- Simple Instant Messenger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Closing reason is not a legitimate deletion reason. Spartaz argues
that article must be deleted despite strong consensus for Keep, because
the current citations were inadequate. AfD should be decided on the merits
of the "best possible article", not simply on fixable flaws in an existing
version. LotLE×talk 06:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found a number of (non-Russian) sources after the AfD had closed. See my post here. I suggest this be userified to Lulu for further editing. I was going to request userification to myself at some point, but I'm rather busy at the moment. By the way, some admin should move Serverless Instant Messenger to Lulu's user space as well because it's a WP:CFORK and needs to be merged with the (to be un-)deleted article. Pcap ping 07:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't misrepresent my words What I actually said was
keep arguments are mostly by assertion and the argument that the article is lacking adequate sourcing hasn't been refuted. . Absent some fresh sourcing I see no reason to ignore the rough consensus of the AFD. Is there a reason the nom did not do me the courtesy of raising this on my talk page before raising this DRV or was it just bad manners? Spartaz Humbug! 11:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I wrote just above, I did find some sources after the AfD had closed. Honestly, I though the two Russian round-up reviews—one in Computerra and the other in ixbt.com were enough—, so I did not look for more until after the AfD closed. Others "asserted" (as you put it) the same point. FYI: the additional sources from my post to Honeyman linked above: I also found it covered in another on Tom's Hardware, and it has an editorial review on Softonic, which seems genuine (in that they didn't like it). Also found a long review in German here (same publisher as Linux Magazine). Pcap ping 18:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FISH to the nom for not bringing this to the admin first. Overturn to merge based on the fact that there are sources and a merge is a darn reasonable outcome, suggested by many in the AfD. Topic may not be acceptable for a stand alone article (I disagree, but that's not a crazy reading of the discussion) but that doesn't prevent a merge where there is a reasonable target. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to what? Serverless Instant Messenger is probably ((db-afd)). Actually, I just tagged it as such. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone explain how G6 applied there? Deleting a proposed merge target as an uncontroversial delete seems odd. I'm assuming I missed something. Anyone?Hobit (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit, if you look at the top of the AfD (below the header but above the nom), it looks like that article was bundled into the AfD because it was about the same product. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Well after many of the !votes had happened it seems. I don't buy that one, but... Hobit (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added it to the AfD because it had been prodded (by Miami3xxxx, if I recall correctly). It was another article for the same product. What would you have done given that there was an ongoing AfD? Pcap ping 14:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer to let the AfD finish and then send the other to AfD also. I personally dislike folks adding things to AfDs once significant discussion has already occurred. I find it confuses people (or at least me). Hobit (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. In my view, there are only two keep votes (Alison22 and Pcap) that don't amount to either a mere assertion of notability, or an argument that is not based on accepted guidelines. Alison 22's argument was refuted - the sources cited did not amount to significant coverage. On the other hand, there were four firm delete votes, all of which properly applied guidelines, and none of which were specifically refuted. The closing admin therefore made the right call: the raw vote count was a misleading indication of consensus. A proper reading of the arguments shows the consensus went the other way. This is subject to a discussion of the new sources, which may suggest notability (I'm not qualified enough in this area to judge myself). As for merge, a deletion outcome does not prevent the later appropriate inclusion of similar material in another article, does it?--Mkativerata (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the fairly low signal-to-noise ratio in the discussion, I'll go with endorsing Spartaz's close. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close, well within administrator discretion. JBsupreme (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to Keep Heaven help us if any admin can disregard consensus so clearly in the direction of Keep and just toss an article away, or vice versa. All editors participating are aware of policy and an overwhelming majority voted to Keep based on their understanding thereof. We need to get admins out of the business of abusing administrative authority to impose their own view on the subject via supervote. The AfD was presumably at "no consensus" when it was relisted the first time and then relisted a second time a week later, and consensus only became clearer for retention after the second relisting. Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, discounting unsupported assertions and novel arguments is permitted; basically per Mkativerata. No objection to working on sourcing in user space per Pcap. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse appears to have been a reasonable close and well within admin discretion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and merge with Serverless Instant Messenger — Neustradamus (✉) 15:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure The arguments to keep were unusually weak in this case. One "keep" vote must be discarded as by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Two "keep" votes offer no real rationale whatsoever, and must be discarded. Two other "keep" votes are based on WP:ITSNOTABLE, an argument to avoid. Votes to merge are moot given the deletion of the article to which this one was supposed to be merged. As such, only Pcap and Honeyman offered valid arguments to keep, and those were rejected by a majority of the participants in the discussion (whose votes were not discarded per the above). The arguments to delete were strong, as mentioned above. Unlike the OptiPNG AfD being discussed above, the invalid nature of most of the "keep" votes here renders the closing admin's decision to delete a good one. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will point out that there appear to be sources found (above). Not sure if that will change your mind, the the assertions of notability now have evidence behind them. Hobit (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I saw that. It doesn't really change my mind that this was a good AfD close, but it does mean that I wouldn't object to the creation of a new article based on those sources (assuming someone can read Russian). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that how you suck up to the power base here? LOL. Pcap ping 10:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Power base"? Look, I don't know a whole lot about this whole software fight involving you, Tothwolf, Miami33139, Theserialcomma, JBSupreme, etc., and the very last thing I want is to get sucked into it. All I'm saying is that this was a good AfD close – nothing more, nothing less. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You win "best wikilawyer of 2010 award". You just argued in the OptiPNG DRV on this page that votes ultimately should be counted. And here you said the exact opposite. Pcap ping 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (This is worthy of reading, even though it may seem at a glance TL;DR.)
