GunDB – Deletion endorsed – Stifle (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
GunDB (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) WP:GNG sources were ignored Tmobii (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Allow Recreation or Overturn. Deletion closure was based on vote, not a review of sources, which goes against WP:MAJORITY and WP:IDLI, when the decision should be based on WP:GNG policy. I brought this up with the closing admin but he said that I could not be taken seriously (I expressed concern of being WP:BITE by this) but he said he would not respond further to my concerns of policy being ignored (see here) which is why I am asking for review. The original page had sources from UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD, Kauffman Foundation, Billionaires Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce, and others, the deletion discussion page explained how they complied with WP:GNG independent, secondary, significant, reliable, and presumed requirements. No other editor replied to these points in the deletion discussion, which seems unfair to then close based off of vote and delete. Tmobii (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Contrary to the statement above many editors in the discussion replied to those points and explained how they did not consider the sources offered to be sufficient to meet notability guidelines. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Only Forbes was addressed as not WP:GNG because it uses a "contributor model", and I am okay with throwing that source out if necessary but that does not warrant discrediting all the other sources (the fact that there are so many is a sign of multiple "secondary sources" that can verify each other). Tmobii (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Tmobii:. I notice that your account has only been active for about a month, and your very first edit shows a depth of understanding of wikipedia processes and policies which is surprising in a new user. Is this the only account you have used? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] User:RoySmith I've read wikipedia for about a decade (although never the talk pages) and started editing for the first time when User:D3x0r notified me a month or two ago, first without an account. I was traveling through Europe at the time and others got upset because my IP addresses changed so I created an account and they introduced me very quickly to all the policies I needed to know. I've done debate/forensics my entire life so it was fairly straight forward (compliments to Wikipedia!) on what I needed to learn. So no, other than the last 2 months-ish, this account, and some IPs I'm new. Any advice or feedback on anything I am doing wrong or things I could approve on? Thank you for taking your time to participate and I appreciate the compliment! Tmobii (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] d3x0r I initially found Gun on wikipedia. It was months before it was deleted arbitrarily as 'not a graph database'. I spent some time digging into the history of that page to see that I wasn't... I originally dug the archived version out and reapplied it; it was subsequently deleted as I dunno no Secondary or no Primary; or no teritary or some other reason. I provided an inline personal review; it was deleted. I didn't think wikipedia allowed links to external things; so I didn't reference the gun homepage or any of the articles that are published such as 'a weekend with Gun' or something like that. After seeing it on the list as a singular example of a native javascript graph database that didn't even require a server, I did a search for 'gun database' the first thing I got was National Gun Registraiton Database. Ya, terrible name... after digging some more (think I went specifically to npm and 'gun database')... I found it, examples, and that it might more practically be tagged as GunDB; it even had stack overflow answers. I didn't really think that knowledge of things that exist and still develop should be blocked... ya some things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegro_(software) can exist, and it has no real notability; and is hard to find unless you know it's there. The other entries in the list had merely their own wikipedia reference as their justification for entry... I didn't really see any notable sources that provided any useful information about them. Blocking it having it's own page is really low. Yes, it's mark, yes it's a new account, yes, mine has just as many edits - but a longer life... I find wikipedia policy absurd in many degrees, and see this blocking being on the par of blocking articles about the bosnian pyramids... I understand there's guidelines and rules in place so this can be self-moderated... but then there's moderator who have deemed themselves gatekeepers to entry. The list previosuly had many abandoned projects; which also should deserve to be listed for historoical reference if nothing else.... Strangely wikipedia has no mention of MMURTL - which si a micro operating system published in a book even, should dserve a menton on some list somewhere..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_System_Projects (nope not here). Just because we don't have acedemic channels to publish papers and books doesn't mean our knowledge contribution is any less valuable. — Preceding ::On On further consideration.. I would think such regulations are to protect against abuse of space. All of this discussion plus all of the discussion on the Graph Database page (over a single line in a table) Are much more of an abuse. And now with all versions are certainly more space than this space itself would have been; and it could grow with the products... 1) not everything dead is listed, 2) not everything alive is listed 3) It's not like it's spamming for marketing, at the time it was 1 in a list of like 40; they've all been edited out, and I'm sure they have their own merits and deserve their own studies. I tend think if wikipedia as actually pretty accurate, and it irks me when I hear 'PSH like you can trust wikipedia'. So when I corrected it, surely it was deleted because noone was acitvely avaiable to defend it and someone thought it should be deleted; so I tend to think that if people find inaccurate information they would correct it.... and I would challenge anyone to give me 10 inaccurate points; and I would learn it's probably like Water Car - Stanely meyers. Something you can learn about anywhere else... (searches...)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car nope; no idea. But I find an inaccuracy ,a dn the fixing of it is immediately rubuked (repeatedly!). Even when compliances were applied. unsigned comment added by D3x0r (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] First of all, please please slow down on the walls of text. It does you no favors. Secondly, can you provide the three best sources (no more please) that you feel meet WP:RS and help with meeting WP:N. Per the AfD, there don't appear to be any that help at all, but I honestly can't tell for sure given all the text. Hobit (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. Clear arguments of lack of quality sourced material discussing the subject specifically. Clear association with WP:Promotion. The nominator appears to have not taken any time to digest anything said to him so far. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC Endorse. I went through every single source with Tmobii on the AfD but Tmobii (who has a WP:COI as he works there) ignores what has been said especially if it disagrees with his opinion and tendiciously pushes alternative angles and/or cherry-picks text from policy/guidelines as reasons why the sources establish notability. This all started because Tmobii wanted to list GunDB in a list within the Graph database article. We examined the sources there and pointed out it wasn't notable. Tmobii then decided to create the GunDB article to continue pushing to establish notability. Tmobii then opened RfC on Talk:Graph database (still open) and repeated many of the same arguments. And this attempt at Deletion Review is just an excuse to redo the entire thing again. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The AfD couldn't have been closed any other way. Given the number of different conversations that have been started in different places (WP:ANI, Talk:Graph_database#Disputed_Gun_graph_database_entry, User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather, plus the AfD), suggest this be closed as WP:FORUMSHOPPING by a WP:SPA. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] AfDs can only be closed with ad hominems. Endorse, which is quite obvious. Maybe the closing statement was lacking, but consensus was clear. It is not based on the head count, but neither on the length of the arguments or their concentration in Wikipedia acronyms. Strong advice to Tmobii to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Relist to allow a better consensus Disclosure: I !voted to delete. The theory of deletion is explained in the close as what one side of the argument "wants", which is not a policy-based closing. The comment about "walls of text" implies that the closer has not read the discussion. The closing only gave me 25 minutes to respond to the post to me, so discussion was cut short. Premature closing is a problem IMO with at least one other recent Sandstein closing. Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse : WP:NOT, WP:N and as of the endless repetition "arguments" including "sources" which do not mention GUNDb : WP:DENY. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion based on the analysis of the sources presented in the AfD. We require reliable third party and secondary sources so that we can write an NPOV article per WP:WHYN. The quality of the sources left much to be desired here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] WP:WHYN was rejected a almost a decade ago as a part of the WP:N guideline proper. Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] WP:WHYN is still a part of WP:N --Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] That is a non sequitur in the sense that an irrelevancy is showing up in the assertion. Just within the last week the community has again rejected having a WP:DEL-REASON for, "Insufficient sources to write an article that meets the core content policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV." Unscintillating (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

