Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2020 December 27
2020 December 29 >

28 December 2020[edit]

  • Support/Oppose/etc – Withdrawn in favor of an RfC about the use of these templates. Sandstein 22:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Support (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While WP:NOTVOTE is really important, the cross-wiki norm is to prefix comments with {{support}}, {{oppose}} etc., which indicates the general sense of your comment. I learnt this on enwp many years ago, and still use the templates regularly on Commons and elsewhere, so when I say {{support}} here and then realise that it didn't work, it's quite annoying. It's particularly annoying since the accepted alternative is to say Support etc., which is the same thing except you have to remember the syntax for bold fonts rather than using the template. Please can we restore these templates? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as it appears that the local en.wikipedia consensus is clear, regardless of what Commons and others may wish to do. If you support or oppose a thing, do so in words, there's no need for pretty pictures. ValarianB (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ValarianB: I don't care about the picture, what is the difference between your '''Oppose''' and {{oppose}} please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong forum. Yes, this is a (13 year old) deletion discussion. But really, this is a question for an RfC, not a DRV. If someone decides this is the right forum, then the right outcome here, from a purely deletion viewpoint, is endorse and allow recreation given the discussion and the time period that have passed. But I think the right outcome is, as stated, wrong forum. Hobit (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The close explicitly lists this as the forum to go to, so it's hard to fault it. WilyD 11:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - sure, it's old, but we haven't deprecated WP:NOT#VOTE, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, etc. so the logic of the close still applies. I don't see that anything has changed, so old or not, it should still apply. WilyD 11:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The last time {{support}} was deleted was June 2020 when the deleting (and protecting) admin also said to take the matter to DRV.[1] Looking back over the earlier discussions it seems the objections have been to the icons rather than to bold text alone being generated (which is suggested here). Indeed the WP:Deletion_review/Perennial_requests#Template:Support presupposes an image is generated. I can't see any good reason against a bolding template, but what do I know – even {{bold}} gets speedy deleted. I don't know whether text-only versions have been discussed and deleted in the past but maybe WP:G4 wouldn't apply. It is the content, not the name, that counts. Thincat (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice to a discussion that revisits the consensus regarding these templates. I know this feels like being given the runaround after being told to come here, but that advice was wrong. There was nothing procedurally wrong with either the most recent G4 or the WP:SNOW deletion before that (2018), and when combined with the number of times this has been deleted there is no way DRV will allow restoration without an indication that community consensus has changed. I don't know whether versions without icons have been discussed or not, but at least some of the rationales expressing opposition to the template could apply equally whether there is an icon or not so I don't think that removes the G4 match. If anyone does propose a version without an icon, please be prepared to explain what benefits {{support}} has over '''support'''. Thryduulf (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong forum, set up an RfC.
15:30, 9 June 2020 Plastikspork (talk · contribs) protected Template:Support [Create=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Deleted so many times, please use WP:DRV before restoring to avoid controversy. Thanks!) (thank)
15:24, 9 June 2020 Plastikspork (talk · contribs) deleted page Template:Support (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_3#Template:Strong_support)
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per CSD G4. This has been discussed so many times before. If, as Anthony suggests, that consensus needs to be reconsidered, the place to do that is WP:DRV. Xoloz 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree with Plastikspork and Xolox, despite agreeing with the unwritten rule that DRV is good for reviewing denied desalting, but DRV is the highest court for content, and these are not content. There is no question that the deletion process was correctly done, and there was consensus to delete, and that there is no evidence today for consensus to re-create. If it were content, DRV participants could review the sources, but the decision here is not source-based, but depends on Wikipedians. Go collect evidence of Wikipedian opinions, and that is a job best suited to an RfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Purple Numbers – Endorsed - this leaves the option to do a merge of old material open to everyone, and doesn't preclude the creation of a new draft or article that includes new sources that (at least plausibly) meet the usual inclusion criterion, if it turns out they exist. WilyD 05:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC) WilyD 05:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Purple Numbers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was looking for hyperlinking concepts today and from Tumbler (Project Xanadu) I got pointed to the Purple Numbers concept. To my surprise (as well as others) it just links to the Douglas Engelbart's biography that contains no information on the concept itself as of [2]. In the meantime I have found some more information about the concept itself, including one more implementation at https://github.com/eekim/purplewiki. I have restored the previous version of the article to work on it, but I would like to avoid an edit war there, therefore opening this DRV.

