. If the current article were pure spam, I think the consensus would have been to delete. Do I agree that reviews are sufficient to establish notability for software products? I am actually somewhat undecided on the issue, and it depends a bit on the type of product. Many common products receive reviews or are covered in product comparison tests in consumer magazines, and not all those products are really all that interesting from an encyclopedic point of view. I think all Norwegian brands of orange juice have been reviewed, but I wouldn't support articles on all orange juice products for that reason. On the other hand, reviews of computer games and video games (which have an artistic element in addition to a mere functional one) are sources considered highly relevant in those articles, and do contribute to the notability of those subjects. In the end, I don't think the closer should be giving his/her own opinion much weight in determining the outcome. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a truly disturbing case involving 15 WP:SPA accounts, actively 'gamed the system' through the use of Meatpuppetry and Sockpuppetry, for the sole and primary purpose if using wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion for "ConceptDraw" software related products.
ConceptDraw PROJECT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
log
  • 05:54, 14 October 2009 CSOWind (33 bytes) (←Redirected page to ConceptDraw Project)
  • 19:31, 5 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw PROJECT) (view/restore)
  • 14:40, 16 September 2009 protected ConceptDraw PROJECT [create=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Repeatedly recreated) (hist | change)
  • 14:40, 16 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
  • 14:30, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
  • 11:52, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
ConceptDraw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
log
  • 05:21, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
  • 11:38, 15 September 2009 . . Danilsomsikov (29 bytes) (←Redirected page
  • 09:38, 15 September 2009 . . CSOWind (2,679 bytes) (←Created page
  • 18:49, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
  • 14:10, 21 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (Delete to make way for page move content was: '#redirect ConceptDraw V')
  • 17:11, 26 April 2006 . . Csodessa (←created page
ConceptDraw Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Current
log
  • 09:19, 16 September 2009 CSOWind (2,124 bytes) (←created page
  • 05:18, 6 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
  • 11:51, 30 September 2009 . . CSOWind (33 bytes) (←Redirected page
  • 12:21, 11 September 2009 NaumenkoSvetlana (151 bytes) (←created page
  • 11:40, 11 September 2009 NaumenkoSvetlana (1,170 bytes) (←created page
  • 06:51, 13 June 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (CSD A7/G11; content was: '((Infobox Software|name = ConceptDraw Project|caption
  • 07:45, 23 May 2007 . Master-zzz41 (1,511 bytes) (←created page
  • 18:33, 31 March 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (blatant advert)
  • 10:14, 23 February 2007 . Jusperstb (←created page
  • 20:29, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)
As documented, Multiple instances of sneaky recreation attempts to circumvent Wikipedia policies and procedures, Use of tricks in creating NN Spam articles, creating a titles as a redirects, Creating a seemingly legitimate articles then changing them around in order to avoid and curcumvent legitimate deletions. Allowing confirmed sock/meat puppets to activly evading blocks, create DRV's, and to promote their own agenda is "Gaming the system" and an abuse of process, which is disruptive. These are nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article.--Hu12 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concerns about the behavior; the solution is to let a single legitimate article be written and to watch it. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin of the 1st AFD – I felt that my interpretation of the consensus in the AFD was correct at the time. However, I did help out in userfying the page as well as helping the now-indef-blocked user in sourcing and establishment of notability. Having looked at the 2nd AFD and the article's improvement since the 1st AFD (i.e. removal of spam and other issues that distance the article from when it was before I deleted it the first time), I'm leaning towards endorse close on the 2nd AFD, especially given that other users beside those helped out in making it into what I think is an acceptable article. MuZemike 01:27, 9 November 2009 (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.
File:Cnit.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This picture was deleted and transferred on Commons because it met the license requirements. However, the subject is a copyrighted building (the Center of New Industries and Technologies) in La Défense, near Paris. French law doesn't recognize freedom of panorama, so this picture cannot stay on Commons. As I believe the English-speaking Wikipedia accepts pictures like this one, I ask for its undeletion here, so that I can delete it on Commons. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close/Just move it here I'm not a master of our image policy, but given that this wasn't deleted for policy violation problems, I don't think you need to come here first. Just move it and let someone nominate it for deletion if they have a problem with it. If I'm missing some policy issue please let me know. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jastrow has commented on this on my talk page and explained that it would be easier to undelete it than transfer it back plus it would keep the history intact. I've no objections to doing whatever is easiest here, but offer no opinion about what that is. I've seen enough of these cases that we should probably have a policy for them. Hobit (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've put it up for deletion on Commons. Fails commons:COM:FOP#France. We can move it back later but we need to mark it as not transferable to Commons. - Alison ❤ 08:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Im stupid, I didn't understand what this was about. So the image cant survice on Commons and the file name given doesn't link to any history here so what file is it you want undeleted here? Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the summary on Commons, it was originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia by Grippenn, with an edit summary identical to File:Cnit.JPG. This has not been deleted; it is the same image? Of the user's other uploads, only one is missing – File:Touradria.jpg was deleted after it was moved to Commons, but according to the summary that was a picture of Tour Adria. snigbrook (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the same picture as File:Cnit.JPG all right, so this request is now pointless. I didn't realize when I saw it on Center of New Industries and Technologies that it was not the one from Commons. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:44, 8 November 2009 (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.