GunDB – Deletion endorsed – Stifle (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:GNG sources were ignored Tmobii (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Recreation or Overturn. Deletion closure was based on vote, not a review of sources, which goes against WP:MAJORITY and WP:IDLI, when the decision should be based on WP:GNG policy. I brought this up with the closing admin but he said that I could not be taken seriously (I expressed concern of being WP:BITE by this) but he said he would not respond further to my concerns of policy being ignored (see here) which is why I am asking for review.

The original page had sources from UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD, Kauffman Foundation, Billionaires Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce, and others, the deletion discussion page explained how they complied with WP:GNG independent, secondary, significant, reliable, and presumed requirements. No other editor replied to these points in the deletion discussion, which seems unfair to then close based off of vote and delete. Tmobii (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Contrary to the statement above many editors in the discussion replied to those points and explained how they did not consider the sources offered to be sufficient to meet notability guidelines. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only Forbes was addressed as not WP:GNG because it uses a "contributor model", and I am okay with throwing that source out if necessary but that does not warrant discrediting all the other sources (the fact that there are so many is a sign of multiple "secondary sources" that can verify each other). Tmobii (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tmobii:. I notice that your account has only been active for about a month, and your very first edit shows a depth of understanding of wikipedia processes and policies which is surprising in a new user. Is this the only account you have used? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:RoySmith I've read wikipedia for about a decade (although never the talk pages) and started editing for the first time when User:D3x0r notified me a month or two ago, first without an account. I was traveling through Europe at the time and others got upset because my IP addresses changed so I created an account and they introduced me very quickly to all the policies I needed to know. I've done debate/forensics my entire life so it was fairly straight forward (compliments to Wikipedia!) on what I needed to learn. So no, other than the last 2 months-ish, this account, and some IPs I'm new. Any advice or feedback on anything I am doing wrong or things I could approve on? Thank you for taking your time to participate and I appreciate the compliment! Tmobii (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

d3x0r

I initially found Gun on wikipedia. It was months before it was deleted arbitrarily as 'not a graph database'. I spent some time digging into the history of that page to see that I wasn't... I originally dug the archived version out and reapplied it; it was subsequently deleted as I dunno no Secondary or no Primary; or no teritary or some other reason. I provided an inline personal review; it was deleted.