I wish people would actually read the case before assuming that the ArbCom case was about me or just some software-related AfDs. Yes, the name could have been chosen better (case name discussion), and the way the case is named has resulted all sorts of problems due to an assumption from a handful of people that the case was about my behaviour when they looked only at the case name and ignored the evidence itself. (Links related to the case name can be found here.) The short version is that the case was filed by Jehochman on my behalf [2] (RFAR link) due to Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme targeting me for harassment. The case also involves a hell of a lot more than just software-related AfDs, although Miami33139 in particular tried very hard to make it look like that's what the case was about after trying unsuccessfully to convince ArbCom to not accept the case (which is the same type of thing that he did during the AN/I about the same harassment issues). Prior to September 2009 though, Miami33139 simply did not participate in software and computing-related deletion discussions (with the exception of those related to multimedia software, with nearly all of those being AfD discussions Miami33139 himself created). In September 2009 he tried to superficially involve himself in deletion discussions related to software and computing topics as well as WP:COMP in order to try to hide the fact that he was following me around and going through my past contribs to prod or create deletion discussions for things I edited (not only articles, but also redirects, templates, categories, etc). Unfortunately for Miami33139 and the other two editors, their edit histories (including deleted contribs) make the patterns completely transparent. None of those three editors create, update, or improve articles, redirects, templates, categories, etc in these topic area though. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Excellent application of WP:NOTAVOTE. Triplestop x3 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, weakly. I understand that a number of the AfD participants considered the Russian sources insufficient, and that Spartaz read the consensus that way. Although I found additional non-Russian sources after the AfD had closed, DRV isn't supposed to be a continuation of the AfD, but an analysis of how the closing admin examined the consensus at the time of closure, and I can't really find fault with Spartaz's decision there. The AfD discussion was also quite confusing because there were two articles about the same product, and the merge discussion was taking place in between the lines. (Actually, even Spartaz missed that, because he only deleted one of the articles.) Even though the other editors did not clearly endorse the sources presented, I would like to point out however that only User:JBsupreme and User:Benlisquare voted delete after the Russian sources were presented. Like Miami3xxxx, the nominator, these editors are known for their position to delete most software from Wikipedia (See the Tothwolf ArbCom for Miami & JB, and this AfD for Benlisquare's stance. We don't know if User:Joe Chill re-examined his vote after the sources were presented. Pcap ping 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did check back. There was only two sources, which isn't multiple. Joe Chill (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A question: I've always treated the word "multiple" to mean one or more. Is that not the normal definition people use? Then again I also use "a couple" to sometimes mean "a few" which confuses my students from time to time... Hobit (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no-consensus. If the community thinks the sources are sufficient, no admin has the right to over-rule them. Whether the community actually thought that way is unclear, so either relist or close as non-consensus and discuss again in a month. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per DGG. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Consensus accurately read by ignoring "Keep" votes like "this is open source software" as unrelated to policies. Spamming that message to all FOSS deletion discussions was a disruptive influence. Miami33139 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Consensus was formed at AFD that the article should be deleted. 16x9 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|