Dub Police (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Dub police (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Why was it deleted there on Dub Police the new page was nothing like the old page?(G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumbriandubsteper (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the second delete was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dub Police which was unanimous in asking for delete. The original delete was a speedy delete A7, Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc. Dub police was deleted with the G4, the only real difference was the introduction was slightly bigger and a slimmed down reference section (myspace only). None of the issues were addressed that the debate brought up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion – I don't think I'm seeing anything out of process here. It was speedy deleted the first time and then recreated, which it was deleted again as a result of the deletion discussion. We can always provide you a copy of the deleted page for you to work on and improve, if you wish, so that the issues that led to its deletion are addressed. MuZemike 01:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, endorse. Original AfD was closed properly; new article did nothing to address the notability concerns. Tim Song (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, process has been properly followed and the closure looks to be in order. GlassCobra 17:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band) – Overturn to delete. After carefully analyzing this case and setting aside slippery slope arguments on both sides, many of those favoring an overturn to deletion outcome in this DRV focused on the WP:NOT#WEBHOST !votes in the MfD discussion. Inspecting the MfD itself, these WP:NOT#WEBHOST comments are, indeed, the sole prima face appeals to policy on either side. Although many of WP:NOT's tenets (including WEBHOST) are notoriously difficult to pin down, they remain unanswered in this particular case. In addition to holding the policy-based arguments, the preponderance of !votes in the MfD were also balanced towards those seeking deletion. Although the numbers in the DRV itself were more numerically split, the citation of policy-based arguments in the MfD by DRV participants were weighted more heavily in my close. The question then becomes: Were there any unilluminated facts or new arguments that would likely be a relevant points of contention in a relisting? No, and if anything a new WP:UP#COPIES argument strengthens the case already made for deletion. The G7 deletion is rendered moot, although it does not on its face seem to be consistent with the letter of speedy deletion policy. – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closing admin erred in closing the discussion as "moot" (keep) on the grounds that the pages were user-blanked prior to the end of the MfD. Rough consensus of the discussion was to delete all nominated pages. The policy basis of the delete arguments was that articles in userspace with no reasonable chance in mainspace in the foreseeable future constituted a violation of WP:UP#COPIES, "User space should not [...] indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia", as well as WP:NOTWEBHOST. Discussed with admin at [1] [2] Gigs (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not quite sure why the cited policies still apply after the pages are blanked. Tim Song (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One concern is that anyone could then avoid consensus to delete by temporarily blanking. Gigs (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MfD tags were blanked before the close time, so technically it never had a normal completion. It's rather concerning that we saying that people can avoid any consequences to leaving deletable material on Wikipedia so long as they quickly hide it for 5 minutes before a discussion period is over. Those kinds of absurd technicalities are what kill the reputation of the community and make patrol/oversight look laughable at best. It's still technically "on" Wikipedia; they can still give links to the old versions to friends or spam them out elsewhere. If it has a permalink to anywhere on Wikipedia, that means we're hosting it. We are not a web host. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IFF the pages are re-established, you might have an issue. Precedent is that blanking makes deletion moot. Collect (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by closing admin - I'm not particularly stuck on the close but I stand by it. In the past we have (usually at the suggestion of User:SmokeyJoe) blanked user pages as an alternative to deletion at MfD. In this case there was no discussion of that option, but by the time the discussion closed the pages had all been blanked by the user and no one had commented on this (except User:Graeme_Bartlett, who only discussed the blanking of two of the pages and had supported keeping the remainder which had not yet been blanked at the time of his comment). The lack of discussion of the status quo was particularly significant in my decision.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A permissible exercise of discretion. In the event that the pages are restored, they can be easily MfD'd again, and then it would be extremely unlikely that a blanking will still lead to the page being kept. Tim Song (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should think that if the pages were restored, we would then have a matter to consider (and I would certainly view that as an end-run around the XFD, and I would take a very dim view of it). However, at the moment the pages have not been restored and it does not seem necessary to devote any time to considering a purely theoretical case.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the blanked page history could be viewed as an "indefinite permanent archive of content intended to be part of the encyclopedia". I admit that while violating the letter of that prohibition, it might not violate the spirit of it if the pages stay blank. I do think it's a worthy discussion to have in any case, which is why I brought this here. Like Doug, I don't have strong feelings on this, but as well I do stand by my concern. