< January 27	Deletion review archives: 2009 January	January 29 >

28 January 2009

QCubed – Deletion endorsed – kur ykh 06:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
QCubed (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` A discussion was in place about producing language useful to the general audience. The original article was a bit tech savy. Since than we have changed the page to be more productive and informative to a general audience. We also added relevant and informative links for the general public. The user who deleted our article says it was based on notability but made absolutely no effort in producing notable references nor did anyone else in the discussion. Yet it had plenty of notable references. The irony of this comes when viewing other PHP Open-Source Frameworks (free, community driven projects), most of them do not produce any notable evidence or references (sometimes they don't even produce a link to the project), yet the QCubed article was deleted. QCubed is a port of QCodo which has a wikipedia article but includes more useful informative information. Please review. JonKirkpatrick (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin Once you factor in new accounts at the AFD, the consensus is rather clear that this is a non-notable software application. Closing admins are not supposed to find references, nor does the possible existence of references result in a keep, finally WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is another discouraged AFD position. MBisanz ^talk 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The AfD discussion was closed within guidelines. That said, there is a secondary issue of whether the article was sufficiently improved, between the original nomination and closure of discussion, to "challenge the validity" of the early !votes. IMO, it was not, and I would endorse deletion under criterion G4 if the article were recreated as it was at the time of deletion. If JonKirkpatrick would like to work on an imrpoved candidate article in userspace, I think that's a reasonable solution. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment by article editor Determining notability based on new account creation is not in your Notability guidelines so such comments are ludicrous and should be excluded from factual evidence. The reason stated for deletion was based on "notability", and per your guidlines, "...deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." The sources we listed provided enough notability, and if it was not sufficient enough a simple question from the admins could have been asked to provide more notability based on the changes after, "may lack notability.". JonKirkpatrick (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Actually, under the guidelines for deletion discussions, comments from new accounts may be discounted, when they are suspected of being single-purpose accounts or otherwise recruited to skew the discussion. One participant on the keep side admitted to a conflict of interest. Comments by IP addresses are also typically discounted - again, since COI is so rampant here, the closing admin was within guidelines to do so. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] I understand C.Fred, but the closing admins statements and comparisons between new accounts and notability are extremely false and are not documented anywhere on your notability guidelines, that's how he said he based his decision, read his comment. New accounts were created by myself and a few core-contributors of the open source project to provide answers to guestions posed by admins. You can see on the 23rd a "notability / spam / wording" problem had come up. One of our members re-did the article and provided a more fruitful article, even some members of Wikipedia changed their minds based on this change. The speedy delete was based on spam of the original content. The content was significantly changed. The Weak Delete has not even come into play yet, I do feel this was against wikipedia guidelines for deletion. I also feel that the deletion was not based on the new changes that were in-place after the initial rounds of the discussion and before it was deleted. I also believe a great assumption was put in place by the closing admin by assuming since the discussion had a "speedy delete" reference on an earlier date, he went ahead and deleted it without viewing the changes made to the article after the speedy delete comment, and also based on his first comment in this article by also assuming we have no notability based on new user creation. Please review this in depth as a lot of assumptions were used by the closing admin. JonKirkpatrick (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The consensus of established editors at the AFD was in favour of deleting the article. Not every common procedure here is documented (although we're getting there). Finally, deletion review is a forum to indicate how the deletion process was not properly followed. It is not a forum to attempt to raise new arguments (or repeat old ones) which would properly have been raised in the AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Summary Just so the facts are clear. There was a leaning towards delete due to "spam" prior to the rewrites. After the first re-write (23:20, 23 January 2009), Fiddle Faddle was the only old-account user to respond with "spam" (15:06, 25 January 2009), Peridon responded with "neutral", the article was once again rewritten (21:45, 25 January 2009), and Peridon was the only old-account user to respond (with "keep" 19:56, 26 January 2009). No other old-account comments were made post-rewrite. Opinion Even if all new-account and anonymous comments are believed to have no weight, I still believe it to be improper that a "consensus" of delete has been drawn based on one outdated "spam" and one current "keep". 68.145.111.83 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment by article editor Thank you for summarizing what I was trying to say, much clearer.JonKirkpatrick (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Yeah, clearly spam and written from a COI. If reliable sourcing can be found I don't see that a new article couldn't be written but it should be written by someone unconnected to the product. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote your products OK? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Request for Clarification COI While I (and most of the new accounts) are members of the QCubed community, and as such do desire that the article stay, the Wikipedia guidelines state it's only COI if "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". Our goal here is to have an accurate wikipedia article, and not anything contrary to wikipedia's aims. Notability Your policy states "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." No one has yet stated that they have looked for such sources. Spam If the issue is not notability, but rather spam, as often stated, I believe wikipedia policy only demands NPOV, which I believe this article has. All statements made are factual, and descriptive in nature, without bias. It may be that our framework is simply not well known enough to merit an article here, and would fail due to Notability standards, but no one has yet found us to fail them. Those who have supported the deletion as a COI or Spam, please clarify. We are more than willing to rework the article to meet these criteria, but are unsure in what manner it currently fails. 68.145.111.83 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per Stifle and Spartaz. GlassCobra 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

