Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 27

  • Natami – Overturn to no consensus. This is a strange close for me to be making, because, on a philosophical level, I'm in the camp that says leave the call on the field as it is unless the evidence is clear that it was wrong. What we have here is actually a DRV that is much like the original AFD, an admin, acting in good faith, could close it either way. At the end of the day, this DRV stands between one camp that says the close was within discretion, and the side for overturning the close, that points out a few possible different interpretations of the debate. What we have, though, is several editors here, including the closing admin, willing to accept a merge; from an original AFD that only considered one at the eleventh hour. I'd suggest that as the best possible outcome of this situation. If anyone wants to start a 3rd AFD, I'd ask that you give time for a merge discussion on the talk page to run its natural course. All in all, I see a rough consensus here to put the article back, and tag it as a suggested merge. – Courcelles 09:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Natami (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Despite the closing statement, this AfD was apparently closed based on a headcount. The close also does not take into consideration that NatAmi has sufficient sources both for the purposes of our verifiability policy and the notability guideline. The very fact that the material is verifiable means the close was flawed since the material could have still been merged into another article as a last resort. Based on the sources which have been presented so far however, NatAmi certainly seems to meet the notability guideline, too.

In terms of sources, NatAmi has been covered in detail in this interview by the Amiga Future magazine (imprint), which is a reliable, published magazine with an editorial staff. While one !voter went so far as to make false claims that the magazine was "sponsored" by an Amiga hardware vendor, the only connection between the magazine and the hardware vendor is the vendor pays for some advertising in the magazine, just like you would see with Apple in Macworld or any other periodical.

NatAmi was also covered in this news article from nr2.ru, which while in Russian, is reliable (about) and we don't limit sources to English only. This interview by Retoage (in Polish but also translated to English) was also brought up during the AfD and further investigation seems to indicate that Retoage is indeed reliable for retrocomputing topics.

While many of these sources for NatAmi are currently non-English (including German, Russian, Polish, Italian, etc), we do not limit articles to English-only sources. The Amiga community is very diverse so it is no surprise that NatAmi is going to receive coverage in many non-English sources. Given that the material is verifiable and certainly appears to be notable, the deletion of this article is in direct conflict with both our Deletion policy and Editing policy.

