The Strategy Paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

It has been suggested by my Adoptee that this deletion is inappropraite, and I am carrying out a deletion review for their concerns. See the block log [1], the concern here seems to be notability, which I agree is borderline, but this book is available from Amazon and ranked in there top 2000 sellers [2], and this book is in high regard in the management sector [3], [4], [5] - the last two links make it notable for me. Cheers Lethaniol 11:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, this is the version in the Google cache, and it looks like an entirely valid stub. Not spammy, and A7 doesn't qualify for books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn; yes, that's the version that was deleted. A previous version was deleted as advertisement (that was correct, IMO). Tizio 17:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, to be clear, I'm not making any comments regarding the G11 that came before the A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes please only comment on the A7 issues not the previous deletion which I think also was correct. Cheers Lethaniol 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, I am the Adoptee mentioned above by Lethaniol. The book The Strategy Paradox has major reviews in significant business publications including BusinessWeek and The Financial Times. If the posting had not been deleted, then those reviews could have been added as additional citations/references/sources. Today's Amazon.Com sales rank is #823 in Books. Bluestripe 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Financial Times Link [6] Bluestripe 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BusinessWeek Link [7] Bluestripe 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note this book is also faring well on BarnesAndNoble.Com with a rank slightly greater than #3000. [8] Bluestripe 14:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Link to the AfD isn't working. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's, uh, because there wasn't one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would explain it. Someone mistyped "block log" instead of "deletion log" above, which didn't help the locating process either. Overturn and list per potential notability. Newyorkbrad 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy-deletion. This was an inappropriate application of G11 (and A7, for that matter). Take it to AFD if you must but with those Amazon sales numbers (now up to #748 in books), I think it will be kept. Rossami (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletionand speedy keep Based on the reviews, perhaps it wont even need to go to AfD. Reviews of a business book in such journals prove notability and serve as sources. I can't decipher what was speedied, so it might have been justified. But now is the time for a speedy closeDGG 09:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it seems that everyone is in agreement that this should be overturned - suggest that this process be closed. Note that though I have informed the deleting Admin of this process, they have not come here to defend this deletion. I would prefer that this did not go to WP:AFD as it seems clear that people think that this article subject is notable enough, and it would therefore just be wasting people's time to put it through a AFD as well. Cheers Lethaniol 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Second. I second Lethaniol's motion to move this back to the live Wikipedia. It is shameful an Admin would kill an entry and then disown his or her action by not showing up to defend the deletion. Bluestripe 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Strategy Paradox makes it into the Blogosphere with a question and answer session between Guy Kawasaki and Michael Raynor (author). [9] Bluestripe 14:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next nature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article was poluted with some self promotional links and then wrongly deleted as non-notable. Multiple publications, conferences have had this subject as a topic and multiple institutions are working on the topic. I've cleaned up the article. Please do not delete but add constructive feedback to make this a good entry. Nextnature 09:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the self-evident fact that the article is a morass of meaningless jargon have any bearing on its potential for deletion?--Anthony.bradbury 10:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - spam, non-encyclopedic Alex Bakharev 13:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion--no truly independent sourcesDGG 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of spam and original research, noting that it's been reposted again by single purpose Nextnature (talk · contribs), who also created Mieke Gerritzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with a link to - you'll never guess! nextnature.net. Oh, you guessed. Spam weblinks removed from other articles. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is a verifiable and notable concept and field of study. A Google Scholar search for "next nature" turns up about about 1,600 results. the article needs some cleanup and appropriate attribution, but that's not a reason for deletion. schi ^talk 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, out of the first page of results in your google scholar search, I see 0 where the blurbs show the usage of the phrase corresponding with the Wikipedia article in question. In every case where it shows up, the wording is completely coincidental, with one sentence ending with 'next' and the next one starting with 'nature'. Counting google hits isn't research, and using pure numbers without looking at the context as the only reason for restoring seems spurious to me. - Bobet 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. There were no process problems with the deletion discussion and no credible new evidence presented here to support reopening the discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. on the grounds that the article is an unencyclopedic essay with no potential for become more than that. The close was correct. GS needs to be used with care at the human end of the interface.DGG 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. A lack of process problems, with a clearly odd article, makes a strong case for deletion. The article in question seems to have little or no useful information, and perhaps no redeeming qualities at all.Branespace 06:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TVO online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

There was no debate. I posted a hangon tag and attempted to fix the problem. TVO online was very significant in it's time, just as Magic BBS was. 07tghard 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question If this is a significant game, can you provide multiple non-trivial sources that will assert the notability of the article? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a game.

After the Notice of Speedy Deletion was added to the page, I added more sources and posted a hang on tag.

