- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 03:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Geacron
- Geacron ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
probably notable--the sources seem adequate--but very highly promotional, to the point it would probably warrant a G11. Promotional features include, the extensive description of how the creator happened to get the idea for doing the project, the extensive quotes from the creator, making up about half the content; the section marked controversy is actually a section where the creator tries to defend himself against possible controversy in advance; the repeated use of the creators name; the space devoted to perfectly routine features of any such site.
Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Promotionalism to the extent that routine editing would not fix it is a speedy criterion, but we are certainly entitled to say that any substantial amount of promotionalism is reason why the article should be deleted, and remade by a more neutral editor if any should care to. (The reason would be the deterrence of promotional editing, and this is essentially the argument we use for speedy G5, creation by a banned editor, to deter sockpuppettry) DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -- I am especially bothered by the creator's statement that "So there are cases in which the creator has had to make the decision about which interpretation was to be represented in Geacron. Múzquiz acknowledges that "ideally other experts should have participated but it would have been impossible for them to agree" I think scholars will recoil against this claim ("experts surely will disagree so I will ignore them all") because it sharply decreases the validity and usefulness of the website, making it simply the toy of its creator rather than a source of knowledge. As far as I can tell no reliable independent source had endorsed it in any way.
Rjensen (
talk) 01:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that the website is "simply a toy of its creator" has little or no direct bearing on whether the web site qualifies for a Wikipedia article or whether this article is so hopeless that WP:TNT is the best fix. Please provide arguments for either the web site not meeting notability or arguments in favor of blowing it (the Wikipedia article, not the web site) up and starting over. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nuke it Promotional crap. How did this get through AfC? -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I have must have accidentally approved this, as I was working that day and likely confused this with another submission. Feel free to rewrite it, but I should have declined this as NPOV. Sorry about that, as I have no idea how that got past me. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry about that too much, you know what they say about people that never make mistakes (those that never do anything... ;-). -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Clerical remark: Mr. Stradivarius may want to reconsider his decline of the speedy deletion as the decline reason of "Speedy deletion declined. accepted at WP:AFC by User:Kevin Rutherford, so deletion would not be uncontroversial" is no longer true per Kevin Rutherford's comment immediately above. However, the page creator, Celemin, has edited the article both after the speedy-deletion was removed and again after the article was sent to AFD. On March 27, he contested the speedy deletion on the article's talk page. On March 29, he added another comment to the article's talk page. I am going to remain neutral in this AFD. This remark should not be construed as an endorsement or objection to either the speedy deletion rationale that of this AFD. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I do not think it is wrong to decline a speedy on the grounds it would be better to discuss it here. Doing that does not in the least indicate approval of the article, just the opinion that it would be better if the community had a chance it see it more widely. I've done this fairly often, Whether the approval of an AfC necessarily implies an objection to speedy for G11 or A7 or similar criteria is an interesting question we will need to resolve. I don't think it prevents speedy for things like copyvio or abuse that the orig. reviewer may have missed. More generally, I would support routine notification of the reviewer who approved the article as well as the creator when deletion process was started. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There is an argument for notability here, but as the nom observed, the article as written is hopelessly promotional. This would seem to be a case where the only remedy is TNT. Too bad though. It looks like a cool website. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 03:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Geacron
- Geacron ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
probably notable--the sources seem adequate--but very highly promotional, to the point it would probably warrant a G11. Promotional features include, the extensive description of how the creator happened to get the idea for doing the project, the extensive quotes from the creator, making up about half the content; the section marked controversy is actually a section where the creator tries to defend himself against possible controversy in advance; the repeated use of the creators name; the space devoted to perfectly routine features of any such site.
Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Promotionalism to the extent that routine editing would not fix it is a speedy criterion, but we are certainly entitled to say that any substantial amount of promotionalism is reason why the article should be deleted, and remade by a more neutral editor if any should care to. (The reason would be the deterrence of promotional editing, and this is essentially the argument we use for speedy G5, creation by a banned editor, to deter sockpuppettry) DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -- I am especially bothered by the creator's statement that "So there are cases in which the creator has had to make the decision about which interpretation was to be represented in Geacron. Múzquiz acknowledges that "ideally other experts should have participated but it would have been impossible for them to agree" I think scholars will recoil against this claim ("experts surely will disagree so I will ignore them all") because it sharply decreases the validity and usefulness of the website, making it simply the toy of its creator rather than a source of knowledge. As far as I can tell no reliable independent source had endorsed it in any way.
Rjensen (
talk) 01:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that the website is "simply a toy of its creator" has little or no direct bearing on whether the web site qualifies for a Wikipedia article or whether this article is so hopeless that WP:TNT is the best fix. Please provide arguments for either the web site not meeting notability or arguments in favor of blowing it (the Wikipedia article, not the web site) up and starting over. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nuke it Promotional crap. How did this get through AfC? -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I have must have accidentally approved this, as I was working that day and likely confused this with another submission. Feel free to rewrite it, but I should have declined this as NPOV. Sorry about that, as I have no idea how that got past me. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry about that too much, you know what they say about people that never make mistakes (those that never do anything... ;-). -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Clerical remark: Mr. Stradivarius may want to reconsider his decline of the speedy deletion as the decline reason of "Speedy deletion declined. accepted at WP:AFC by User:Kevin Rutherford, so deletion would not be uncontroversial" is no longer true per Kevin Rutherford's comment immediately above. However, the page creator, Celemin, has edited the article both after the speedy-deletion was removed and again after the article was sent to AFD. On March 27, he contested the speedy deletion on the article's talk page. On March 29, he added another comment to the article's talk page. I am going to remain neutral in this AFD. This remark should not be construed as an endorsement or objection to either the speedy deletion rationale that of this AFD. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I do not think it is wrong to decline a speedy on the grounds it would be better to discuss it here. Doing that does not in the least indicate approval of the article, just the opinion that it would be better if the community had a chance it see it more widely. I've done this fairly often, Whether the approval of an AfC necessarily implies an objection to speedy for G11 or A7 or similar criteria is an interesting question we will need to resolve. I don't think it prevents speedy for things like copyvio or abuse that the orig. reviewer may have missed. More generally, I would support routine notification of the reviewer who approved the article as well as the creator when deletion process was started. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There is an argument for notability here, but as the nom observed, the article as written is hopelessly promotional. This would seem to be a case where the only remedy is TNT. Too bad though. It looks like a cool website. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.