When I attempted to bring up the fact that we do have reliable sources with the closing admin, he stated "Those sources were there before the previous close, and I, like the previous administrator, do not think they're strong enough." [1] This however is not the case, as sources such as nr2.ru were only brought up in this AfD. In addition, his argument that these sources were not "strong enough" is an argument to be made in a !vote and not a close, because it otherwise becomes a "supervote". --Tothwolf (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus, since there was none. A possible alternative would be relist, since I really don't think that debate achieved cloture.—S Marshall T/C 13:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the admin who closed the second nomination, two points: one, I didn't close based on a headcount (read my closing rationale for more insight) and two, I don't think discounting a source is a supervote when I'm only going off of consensus presented in the AfD. This whole 'administrator is neutral' thing can be hard to grasp, I know. I'll see what course the DRV takes, I guess. m.o.p 15:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus more or less per S. Marshall. I just don't see consensus being reached, even given the closer's discretion to discount canvassed votes etc. I'm also bothered by the closer's statement that "Sources with ties to the subject cannot be used as primaries", which seems to me to conflate several different principles in a way that doesn't accurately reflect policy." I'm also bothered by the argument that specialized coverage can't be used to establish notability, which was more prominent in the first AFD; at some point this argument crosses the line into arguing that coverage only in media which cover the general subject can't establish notability (far too broad an argument, or we'd lose about half our articles beyond the realm of popular culture). It's legitimate to discount coverage in media whose editorial content caters to their advertisers, but that's not the case here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a note, that's not my statement - that's what a few editors were debating on the page. m.o.p 16:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree they were debating it, but as there is no such policy/guideline (nor should there be) I'd claim their opinion should be discounted (though certainly not ignored).
        • I agree with Hobit's (imperfectly signed) comment above. By giving significant weight to an argument so clearly out of line with applicable policy, the closer erred. By presenting the argument in the closing statement, the error is clearly demonstrated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC I know m.o.p. closes a number of controversial AfDs. A) I've noticed they tend to be closed quite well and B) I have significant sympathy for those that choose to tackle them. That said, this close appears to be based on a novel reading of what makes for a reliable source. The delete arguments, IMO, were notably weaker than the keep arguments as the keep arguments were based on guidelines and policy ("look, here are sources that meet the sourcing requirements of WP:N") and the delete arguments were largely not ("the scope of the publication isn't mainstream enough"). If there was significant consensus for deletion at the AfD based on the arguments we treat it as an IAR issue and assume something special is going on here. But that wasn't found here. In any case, there was significant enough discussion of a merge that outright deletion was clearly in error. Merging might actually be the best outcome here though... Hobit (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (as the closing admin in the first AfD). M.O.P.'s "keep" and "delete" sections in the rationale are his paraphrasing of the discussion; and I believe they accurately reflect so. M.O.P.'s rationale said he spent 20 minutes reading and understanding the arguments presented and tied the outcome with what he felt was consensus. The suggestion to merge was late in the AfD and did not receive very much attention but might be a nice alternative or compromise.--v/r - TP 18:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep The close was on the basis that the sources were insufficient, and that was clearly shown not to be the case, It was objected that some of the sources had ties with the subject , but at least "Amiga Future" did not have ties with the subject of the article, and are therefore totally usable. One of the arguments used, was that the source "Amiga Future" is too specialized; this is not just ridiculous but contrary to established practice--specialized sources are what provide information to specialized subjects. I couldn't care less about Amiga software, a subject in which I have neither interest nor experience, but I'm mainly here because of the need to clearly challenge that claim. As as example, almost every animal and plant species in Wikipedia is here on the basis of very specialized sources. The claim might make some sense if the magazine were specifically devoted to this program--but not even so--there are reliable sources specific to major computer programs. WP is intended to be a general encyclopedia of much wider scope than the print encyclopedias constrained by physical limitations. If we covered nothing but what was in general newspapers and the EB, we'd be at this point in time an abridged encyclopedia. Some people want it that way--I believe the German Wikipedia may have decided that it should be limited to its present article count, making the assumption that they have systematically already covered everything worth covering. I think that shows an astoundingly unrealistic degree of self-confidence, and I hope nobody here is as short-sighted. Additionally the closer has said here that he did not count heads, but in the AfD itself he said "consensus leans towards delete" expanding that he knew it would inevitably disappoint half the people--thus admitting that even by his standards of what arguments to accept, that there was and not consesus. Myself, I think that after discarding the bad arguments, there was consensus to keep. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I voted for deleting and merging verifiable content, so my endorsement is, I think, implied. Two AfDs on Natami have now been closed as Delete in the past two weeks. In the first case, the administrator who enacted the close overturned his own decision after additional conversation. In the second case, a DRV is now underway. Some delete voters have been accused of wanting to delete this article "at any cost," which seems slightly ironic given recent events. Anyway, I think the suggestion that the AfD was closed "on a headcount" doesn't hold up given a very lengthy and thoughtful closing rationale. There is no evidence that a "headcount" is what decided this. Also, I do not know where this issue of Wikipedia accepting non-English sources is coming from. There wasn't a single delete vote (none that I'm aware of, at least) that based any component of its argument on the language of the sources under dispute. Now, all that being said, I would really love to help effect a merge of the currently-deleted content into the Amiga article's section on hardware clones, because the information in the Natami article was plainly verifiable, and I note that even Tothwolf voted for a "Keep or merge" in this AfD. This does seem like the best compromise option. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- DRV is for overturning obvious errors. Having read the discussion and the closing rationale I cannot convince myself that the closing admin acted improperly. "No consensus" would have been acceptable too, but I think admins who actually reach a decision rather than taking that coward's way out should be encouraged rather than raked over the coals. Reyk YO! 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overtrun to keep per DGG, 'specialized sources are what provide information to specialized subjects.' Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Two admins have both reached the same conclusion I agree with Reyk that all to often admins who make these calls in good faith get "raked over the coals", this is a unreleased product, when it is released then it would likely get the third-party, independent, reliable sources that will show it pass WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If there's a serious question of whether sources are adequate or not, with a vocal group of editors arguing that they are, a delete outcome is unsustainable. No Consensus would have been appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Once again, DRV is not a venue for "I disagree" or "I would have closed it differently", it is for addressing errors or misjudgement in regards to the closing admin's actions. The close is well within the admin's discretion, given the AfD input. Nothing else to discuss here. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the basis for the DRV is that it was closed not just differently, but wrong, through the acceptance of blatantly non-policy criteria. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try re-reading Tothwolf's filing DGG, you might become enlightened. It begins with the typical ARS bad-faith "despite what the closer said..." screed, followed by "I disagree with how the closer interpreted WP:V". We're all well-familiar by now with how your crowd liberally interprets inclusion and retention guidelines. All this is is a simple wiki-philosophical divide that you are, once again, on the losing end of. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved with ARS and I rarely participate in AfD these days, so while your lack of good faith is duly noted, your rationale itself is off-track. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This close does not strike me as wrong "with the force of a 5-week-old, unrefrigerated, dead fish"; or, in less colorful words, I'm not convinced that the close is clearly erroneous. T. Canens (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you feel that the basis for the close: that reliable sources weren't "mainstream" enough, was a reason to delete? Such a claim is not found in policy or notability guidelines. Or do you feel that wasn't an important aspect of this close? I guess what I'd like to hear is why this close doesn't strike you as being in "dead fish" land. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A further thought on this... This would seem to indicate that the closing admin was in effect invoking WP:IAR, would it not? My other concern here is no consensus discussions don't default to delete, which seemed to be what he had done here. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not to split hairs (I hope that is not what I'm doing), but the closing admin didn't let what he felt to be a no-consensus discussion default to delete; he felt there was consensus to delete. There are perfectly plausible reasons to dispute this conclusion, as you do in the first portion of your statement here and elsewhere. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, when there is off-site canvassing, the closer's discretion is broader than normal. Second, as duffbeerforme pointed out below, there is a reasonable argument that the sources at issue are not "notability sources", so to speak. Not saying it's compelling to me. Third, what we are talking about is a guideline, not a policy, and so the closer has somewhat more latitude both ways. Together, these considerations make me unconvinced that the close was so clearly wrong as to warrant an overturn. T. Canens (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Despite the {{not a vote}} template (included during the nom), no "off-site canvassing" took place during the second AfD, which is what is being reviewed here. That said, both the first and second AfDs included "delete" !votes attributable to trolling from a few individuals who inhabit the forum where the first AfD was canvassed (I know, irony, right?). Given that there was no canvassing, I have to strongly disagree with your notion that "the closer's discretion is broader than normal". --Tothwolf (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you seriously claiming that the bunch of IPs and SPAs just came from nowhere? If there's off-site canvassing during the first AfD, then the second AfD, which took place a day after the first one, is clearly tainted by the canvassing as well. T. Canens (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Early in the first AfD, the AfD was discussed on the Amiga.org forum. The discussion on that forum had died down by the end of the first AfD, before the second AfD. The posts in these discussion threads [5] [6] took place over a three day period from June 11 to June 13, 2011 with a followup post to the second thread on June 26. So yes, the Amiga.org forum discussion was over with and done well before the relisting (and {{not a vote}} addition) on June 19, 2011. This means almost a full week had gone by between the forum discussion and the AfD relisting.