TVO online is significant becuase unlike many other BBS's it was not run by a individual; it was run by a prominent public television broadcaster. TVOntario

The Government of Canada lists this fact. [[10]] Also look at this page [[11]]

I urge you to take a look at Magic BBS, it was a another notable BBS that operated during this time. TVO online is just as notable as Magic BBS.

07tghard 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion the links in the article and one of those above are links to what appears to be a web archive of the site in question, the other appears to confirm it's existence. Existence != notability. You may be correct that it is significant because of who operated it, but did/does anyone else (i.e. reliable third party sources) believe so? It is those who are needed, not just a belief of wikipedia editors. --pgk 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with current information but would not be averse to a rewrite and redirection to TVOntario if you can find sources. 1 directory-style information link (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory) and 1 primary source (TVOntario) cannot produce an WP:NPOV article. ColourBurst 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot more highly recommend TVOntario Online to anyone looking for a more personal identity, for a forum that thrives on the detailed examination of ideas, for a meeting place that authors, teachers, students, artists, lots and lots and lots of people in TV, scientists, homemakers, a few poets, as well as the occasional eccentric.

If the Internet were a McDonald's, TVOntario Online would be the Mom and Pop restaurant where they brought you your favourite beverage before you had finished sitting down. They'd know your name, and they'd know how you like your eggs." Dylan Gerard, veteran TVOntario Online Member

Yep we did follow the link to the tvo site and saw the quote, what do you thing it demonstrates? Take any random website you like and I'm sure you'll find a user who will write a rave review on it. If you want I'll write a glowing report on my pet cat, doesn't make my pet cat worthy of an article here, and certainly doesn't provide sufficient information to write an neutral point of view article attributed to reliable sources. --pgk 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the book "Internet BBSs A Guided Tour" by Richard Scott Mark ISBN 1884777309 Greenwich, CT : Manning, 1996 TVO online is listed. This book presents a list of top BBS's of that time. Such and TVO online and Magic BBS

The book's back cover states that it is the "best guide to these unique interactive communities" 07tghard 21:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any books which say "this book is rubbish don't buy it" on the back cover? amazon suggests that it is a book generically about BBSs with a 500 site directory. Again this appears to prove little more than existence, providing little more than technical data (phone numbers,costs etc.), this is not going to contribute to establishing notability and would only be of limited value elsewhere. --pgk 22:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article discussing BBS's in the Toronto Star. It mentions TVO online. Toronto Star - Toronto, Ont. Author: Joe Clark Date: May 19, 1994 Start Page: G.7 Section: FAST FORWARD

From your description this sounds like a generic BBS article and the free abstract seems to back that also. How much coverage does it give to this particular bbs? A passing mention, part of a list, a sentence, a paragraph...? --pgk 22:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the article along with 2 other bbses.

Question: How does Magic BBS meet notability requirements? I'm just curious because it might give me ideas on how to prove that TVO online meets notability requirements. 07tghard 04:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to view the deleted article, because I did not save what I wrote and I need to see it to find more sources. 07tghard 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How will seeing it help with that? Non-trivial third party reliable sources for the BBS either exist or they don't. Regarding Magic BBS - see WP:INN --pgk 07:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed you a copy, though content wise you've repeated most of it here. --pgk 07:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep. I think it is clear from the discussion above that it is significant and notable. The deletion seems based on recentism. DGG 05:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure how you conclude that, it's based on their being no reliable sources for this. The sources presented so far have been a primary source (the BBSs own website), two directory entries and a passing mention in an article about bbs's (not about this particular bbs). These do not establish notability. --pgk 10:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one more source that I found:

The first two quotes are context that show third quote's significance TVO online was used as a tool to obtain public opinion for a project run by the government of Ontario.

In May 1993, the Province of Ontario established the Royal Commission on Learning "to ensure that Ontario's youth are well-prepared for the challenges of the twenty-first century."

After exhaustive public consultation, the Commission released its report, entitled For the Love of Learning, in January 1995. The report was to suggest a vision and action plan to guide the reform of elementary and secondary education. This would include values, goals and programs of schools, as well as systems of accountability and educational governance.

Our first priority was to seek the views of the people of Ontario. We consulted with as many individuals and groups as possible, both in and outside the school system; we visited schools and acted on several outreach strategies; and we used the opportunities provided by the media and computer-based town-hall meetings to involve, and hear from, interested people who addressed the four issues - and much more.

more than 1,500 messages were posted to a special Royal Commission on Learning computer conference on TVOnline/ChaiNET, TVOntario's/La Chaine's prototype bulletin board.