QCubed – Deletion endorsed – kur ykh 06:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

A discussion was in place about producing language useful to the general audience. The original article was a bit tech savy. Since than we have changed the page to be more productive and informative to a general audience. We also added relevant and informative links for the general public. The user who deleted our article says it was based on notability but made absolutely no effort in producing notable references nor did anyone else in the discussion. Yet it had plenty of notable references. The irony of this comes when viewing other PHP Open-Source Frameworks (free, community driven projects), most of them do not produce any notable evidence or references (sometimes they don't even produce a link to the project), yet the QCubed article was deleted. QCubed is a port of QCodo which has a wikipedia article but includes more useful informative information. Please review. JonKirkpatrick (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin Once you factor in new accounts at the AFD, the consensus is rather clear that this is a non-notable software application. Closing admins are not supposed to find references, nor does the possible existence of references result in a keep, finally WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is another discouraged AFD position. MBisanz ^talk 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD discussion was closed within guidelines. That said, there is a secondary issue of whether the article was sufficiently improved, between the original nomination and closure of discussion, to "challenge the validity" of the early !votes. IMO, it was not, and I would endorse deletion under criterion G4 if the article were recreated as it was at the time of deletion. If JonKirkpatrick would like to work on an imrpoved candidate article in userspace, I think that's a reasonable solution. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by article editor Determining notability based on new account creation is not in your Notability guidelines so such comments are ludicrous and should be excluded from factual evidence. The reason stated for deletion was based on "notability", and per your guidlines, "...deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." The sources we listed provided enough notability, and if it was not sufficient enough a simple question from the admins could have been asked to provide more notability based on the changes after, "may lack notability.". JonKirkpatrick (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, under the guidelines for deletion discussions, comments from new accounts may be discounted, when they are suspected of being single-purpose accounts or otherwise recruited to skew the discussion. One participant on the keep side admitted to a conflict of interest. Comments by IP addresses are also typically discounted - again, since COI is so rampant here, the closing admin was within guidelines to do so. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand C.Fred, but the closing admins statements and comparisons between new accounts and notability are extremely false and are not documented anywhere on your notability guidelines, that's how he said he based his decision, read his comment. New accounts were created by myself and a few core-contributors of the open source project to provide answers to guestions posed by admins. You can see on the 23rd a "notability / spam / wording" problem had come up. One of our members re-did the article and provided a more fruitful article, even some members of Wikipedia changed their minds based on this change. The speedy delete was based on spam of the original content. The content was significantly changed. The Weak Delete has not even come into play yet, I do feel this was against wikipedia guidelines for deletion. I also feel that the deletion was not based on the new changes that were in-place after the initial rounds of the discussion and before it was deleted. I also believe a great assumption was put in place by the closing admin by assuming since the discussion had a "speedy delete" reference on an earlier date, he went ahead and deleted it without viewing the changes made to the article after the speedy delete comment, and also based on his first comment in this article by also assuming we have no notability based on new user creation. Please review this in depth as a lot of assumptions were used by the closing admin. JonKirkpatrick (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The consensus of established editors at the AFD was in favour of deleting the article. Not every common procedure here is documented (although we're getting there). Finally, deletion review is a forum to indicate how the deletion process was not properly followed. It is not a forum to attempt to raise new arguments (or repeat old ones) which would properly have been raised in the AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary Just so the facts are clear. There was a leaning towards delete due to "spam" prior to the rewrites. After the first re-write (23:20, 23 January 2009), Fiddle Faddle was the only old-account user to respond with "spam" (15:06, 25 January 2009), Peridon responded with "neutral", the article was once again rewritten (21:45, 25 January 2009), and Peridon was the only old-account user to respond (with "keep" 19:56, 26 January 2009). No other old-account comments were made post-rewrite. Opinion Even if all new-account and anonymous comments are believed to have no weight, I still believe it to be improper that a "consensus" of delete has been drawn based on one outdated "spam" and one current "keep". 68.145.111.83 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by article editor Thank you for summarizing what I was trying to say, much clearer.JonKirkpatrick (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Yeah, clearly spam and written from a COI. If reliable sourcing can be found I don't see that a new article couldn't be written but it should be written by someone unconnected to the product. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote your products OK? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Clarification
- COI While I (and most of the new accounts) are members of the QCubed community, and as such do desire that the article stay, the Wikipedia guidelines state it's only COI if "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". Our goal here is to have an accurate wikipedia article, and not anything contrary to wikipedia's aims.
- Notability Your policy states "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." No one has yet stated that they have looked for such sources.
- Spam If the issue is not notability, but rather spam, as often stated, I believe wikipedia policy only demands NPOV, which I believe this article has. All statements made are factual, and descriptive in nature, without bias.

