EBCDIC 037-2 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was caught in a mass deletion of pages with information taken from IBM's primary sources, but it documented a code page discussed ONLY in secondary sources. It could use additional citations beyond the Marist Pipelines web page, but it's information that was notable enough to make its way from SHARE discussions back into an IBM product eventually. Not R (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Request Listing for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon: assuming you meant temporary undeletion I have now done that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (treatment as per rest of bundle), no objection to draftification: In the sense that at the AfD there was little if anything to distinguish this page from any other codepage and one expects treatment to be consistent. The current sourcing is insufficient to save the page individually, and the nomination is too much of a WP:VAGUEWAVE to even work out if sources should exist. In my opinion the drv. nom. should have asked the DRVAFD closer for a draftify or userify of this page to prove the sources could be developed into the page and presented that draft to DRV for consideration.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: since we're here already do you want to discuss your larger concerns about this BUNDLE? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Not a suitable time for me to raise those issues, RL stuff and more. And this is a specific page DRV is in my view inappropriately raised. I'll only discuss on this DRV if I really have to.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: I agree that the article needs further development, and I've asked for help with that on the CMS-PIPL list. I'd be happy to develop it in a user page and come back here once it's fleshed out.

What's missing to distinguish it from all the other EBCDIC code page articles is that this is not an official code page from IBM. It was not acknowledged by IBM at all until the info in the unofficial CMS Pipelines doc (referenced in the article) was moved into the official doc in 2016. Not R (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Not R: For future reference the best pathway in my opinion is to ask the closer for a WP:REFUND to userpace/draftspace for article development; If they don't respond in 48 hours then try at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion making it clear youve asked the closer and you requesting userfication; if you are refused then raise a DRV for the purposes of getting hold of a draft. Hopefully in this instance someone will grant you a draft, but be aware it may be very difficult to get it to a state suitable for mainspace. But in essenece you shouldn't be blocked from a good faith attempt. Hopefully you may be granted a userfication consensus from this DRV now it is here and you have agreed to accept that route. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: Thanks, the boilerplate in the discussion didn't mention WP:REFUND, and it wasn't clear from the hatnote at WP:DELREV that another action might be appropriate in this case. In fact, it's still not clear to me after having it pointed out--I'm not spotting anything in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 to tell me whether this falls under Wikipedia:Deletion discussions or WP:PROD. Not R (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - It's a codepage. It needed deleting. Thank you, User:Barkeep49, for temporarily undeleting. It wasn't worth the review, but we did not know that. No error by closer, and no reason to religitate. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There almost wasn't a need for an temp-undelete as Barkeep49's version (sans proper attribution) was and is currently available at b:TransWiki:EBCDIC 037-2, so some of us were aware of the state of the page and its (lack of) attribution. The AfD consensus showed a strong desire to WP:PRESERVE, not delete, possibly at WikiBooks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse a good close with a 30 day grace period to discuss. Lightburst (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have put, and probably wasted, considerable effort into trying to preserve the bundle of articles, and bundle that is a precedent for several hundred other articles. I have indicated for personal reasons I do not wish to disclose I would prefer not to discuss the bundle, see the previous AfD and discussion with the closers, and the 30-day grace was in respect of the bundle and not the individual article. The community have the right to move discussion the outcome of the complete AfD with regards to all the bundled articles and if they wish to do that please make that explicitly clear and a different discussion will occur. As raised the DRV is for a single article out of the whole bundle that the DRV nom. good faith believes to be different in some respects than the rest. In a nutshell I am (slowly) gathering evidence as to why AfD bundle should be overturned or modified but I do not have it clearly together at this time; but I am not presenting it half-cock at this somewhat inappropriate albeit good faith DRV raised for a single articles within the article — unless that is what the community wishes. My apologies for seemingly answering every post; by this point in good faith we should probably be giving the nom. his draft/usersfication of a single article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Djm-leighpark. The idea caught on that WP:INDISCRIMINATE was applicable in the AfD and I think this was a mistake: all of the tables were clearly useful and verifiable supplementary information to the highly notable EBDIC page; most encyclopedias, both print and online, have supplementary tables and having these as separate pages is consistent with summary style. Perhaps there is another Wikimedia project that is better for housing this content than the main encyclopedia; however this kind of utilitarian consideration is not what guided the deletion argument, and until this mess is sorted out, the deletion of all these pages has done its bit to weaken the reference value of Wikipedia. However, this single page is not exceptional in the set of codepages and undeleting it alone is not a constructive step. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not entirely comfortable with the mass nomination and deletion here, but it seems that is not on the table at the moment. I see no objection to draftifing this while additional sources are sought. In its current state it does not have enough sourcing to demonstrate separate notability, but it might in time. The suggestion by Chalst that the various code pages could stand as supplementary tables under summery style appeals to me. We often have separate paged for bibliographies of the works of a notable author, for example, when the bibliography on its own might not be notable. The general concept of code pages, and even of EBCDIC code pages, is clearly notable, but cramming all the pages into a single article is obviously unworkable. Perhaps these might be considered as, in effect, sub-pages of such an article, but that is for a discussion of the full bundle when we get to it. In the meantime permit draftification. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as the deletion process has been properly followed. No objection to draftifying individual items if there is a good-faith intention to expand or improve them, but that should not be used as an end-run around the consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm honestly not thrilled with the close. It was well within discretion, but it seems like a crazy thing to lose from Wikipedia. Feels like something Wikipedia should host. So endorse based on the rules, but I think we should rethink our rules. Hobit (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• complete transwiki, and Endorse however the transwiki may not be done for all pages as required, eg IBM code page 875. If that is the case they should be restored until that process takes place. Assuming that they should go to Wikibooks, then proper attribution is also needed for those pages that have explanatory text, and not just a table. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: I view this as not addressing the purpose of this DRV, namely the specific page in question, is attempting to expand the DRV to the whole bundle ... which has implications for many hundreds more articles also, probably ending up around e.g. Wabun code & Morse code for non-Latin alphabets for example. It brings up various issues, WP:TRANSWIKI being an "obsolete" former procedure being one of them, the fact that the Transwiki (import) space on Wikibooks is some form of Hades unless there's a volunteer identified and willing to transform them into a book compliant with WikiBooks purposes. I do agree the code pages transwikied to seem to have an attribution problem in my view,(While Barkeep49 is shown as as having attribution for the pages on WikiBooks that was absolutely not Barkeep49's fault) and as such I am of that utmost belief that need to be resolved in some way. But I see that as beyond the scope of the purpose of this particular DRV. If this DRV has to be expanded to the whole bundle I will be voting endorse, overturn but I don't really have the bandwidth to get involved in that at this time ... lets just say getting called to a hospital at 1am localtime a few nights ago is a pretty good RL indicator I should be avoiding that.... Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Milliner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer review To all administrators, I have requested a deletion review on Alan Milliner, an Australian football referee who had been an international referee until 2017 upon his retirement, and has referred the Hyundai A-League matches for that matter. They have officially decided to delete that page, which I would take it easy on it, and has completely come up to my mind to ask for a deletion review. Because if he didn’t pass the GNG, why did he exist? And if the sources are not reliable enough, how come there is an official source from FIFA , to the AFC, to the Hyundai A-League and Football Queensland (on behalf of his retirement)? Even that, how can’t secondary sources cannot be accepted as if I just found the best way I can find, even if Wikipedia encourages the content to be neutral? If anyone decides that final say on that regard, I will respect the decision. With that, I am ready for this closer review. Ivan Milenin (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the issue is WP:N. The discussion concluded that there aren't enough sources strong enough to meet that guideline. On a quick look, I too am not seeing the degree of independent sourcing needed. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close could not really have been closed in any other way. Perhaps refs should be covered by the football SNG, but currently it seems that they are not. You need to understand Ivan Milenin that the fact that a source is "official" does not guarantee an article, indeed it may be of less value than an unofficial source, as it may be considered not independent. You write if he didn’t pass the GNG, why did he exist? Wikipedia has many article which should never have been created, or which were created when standards were looser, so this argument is simply not persuasive. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  However, there is no bar to creating a new draft in an attempt, to find and cite sufficient sources to establish notability, if you wish to. Indeed I would not object to this being restored as a draft or a userspace draft. I would advise putting such a draft thorough an AfC review but that is never mandatory. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - clearly correct. I think Ivan Milenin has not quite got what is special about the criteria applied to sourcing in notability assessments: it is not enough that the sources be reliable, as per the core verifiability policy, there must be a number of significant sources that are independent of the subject for us to regard the topic as having the kind of coverage needed to sustain a balanced article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The AfD could not have been closed any other way, and my quick look at google hits find near misses for things that meet the WP:GNG. To reverse the decision, you’ll need to show good GNG-meeting sources, see WP:THREE for some very good advice. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion; fails WP:DRVPURPOSE reasons not to use deletion review items 1-3. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If your need at least three best sources, possible, then there should be. 1 is about that he received a FIFA badge asa referee, 2, which is how he started, and 3 on his retirement. Let me know if any of these work. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ivan Milenin I believe that your 2nd source, the a-league.com piece, is from his former employer, and so is not considered independent, and cannot serve to help establish notability.Please correct me if I am mistaken. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - as closing admin. Consensus was clear in the AfD. I have no problem with restoration to draft space of an editor thinks that they can satisfy GNG, though I'm not seeing any significant sources presented post the AfD that are not primary. Fenix down (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as per User:DESiegel (with whom I usually respectfully disagree) on both points. The close was correct, and the SNG should include referees, but that is an issue for WT:NFOOTY. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment Robert McClenon, if that is the case, then should I talk about it on the WT:NFOOTY talk page? I completely agree that football referees should be included to satisfy notability, and that there is not a problem for creating a draft space for this page. But If this is the case, can I address this to the talk page? Ivan Milenin (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:Ivan Milenin - Yes, probably. I am not involved in that WikiProject and do not know what they will think, but what you want to do is to revise a policy, and DRV is for appeals based on standing policies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a good close - probably the only one that would make sense. Lightburst (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - good close. GiantSnowman 14:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close clearly matches the consensus at the AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]