In this document TVOnline is mentioned as one of the networks used before the internet became mainstream. Page 358 - In addition TVOnline is mentioned on page 340 [[15]]

It is then mentioned as a tool that helps support learning is Ontario:

Our only TVO-related recommendation is that it continue to do what it does well. We hope that a common provincial curriculum will make it easier for TVO to develop programs, computer software, and such initiatives as TVOnline and videodisks, which support the learning objectives of the curriculum. It remains important for Ontario's education system that TVO continue its contributions to the learning goals of our schools, and in assisting students in reaching those goals.

Again it is mentioned as a tool that helps support learning is Ontario. [[17]] PAGE 21 - 5th paragraph starting with the word TVontario 07tghard 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

food for thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion The only potential claim to notability I see in the article is TV Ontario Online is notable because it was not run by an individual; it was run and maintained by a public television broadcaster, which isn't really a claim to notability at all. I don't see anything in the way of independent no-trivial sources either. ~ trialsanderrors 03:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vista SP1 ("Fiji") (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

In the deletion log, it is referred to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows "Fiji", dating back to August 2006. And if you read the reason for deletion, you find out, at that point, one thought this would be the next Windows release. This is no longer the case, more information about "Fiji" has appeared, and we know now, that this will be a service pack for Vista. The article will no longer lead to more confusion surrounding the future of Vienna, as it now is clear it is not a part of Vienna. Since it will include a updated kernel, it is important to have an article about Fiji, because it is clearly a major service pack. Furthermore, for clarifying that Windows Vienna will be a minor release, considering the kernel update Vista will receive, it is important to have an article about Fiji. There are several sources talking about Vista SP1 and Fiji, and nearly all of them are from 2007, clearly a decision from August 206 is not valid anymore. Mr Mo 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC) (Note: added by User:Mr Mo inside the comment, moved outside by me). GRBerry 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to provide reliable sources attesting to that claim. --Coredesat 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, are theese reliable enough? [18][19][20][21][22][23] Mr Mo 02:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I speedy deleted it as it had a db-repost tag and I found the AfD mentioned above; it earlier had a db-copyvio|http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/windows_7.asp tag. I do not have a view on any decision taken here. See User talk:Mr Mo#Vista SP1 ("Fiji"). --Henrygb 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• what is the current status of the copyvio material--if it has now been removed I would say to relist. DGG 03:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist if not copyvio per DGG, otherwise you'll have to rewrite in your own words, Mr Mo. ColourBurst 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copyvio should not be any problem, I can rewrite it. Mr Mo 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. I wrote practically 75% of Windows Vista, and I've attempted to research this subject for several months with basically no success, so I'm probably in a better position to comment on this than most people.
  To answer Mr Mo's question about reliable sources: The short answer is NO. The use of "Fiji" in all those articles ultimately feed off of one source: A single blog entry by someone nobody's heard of before, which was subsequently picked up by Slashdot. Precisely zero of those articles can attribute the word "Fiji" to a reliable source that is in a position to make such a statement. Unlike other codenames for future operating system products (Vienna, Longhorn, Crossbow, Singularity, etc.), Microsoft has never used the word "Fiji" to describe a release of Windows. If we believe in accuracy, neither should we. Always bear in mind that the tech reporting community is one great big clusterfuck/circle-jerk, where everybody is repeating what everybody else says, with no care given for accuracy or research.
  Furthermore, Wikipedia has also never given a point-release or service pack for an operating system its own article. It'll merit a bit of space in Windows Vista once more details are available, but until then, there's really nothing to say about it.
  We have a policy covering all this: Wikipedia is not a crystal-ball. This is an encyclopedia, not a blogger echo-chamber. Let's keep it that way. -/- Warren 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. Do not restore. While there is no doubt that Windows Vista SP1 is coming, there is no other concrete information regarding what will it be or what it will contain (save for the fact that MS is on the lookout for testers). There are varying schools of thoughts regarding it - some saying that it will feature a kernel update (something which MS has never done in an SP before) and others saying it will be just a regular bunch of fixes. Rumors, without attribution to any concrete and verifiable source, are flying thick and fast. If we join in this, it would be a direct violation of the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, as Warren has stated. Plus, even those who are reporting about SP1 are themselves not sure if it is Windows Vista SP1, Windows Vista R2, Windows codename "Fiji", Windows 7 and what not. A article cannot stand on its own when there is so much confusion out there. And, as Warren has already pointed out, Service Packs do not have their own article. --soum^সৌমোyasch 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and redeletion. The AFD discussion concluded that this was a Crystal Ball violation. The evidence presented above does not address that core concern - it remains speculation about a future event. Wikipedia has no need to scoop anyone. We can afford to wait until after the fact in order to ensure that the contents of our articles are verifiable, neutral, etc. Leave it deleted until it occurs. Rossami (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Warren. No sources meeting WP:RS directly support this, and the topic (when attributable content exists to get it past WP:CRYSTAL) will be appropriate only for a paragraph in a broader article. Barno 14:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]