It may be that our framework is simply not well known enough to merit an article here, and would fail due to Notability standards, but no one has yet found us to fail them. Those who have supported the deletion as a COI or Spam, please clarify. We are more than willing to rework the article to meet these criteria, but are unsure in what manner it currently fails. 68.145.111.83 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Stifle and Spartaz. GlassCobra 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Costly state verification – Restored - the deletion was under WP:PROD, so undeletion as a contested prod is trivial – —C.Fred (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Costly_state_verification (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` absolutely no reason to delete. Editors are exercising unwarranted power using unsubstantiated claims with no reasonable explanation why this article with crystal clear content and references listed with over hundred thousands results on Google search on term explained is worse than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_contract with no references and no informative content to speak of. V sq (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment by deleting admin - The article was deleted as an uncontested prod that had been listed for five days. At the time I deleted it, the article consisted of three sentences of text with no citations, and did not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. When V sq contacted me regarding the deletion, I -as a member of Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles- offered to userfy the article, however s/he replied [1] "I don't want to waste my time "improving" my already well-written article until I get some explanation due for the act of vandalism committed" and instead opened this DRV. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment by article author —Preceding unsigned comment added by V sq (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] That comment by deleting admin is factually untrue. Below is the text of original article taken from google cache. Someone should put the end to arbitrary vandalism in relation to highly valuable content that few people are capable to create. Costly State Verification (CSV) approach in contract theory considers contract design problem in which verification (or disclosure) of enterprise performance is costly and a lender has to pay a monitoring cost. A central result of CSV approach is that it is generally optimal to commit to a partial, state-contingent disclosure rule. Townsend (1979) has shown that under few strong assumptions the optimal financing mechanism is a standard debt contract for which there is no disclosure of the debtor's performance as long as debt as honored, but there is full disclosure (verification) in case of default. See also * Complete contract * Contract theory * Agency cost References * Townsend, R.M., 1979. Optimal contracts and competitive markets with costly state verification. Journal of Economic Theory 22, 265–293. * Bolton, Patrick and Dewatripont, Mathias. Contract Theory. MIT press, 2005. V sq (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] This looks like the "three sentences of text with no citations" that I described above. I mean, the text of the article you wrote is indeed three sentences long, and it contains zero citation templates. Is there something I am missing here? --Kralizec! (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Restore. Based on the deleting admin's comment above, the rationale for deletion is expired prod and not speedy deletion criterion A7. Accordingly, this appears to be a contested prod, which can be restored at will - and also can be nominated for deletion via the WP:AFD process. I'm confirming with the deleting admin before I do this, however. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 'Comment- I was going to ask the same question that C.Fred just asked above-since this is an expired prod, and not the result of an AFD or a speedy delete, wouldn't this DRV be a sign that the prod is being contested, and the article can be restored? Umbralcorax (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] The reason I didn't outright is the log entry: 'Kralizec! deleted "Costly state verification" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Expired PROD: just a dicdef)'. That reads as a speedy plus an expired prod. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] that A7 must have been a clear slip of the mouse, for this article is not among the classes of articles that is subject to A7--its not a person, group, company, organization or web content. We can't sustain a speedy like that. I prodded it originally, but if the author want it back to try to make a real article out of this two sentence dicdef, he's welcome to try. DGG (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] The A7 tag was a mistake on my part; I can confirm that the article was deleted as an uncontested prod. This is the first time someone has skipped straight to DRV and not taken me up on an offer to userfy the article, so I did not want to undelete the article myself. The author is already alleging that this is an out-of-process deletion, and I did not want to add to any sense of impropriety by short-circuiting the DRV discussion by restoring the article. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Costly state verification – Restored - the deletion was under WP:PROD, so undeletion as a contested prod is trivial – —C.Fred (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