I didn't think wikipedia allowed links to external things; so I didn't reference the gun homepage or any of the articles that are published such as 'a weekend with Gun' or something like that. After seeing it on the list as a singular example of a native javascript graph database that didn't even require a server, I did a search for 'gun database' the first thing I got was National Gun Registraiton Database. Ya, terrible name... after digging some more (think I went specifically to npm and 'gun database')... I found it, examples, and that it might more practically be tagged as GunDB; it even had stack overflow answers.

I didn't really think that knowledge of things that exist and still develop should be blocked... ya some things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegro_(software) can exist, and it has no real notability; and is hard to find unless you know it's there.

The other entries in the list had merely their own wikipedia reference as their justification for entry... I didn't really see any notable sources that provided any useful information about them.

Blocking it having it's own page is really low.

Yes, it's mark, yes it's a new account, yes, mine has just as many edits - but a longer life...

I find wikipedia policy absurd in many degrees, and see this blocking being on the par of blocking articles about the bosnian pyramids... I understand there's guidelines and rules in place so this can be self-moderated... but then there's moderator who have deemed themselves gatekeepers to entry. The list previosuly had many abandoned projects; which also should deserve to be listed for historoical reference if nothing else.... Strangely wikipedia has no mention of MMURTL - which si a micro operating system published in a book even, should dserve a menton on some list somewhere..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_System_Projects (nope not here).

Just because we don't have acedemic channels to publish papers and books doesn't mean our knowledge contribution is any less valuable. — Preceding ::On

On further consideration.. I would think such regulations are to protect against abuse of space. All of this discussion plus all of the discussion on the Graph Database page (over a single line in a table) Are much more of an abuse. And now with all versions are certainly more space than this space itself would have been; and it could grow with the products... 1) not everything dead is listed, 2) not everything alive is listed 3) It's not like it's spamming for marketing, at the time it was 1 in a list of like 40; they've all been edited out, and I'm sure they have their own merits and deserve their own studies.

I tend think if wikipedia as actually pretty accurate, and it irks me when I hear 'PSH like you can trust wikipedia'. So when I corrected it, surely it was deleted because noone was acitvely avaiable to defend it and someone thought it should be deleted; so I tend to think that if people find inaccurate information they would correct it.... and I would challenge anyone to give me 10 inaccurate points; and I would learn it's probably like Water Car - Stanely meyers. Something you can learn about anywhere else... (searches...)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car nope; no idea. But I find an inaccuracy ,a dn the fixing of it is immediately rubuked (repeatedly!). Even when compliances were applied.

unsigned comment added by D3x0r (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please please slow down on the walls of text. It does you no favors. Secondly, can you provide the three best sources (no more please) that you feel meet WP:RS and help with meeting WP:N. Per the AfD, there don't appear to be any that help at all, but I honestly can't tell for sure given all the text. Hobit (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. Clear arguments of lack of quality sourced material discussing the subject specifically. Clear association with WP:Promotion. The nominator appears to have not taken any time to digest anything said to him so far. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC
Endorse. I went through every single source with Tmobii on the AfD but Tmobii (who has a WP:COI as he works there) ignores what has been said especially if it disagrees with his opinion and tendiciously pushes alternative angles and/or cherry-picks text from policy/guidelines as reasons why the sources establish notability. This all started because Tmobii wanted to list GunDB in a list within the Graph database article. We examined the sources there and pointed out it wasn't notable. Tmobii then decided to create the GunDB article to continue pushing to establish notability. Tmobii then opened RfC on Talk:Graph database (still open) and repeated many of the same arguments. And this attempt at Deletion Review is just an excuse to redo the entire thing again. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD couldn't have been closed any other way. Given the number of different conversations that have been started in different places (WP:ANI, Talk:Graph_database#Disputed_Gun_graph_database_entry, User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather, plus the AfD), suggest this be closed as WP:FORUMSHOPPING by a WP:SPA. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs can only be closed with ad hominems.

Endorse, which is quite obvious. Maybe the closing statement was lacking, but consensus was clear. It is not based on the head count, but neither on the length of the arguments or their concentration in Wikipedia acronyms. Strong advice to Tmobii to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist to allow a better consensus Disclosure: I !voted to delete. The theory of deletion is explained in the close as what one side of the argument "wants", which is not a policy-based closing. The comment about "walls of text" implies that the closer has not read the discussion. The closing only gave me 25 minutes to respond to the post to me, so discussion was cut short. Premature closing is a problem IMO with at least one other recent Sandstein closing. Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse : WP:NOT, WP:N and as of the endless repetition "arguments" including "sources" which do not mention GUNDb : WP:DENY. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion based on the analysis of the sources presented in the AfD. We require reliable third party and secondary sources so that we can write an NPOV article per WP:WHYN. The quality of the sources left much to be desired here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHYN was rejected a almost a decade ago as a part of the WP:N guideline proper. Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHYN is still a part of WP:N --Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a non sequitur in the sense that an irrelevancy is showing up in the assertion.
Just within the last week the community has again rejected having a WP:DEL-REASON for, "Insufficient sources to write an article that meets the core content policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV." Unscintillating (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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