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Delete: Unless this gets stopped, we're leaving open an infinite process of article limbo status. The guidelines about self-blanking are pretty clear about their being only for articles where the author is the sole conributor. Once the MfD tag was put on, it's technically a disruptive/vandalism blank. Since the MfD tags were removed before discussion closed, it's subverting the deletion process and we're not the types to let that stand. There's only one reason we might let an XfD tag be removed from multiple pages was if it was self-blanked and it would get a CSD tag after that. Even if the end result pages are blank in userspace, you can't add up two wrongs that would have gotten an article deleted in either case (the MfD, or the CSD) and somehow magically have that synth together into a way to indefinitely protect yourself from having known deletable content in your userspace removed. Completely unacceptable. If it's up for XfD or CSD it's still "up for deletion", and all categories are theoretically equal reason for delete; or rather, letting this go is de jure approval of users publishing copyrighted material, uncited BLP content, and anything else that was to be deleted to live on forever in depths of edit histories. Details of it being userspace be damned, if we caught it while it was suitable deletion, that puts it in our jurisdiction wherever it runs until it reached a normal discussion conclusion. Articles shouldn't be able to escape judgment because they don't feel like showing up to sentencing. ...If people want to make a case that we should support articles running south of the border like this and growing a beard to avoid the cops until the heat dies down, go ahead and spill it out for me, please. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete - we've got a major problem with WP:UP#COPIES around here, and gimmicks like this just facilitate such gaming of the system. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Datheisen. Yeah, it was blanked, but still… Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pretty much as above. Blatant myspacery, keeping it sets a bad precedent. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment by closing admin I'm sorry but I am much more bothered by the four !votes above than by the nom (which doesn't bother me at all); especially by !vote by admin Orangemike - DRV is the place to discuss whether to overturn or endorse my decision based on whether I properly read consensus and policy, including the option to relist. DRV has never been a place to !vote on the merits of the underlying pages.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A valid closing reason is "Moot"? I'm still not entirely sure why the MfD was closed despite the tags having been deleted off the pages in question, and that by itself is possible grounds to overturn. That is unacceptable in any case, ever. It seems to be a rather concerning lack of understanding of the specific situation. When we say 'delete' it's saying that we don't acknowledge the discussion close since it was done without regard for procedure and it's in line with Wikipedia style of such discussion pages. How do you overturn "Moot"? That's why it's awkward to say. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and delete the pages. The consensus of the discussion was clear, and users should not be able to end run around the system simply by blanking the pages per Datheisen. I think it's reasonable to assume that my colleagues above voting "Delete" also believe the decision ought to be overturned. GlassCobra 17:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse- close was entirely within policy and closer discretion, no reversible error that I can see. If it comes back, take it to MFD again, but unless someone has a crystal ball, there's no way anyone here can know for certain that will happen. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse these hysteric silly slippery slope arguments hold no weight. I am concerned about the whole WP:BITE aspect of this AFD. This was user space after all. Ikip (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse the close can stand, but the pages should all then have been deleted by speedy delete, they still can be. If not for this review I would do so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This raises the mildly amusing possibility that someone will ask for a DRV of Spartaz' G7. I rather hope not, but if they did, I suppose I'd reluctantly have to !vote "overturn" as an out-of-process speedy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is this warning in WP:USER: "Blanking of user subpages is interpreted by some as a deletion request." While it might technically be outside of the normal bounds of G7, it's not an unreasonable action. It could have waited until this DRV finished, though. Gigs (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the deleting admin meant U1 as opposed to G7. We can split hairs all day, but theoretically, anything in the "G" criteria is supposed to apply to any namespace. Then again, we also have inconsistencies with G12 (copyvio) and F9 (file copyvio), and perhaps this should be something sorted out at WT:CSD so as to avoid further ambiguities. I think the deleting admin was right and in good faith in deleting the page; it's not like he gave a blatantly wrong reason to delete the page a 2nd time. MuZemike 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. It's not G7 because G7 explicitly excludes userspace blanking from the category of "blanking=request to delete". And I'd argue that it is not U1 either, for U1 requires a request from the user - and I would tend to think that this means an explicit request, or the G7 exclusion would be superfluous. Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Janet Allison – No consensus to overturn, particularly due to the sensitive WP:BLP nature of the article. That said, the later track of the discussion has focused largely on a new article focused on the case and not the person. There is no policy to prohibit creation of a carefully constructed draft on this topic (which may, of course, also be subject to normal AfD procedures at editorial discretion). – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Janet Allison (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
More