              Second, you can't judge a SPA because an editor is contributing anonymously as an IP or has a red-link username. Quite a number of "IP" and "red-link" editors contributed good points and material to the discussions. On the other side of the coin, at least one Amiga.org forum member who was trolling both the Amiga community and Wikipedia in both AfDs has had an account here for years (although rarely used; 29 edits and mainly used to !vote in a total of three deletion discussions) and has something on his userpage to turn the link blue. Based on his forum posts, he has a personal dislike of Amiga "clones". You simply cannot blanket discount all discussion and comments made by "new" or "anonymous" editors nor can you trust that someone has a neutral position simply because they don't have a red-linked username. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

              • No, the point is that people canvassed for the first AfD by the forum post are likely to participate in the second AfD as well. Fruit of the poisonous tree. T. Canens (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Except that in this case your hypothetical scenario did not come to fruition. In fact, from what I've seen of past AfDs elsewhere, a week or so is generally sufficient for the purposes of counteracting any biased off-wiki canvassing anyway (although occasional exceptions exist). --Tothwolf (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The statement specialized sources are what provide information to specialized subjects. is at odds with WP:CORP which states attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability (bolding mine). duffbeerforme (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Article didn't properly meet notability requirements and ended in delete twice. Koft (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of deletions and AFDs aren't any argument against the article content. A topic can gain more notability by time and that happened here. And thus: bring back the topic!' mabdul 10:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC There doesn't seem to be a definitive consensus. Admins should reflect a consensus, or a lack of one...Smallman12q (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus." Although I appreciate that MoP took the time to carefully consider and weigh the arguments presented by each side in this contentious deletion discussion, I think his conclusion that "stronger sources are needed to support a stand-alone article" did not reflect a consensus reached in the discussion. In fact, I rather think that there was nothing approaching a broad agreement on that point. Now, one of the main arguments for deletion, as summarized by MoP in his closing statement, was that "sources with ties to the subject cannot be used as primaries." But as Tothwolf has noted above, the sources presented as evidence of notability (Amiga Future, nr2.ru, and Retoage) are reliable and independent. What needs to be considered with respect to the argument over quality of sources, then, is not the sources' independence but whether they are too specialized to contribute to notability. Duffbeerforme has pointed out that the relevant guideline, WP:CORP, states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." Strict adherence to that guideline leads us to the conclusion that having an article on Natami is inappropriate. However, it is our policy that we can elect to ignore our subject-specific notability guidelines on a case-by-case basis. For very very specialized subjects like this one, specialized sources are often the primary or only place we can find significant coverage of (and verifiable information about) the subject in question. There are many specialized subjects in different fields which may only be covered by specialized sources but are nevertheless suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. There was a substantial sentiment in this AfD that Natami is one such topic. Of course, there were also plenty of people arguing the opposite position, and that's fair; as such, no consensus was reached in this debate. As a result, this article should be restored, and anyone hoping for a merger should be welcome to propose one on the talk page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Had I seen this debate, I would have !voted to merge this, because I don't think the sources are strong enough. But I have to agree with A Stop at Willoughby's line of reasoning above. There seems to have been a high level of legitimate disagreement between two opposing viewpoints, both well supported, both reasonable interpretations of the relevant guidelines. The sources that caused the disagreement are indeed reliable and independent, so that can't really be used to swing it either way. It doesn't seem to me that any clear or even rough consensus was reached in this particular debate. Discuss a merge on the talk page - we might even manage an outcome we can all agree on. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  NODES
Done 3
eth 5
News 2
orte 1
see 16
Story 1