Padrino Framework (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A ruby programmer (first paid for computer programming in 1966), who has nothing to do with the Padrino framework, hereby, states that Padrino is an important ruby web framework. That ruby programmer, while doing research, decided to see what Wikipedia had to say about it and was quite surprised to see a large ugly deletion notice and commented that that notice looked like vandalism. That ruby programmer also noted that the fellow who was trying in vain to defend his project from deletion was accused of being biased or not objective or some such thing. That ruby programmer is of the opinion that deleting the Padrino framework is senseless and that the editors should learn the difference between newness and lack of notability. 213.213.139.124 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion- No reliable sources were in the article, and none were provided in the AFD, and the consensus was accurately read by the closing admin. While this may seem unfair, I urge you to check out our guidelines on notability and reliable sources for what is and what isn't acceptable for an article. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as there was a clear consensus to delete, and please consider the helpful comments of Nuujinn in the AfD and of Umbralcorax above. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Endorse. No valid, policy based reason given for overturning the decision. This is the reason we have our conflict of interest guideline, to encourage dispassionate objective review of material by persons who have no personal stake in it. With language like ""Padrino" is a ruby web framework built upon the excellent Sinatra Microframework. Sinatra is a DSL for creating simple web applications in Ruby with speed and minimal effort. This framework makes it as fun and easy as possible to code increasingly advanced web applications by expanding upon Sinatra while maintaining the spirit that made it great" I don't think a deletion debate was even warranted, this is blatantly promotional and could have been speedy deleted as such Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as above. No sources, no article. Also, "that ruby programmer" should take note that appeal to authority arguments are unlikely to work on Wikipedia, especially when the authority is anonymous and the claim to authority is as weak as claiming to have been paid for programming 44 years ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There's no other way that debate could have been read, and you've not provided any sources to justify having this article in this review. As to the distinction between newness and notability; you're partially right, there is somewhat of a lag there. New things are discovered/created before they're written about in secondary sources, but until those sources exist, the article can not exist either. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as AfD nominator. The reason why I nominated the article for deletion was due to a lack of notability and reliable sources. While "Padrino Framework" returns some hits, none of them are reliable sources. Feel free to recreate when enough reliable sources have been found and notability is established. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow endorse. The discussion did not have any other possible reasonable closure. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wemmick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion involved one editor arguing for deletion—myself as nominator—and two arguing to keep: clearly an inadequate to form a solid consensus (it should at the very least have been closed as "no consensus"), and in my opinion, the debate should have been relisted for further discussion, as other 2-1 !vote situations generally are done. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 18:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In many cases a low-traffic AFD would indeed be relisted, but it is not required. In this case the article was changed during the course of the debate. Before:[1] After: [2]. These changes included adding multiple sources and removing original research, fixing the exact problems that led to it being nominated for deletion. This is a good thing, an article was improved thanks to your nominating it for deletion, look at it that way. In short, while I acknowledge that it is a bit unusual, the closure seems valid as the end result is a positive one for Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think it extremely unlikely that we would delete an article on a significant dickens character, after it has been substantially improved and adequately sourced. appropriate closure. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep Close was within reasonable discretion, and frankly, a delete outcome seems pretty unlikely, given that this was a Dickens character and had survived another relatively recent AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Only the nominator argued for deletion, and in particular, no-one disputed the reliability or sufficiency of the sources added as the AfD progressed. Closing as keep was valid, and preferable to clogging up AfD with another relist. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with extreme prejudice It's not about voting, it's not about time, it's about making sure the articles we keep are worth keeping. The sources added during the AfD justify a keep close even if no single editor had cast a "keep" !vote in the AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin – I based my close on strength of argument even though admittedly this was a relatively low-participation AfD. (AfD #1, which closed in March, drew a little more participation with relisting.) The argument in favour of deletion was that the article was based mostly on original research and was completely unsourced, and there was skepticism as to whether it could be sourced. Ginsengbomb went ahead and removed the OR and added multiple citations. No one argued that the sources added were problematic. The consensus might have been clearer if more editors other than Ginsengbomb and DGG had looked at the sources added and said, "yes these help to support notability", but to me it seemed clear enough. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Soundly reasoned close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close was entirely correct; relisting this would have been a use of more time to reach the same result in a week's span. After improvements, this article wasn't going to go anywhere, and no one other than the nominator ever advanced that it should. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow endorse, with applause to Paul Erik for having the courage to make the obvious call instead of timidly relisting.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left Right Think Tank (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted for lack of notability. Those in favour of deletion argued there was an inadequate number of reputable third-party sources. However, I believe the following articles - the overwhelming majority of which were not presented as evidence in the original inquiry - necessitate the alternative conclusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oR4gMIkfs8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-g0q7CuWKU

http://www.leftright.org.au/%27Evenings%20with%20Derek%20Guille%27%20Radio%20Interview%20on%20774ABC%20Melbourne,%2023%20March%202009.mp3

http://www.leftright.org.au/heraldsun170309.pdf

http://www.youthcentral.vic.gov.au/ViewPage.action?repositoryName&siteNodeId=1993&CurrentFolderID=1966&ItemID=12325

http://www.leftright.org.au/hansard041208.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/pdf/Hansard_3.2.10.pdf

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20080723/broader-political-debate.html

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20090408/leftright.html

http://www.leftright.org.au/uwanews280708.pdf

http://www.standard.net.au/news/local/news/general/youths-want-change/1804436.aspx

LETTERS OF SUPPORT

http://www.leftright.org.au/costello221008.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/hollingworth171108.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/pyne101208.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/pdf/gillard290909.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/mirabella220109.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/ellis130309.pdf

Though not exhaustive, I think this list is sufficient to establish notability (talk).