absolutely no reason to delete. Editors are exercising unwarranted power using unsubstantiated claims with no reasonable explanation why this article with crystal clear content and references listed with over hundred thousands results on Google search on term explained is worse than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_contract with no references and no informative content to speak of. V sq (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by deleting admin - The article was deleted as an uncontested prod that had been listed for five days. At the time I deleted it, the article consisted of three sentences of text with no citations, and did not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. When V sq contacted me regarding the deletion, I -as a member of Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles- offered to userfy the article, however s/he replied [1] "I don't want to waste my time "improving" my already well-written article until I get some explanation due for the act of vandalism committed" and instead opened this DRV. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by article author —Preceding unsigned comment added by V sq (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That comment by deleting admin is factually untrue. Below is the text of original article taken from google cache. Someone should put the end to arbitrary vandalism in relation to highly valuable content that few people are capable to create.

Costly State Verification (CSV) approach in contract theory considers contract design problem in which verification (or disclosure) of enterprise performance is costly and a lender has to pay a monitoring cost.

A central result of CSV approach is that it is generally optimal to commit to a partial, state-contingent disclosure rule. Townsend (1979) has shown that under few strong assumptions the optimal financing mechanism is a standard debt contract for which there is no disclosure of the debtor's performance as long as debt as honored, but there is full disclosure (verification) in case of default.

See also

   * Complete contract
   * Contract theory
   * Agency cost

References

   * Townsend, R.M., 1979. Optimal contracts and competitive markets with costly state verification. Journal of Economic Theory 22, 265–293.
   * Bolton, Patrick and Dewatripont, Mathias. Contract Theory. MIT press, 2005.

V sq (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like the "three sentences of text with no citations" that I described above. I mean, the text of the article you wrote is indeed three sentences long, and it contains zero citation templates. Is there something I am missing here? --Kralizec! (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Based on the deleting admin's comment above, the rationale for deletion is expired prod and not speedy deletion criterion A7. Accordingly, this appears to be a contested prod, which can be restored at will - and also can be nominated for deletion via the WP:AFD process. I'm confirming with the deleting admin before I do this, however. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment- I was going to ask the same question that C.Fred just asked above-since this is an expired prod, and not the result of an AFD or a speedy delete, wouldn't this DRV be a sign that the prod is being contested, and the article can be restored? Umbralcorax (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I didn't outright is the log entry: 'Kralizec! deleted "Costly state verification" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Expired PROD: just a dicdef)'. That reads as a speedy plus an expired prod. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that A7 must have been a clear slip of the mouse, for this article is not among the classes of articles that is subject to A7--its not a person, group, company, organization or web content. We can't sustain a speedy like that. I prodded it originally, but if the author want it back to try to make a real article out of this two sentence dicdef, he's welcome to try. DGG (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The A7 tag was a mistake on my part; I can confirm that the article was deleted as an uncontested prod. This is the first time someone has skipped straight to DRV and not taken me up on an offer to userfy the article, so I did not want to undelete the article myself. The author is already alleging that this is an out-of-process deletion, and I did not want to add to any sense of impropriety by short-circuiting the DRV discussion by restoring the article. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.