Sure, it is an obsolete tool today, but it was a subject of at least 3 software implementations and a research paper describing a now-defunct MediaWiki extension. I have some trouble following the AfD discussion that "redirect is better". Neither at the time of the AfD process nor a year later (arbitrarily picked timeframe to "allow editors to merge information") there was no mention about this concept and its implementation.  « Saper // @talk »  14:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Here is more formal objection to the AfD decision: The decision was to create a redirect. The (very limited) discussion mentioned selective merge as a possible outcome. WP:ATD-R lists redirection as a valid alternative to deletion, under condition that the redirect is not inappropriate. The resulting redirect is unfortunately totally useless, and it could be fit for deletion according WP:R#DELETE, as there is no information on the target page about the subject. As far as integrating the content into the biography one editor raised an WP:UNDUE argument which still stands in my opinion - this is a reasonably written biographical article and it should not be expanded with details of "purple numbers" implementations done and discussed by others, expanding on Engelbart's work. I find referring the issue to future "editors" is not the right way to do solve the problem of very poor quality of the article. I have tried to improve on the article by removing the redirect first and this got reverted. I'd like to be able to improve on the old content in the easiest possible way, preserving old revisions, which I believe can be done best by simply editing Purple Numbers.  « Saper // @talk »  23:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close - DRV is not the place to rehash AfD discussions. The close by Sandstein was properly done. Onel5969 TT me 14:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the proper place then? Both Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion seem to point me here.  « Saper // @talk »  17:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Saper, please read all the rationales up above in WP:DRVPURPOSE. None of those would apply here. The simplest thing, which I have already suggested to you elsewhere, is to add the relevant information into the target article. Simply restoring the article, as you attempted to do, is not a valid course of action, since it overrides the consensus of the AfD discussion. Onel5969 TT me 15:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I must admit it is difficult to find the proper procedure here. For formal challenges, this seems to be the place to discuss, otherwise I am pointed to WP:REFUND which, in turn, clearly says that REFUND is not a place to challenge "deletions". I must apologize to Sandstein for not contacting him directly before. Having said that, however, the issue has been reported on Talk:Douglas_Engelbart#“Purple_Numbers” earlier and this has not been addressed at all. I have added few notes to my review request above to address some those formal issues as well.  « Saper // @talk »  23:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The original version was redirected because it was basically unsourced (one cite, to a wiki). Do you have evidence of sources that would allow it to be restored as a stand-alone article? Or even as a section in Douglas Englebart? Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation as Draft. I don't see the problem doing this. Saper, if you want to do this it would probably be easier to move the existing article to Draft and re-create the redirect, so as to maintain the history. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse. I'm not seeing anything that looks like independent sourcing provided. I'm seeing tech reports from the folks involved hosted on single-user sites and stuff I can't tell is relevant. I've no problem with a draft (of course), especially as putting the sources in context might make it clear how they relate. But I'm just not seeing sources that can meet the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was alerted to this discussion on Talk:Douglas Engelbart, having previously expressed confusion on that talk page as to why the redirect under discussion existed. I don't have a formal bolded !vote to give here, because my only opinion is that the current situation—where a redirect's target is an article that doesn't mention the topic referred to by the redirect—is untenable, per WP:R#DELETE. I don't have a preference between editing the Engelbart article to mention Purple Numbers, restoring the Purple Numbers article, and deleting the redirect, but I think one of the above should occur. Unfortunately those resolutions all have different venues for discussion (Talk:Douglas Engelbart, WP:DRV and WP:RfD, respectively), so there's no convenient single place to express this opinion! YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good close, correct close. It is not for the AfD closer to do the merger, or to have evaluated the merge. If the merge fails to ever happen, raise it on the talk page, as already done at Talk:Douglas_Engelbart#“Purple_Numbers”. If there is still no mention of the term in the article, and nothing has ever been merged, then take the redirect to WP:RfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I believe we have some material to create a hopefully meaningful article, should I really request a removal of the redirect first?  « Saper // @talk »  14:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. While you technically can boldly re-create an article over the redirect, if you can overcome the AfD reasons for deletion, if you need to ask, you should not. Instead, go to the talk page of the redirect target, I.e. Talk:Douglas_Engelbart#“Purple_Numbers” or a new thread if you prefer, and get others’ opinions on whether your new material overcomes the reasons for deletion articulated in the AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need anyone's permission to create Draft:Purple numbers. If you submit and WP:AFC reviewers deem the new article substantially improved compared to the deleted version and the topic notable, the draft will be accepted and replace the redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • On my searches, I do not expect a “substantially improved” new version is possible, and I predict that AfC reviewers will not quickly review it and will eventually decline it, largely due to the negative AfD result. A MUCH BETTER path is to get others involved at the redirect target’s talk page. Personally, I think that if “purple numbers” is not worth coverage at Douglas Engelbart#PurpleNumbers, then it is certainly not worth a stand alone article, and drafting one is to waste everyone’s time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment: It's my practice to close AfDs where opinions are divided between merge and delete as "redirect". This implements the consensus that there should not be a separate article about the topic and allows those who want to retain the content to merge it from the history if consensus among the target article's editors supports that. If there is not even consensus to mention the subject at the target article, then I expect that interested editors will in due time make the redirect subject to a RfD, which is in my view not incompatible with the AfD outcome. In any case, I think this situation can and should be solved outside DRV: Either somebody merges content from the history to the target article, or at a minimum mentions "Purple Numbers" in the target article to make the redirect make sense, or they start an RfD. Sandstein 22:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_December_28&oldid=1039505159"