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The "sources" all fail one or more of reliable, independent, secondary or non-trivial. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer of original AFD. The deleted version of the article had zero references, and a full week was given to correct the problem. Most of the above links do not qualify as reliable sources. Letters of support and the group's own website are obviously not independent sources. "Youth Central" is user generated content with minimal oversight [3]. The article in "The Standard" contains only a trivial, passing mention of this group. The remaining sources may contain enough on which to base a new article, but I believe the decision to delete the previous version was valid. It would be nice if the tv news coverage was hosted somewhere other than YouTube, preferably the station's own website. I'd be happy to provide a copy of the deleted version as a userpage draft to use as a starting point, but unless and until the content of the article is directly verified by the sources it should not be in article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The original article was nominated for deletion for lack of notability, not lack of references. Though they are linked, all of the above sources are independent of the website. (talk)

References are how notability is established. References are also how content is verified. Letters of support or other content hosted on the group's own website are not independent reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I don't have must to add to Beeblebrox. There was a clear consensus to delete, and none of the new sources presented appear to be reliable other than the one trivial mention in The Standard. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse the sources are simply not sufficient, especially as the brief ABC interview talks about it as a new project that may of may not be successful. I think that alone, wherever hosted, would not be sufficient to establish notability DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I agree with Guy and Beeblebrox. The sources add up to nothing we can use. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball endorse The "sources" presented are all primary or unreliable. YouTube videos are not a RS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Lynx (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This person is clearly not a notable individual. Her biggest claim to fame is minor role in one episode of the West Wing many years ago, which is about as notable as any of the million struggling model/actors in Los Angeles can claim. Essentially she is a model of no particular prominence. This page was probably created as a self-marketing piece.

Deletion of this page was an AfD suggestion in 2007. A majority of those commenting essentially agreed with the nomination for deletion, but the result was "no consensus." Kmehrabi (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to come here if it was closed as no consensus so long ago; all you need to do is renominate it for another AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Cubs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD was closed as consensus keep, but all the keep !votes were of the form "team has played at X level so is inherently notable" whereas delete !votes commented that the article has no reliable independent sources. The sports notability guideline is a guideline only, showing the kind of team that is likely to meet the criteria for inclusion. In order to verify the content and ensure its neutrality (policies), reliable independent sources are required. There is also consensus that Wikipedia is not a directory, though this is clearly in dispute. Google finds around 100 unique hits, among which I did not see anything that amounts to a non-trivial independent reliable source, and Google Books finds no relevant hits at all. Notability is not inherent, it requires sources. This lacks sources therefore should have been deleted. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Consensus was accurately read by Stifle. In reading the AFD, DJSasso came up with a compelling reason for keeping, based on the GNG (and perhaps a dash of IAR. That the article is lacking in references now is not a dealbreaker, as we're not exactly in a hurry. And since this isn't an unsourced BLP, or a (as far as we know) a copyvio, there's no compelling reason to override consensus and delete the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of votes to keep does not override the consensus that Wikipedia is not a directory and articles must have reliable independent sources. This close endorses the view that there is no need to actually source articles, merely to assert that they could be sourced if we cared enough. Except that my searches indicated to me that this one probably can't. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That articles absolute must have reliable sources is a rule, true. However, much like almost all of the rules here, if there is consensus to do so, they may be ignored for what the consensus perceives is the greater good of the encyclopedia. That is what happened here. And while your search for sources online may have not yielded results, the crux of the argument for this ignoring of the rules is that sources for something of this nature are unlikely to be online. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, reluctantly because it isn't an outcome I'm happy with but it was the right outcome based on the debate. WP:GNG can be put to one side in an AfD as it is only a guideline that creates a presumption of notability, but WP:V can't. In this case, at least a couple of participants pointed to the fact that WP:V means verifiable, not verified, and made arguments that the information in this article satisfied the former test. I reckon this article can be given a few weeks to see if the test of verifiability is met. If no sources are added to the article, which I think entirely likely, renominate it and I'll !vote delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't like closing that as keep but any other closure would have ended up here anyway. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There's certainly an element of administrative discretion in deciding what the consensus was, but administrative discretion only goes so far. In the absence of any evidence of sockpuppetry (and there was no such evidence here) then such a very clear majority of debate participants !voting in a particular way represents a consensus. The question before us, therefore, is: in what circumstances does a local consensus of this kind get to overrule a global consensus such as those Guy cites?

  In my opinion the answer is that a small local consensus shall always fail in the face of, for example, copyvios or attack pages, where there is a clear and compelling need to protect Wikipedia. It may fail in the face of BLP violations (though the allegation that something's a BLP violation is often made falsely). But the local consensus typically prevails in the face of content guidelines. This is the essence of IAR.

  In this case, we have the right close but the wrong outcome. I shall endorse Stifle's close as being the only option available to him, but I also wish to relist the debate in the hope of a new consensus that takes more account of the relevant guidelines.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]