Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 April 25
2009 April 27 >

26 April 2009

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Geekologie ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I was made aware of this deletion via discussions on WikiProject Blogging. The article has been deleted on multiple occasions in the past (under G11 and A7). Whilst I didn't see the article, OlYeller21 has a potential article in his userspace but he says he didn't create it in the mainspace. I argue this website is notable. It's in the top 200 blogs [1] and Alexa top 7,000. The blog was discussed in a BBC programme [2] and has 43 Google News hits [3] in several languages in several countries. I am curious to see the consensus. Computerjoe 's talk 21:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle ( talk) 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
    it appears different articles on the same topic have been deleted. Consensus must be reached on these articles notability; contacting an admin would not generate the consensus needed. I would have to contact several admins due to this article's muddled deletion log and I suspect each would have differing rationales. As such, community consensus is needed to avoid several confused disussions over differing issues. I am not objecting to the deletion of a spammy article (if it was) but I feel we need to discuss this blog's notability before anyone tries to reinclude it into the encyclopedia. 78.86.135.169 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC). reply
    That's very true. At one point, I introduced the article to the Articles for Creation wikiproject where we invited the admin who deleted the article to comment on the recreation. He commented (as you can see on the page) but I'm not sure that he fully read the article. I commented on his talk page to check and see if he read the whole article but he never replied. I've thought that this venue might be the next best place to bring up a discussion on the article (as opposed to recreating it and taking it directly to AfD) but like I said, I wanted to wait until I was more certain that the article would be seen as notable. OlYeller Talktome 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Like ComptuerJoe said, I did not create the last mainspace article for Geekologie. I had created one before as one of my first articles, months ago, before I really knew anything about how Wikipedia works. I've been waiting to post the article in my mainspace for quite some time as I've been waiting for one more independent and reliable source to publish significant coverage on the subject. The notability of the blog is about as borderline as I think articles can get but I'm confident that it will be notability in the future but maybe just not now. To add to the list of criteria that possibly make Geekologie notable, it was also covered by G4TV on their show (AOTS) and website. Also, the 43 Google News Hits are almost all a sort of syndication of the article found on Geekologie. This may fullfill point 3 of WP:WEB, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)." As Geekologie has been in a way, syndicated by other sources, it may fulfill that criteria. Again, I did not make the last mainspace article and hadn't planned on bringing my newest version of the article to mainspace until it was more clearly notable. I would be more than happy to move it to mainspace if it was determined notable but I didn't want to muddy the deletion log of this page anymore than it already has been until I was sure that the article would be safe from deletion. OlYeller Talktome 22:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Permit recreation in user space I too would have deleted the most recent version of the article under both speedy G7 and G11; the earlier versions, i'm not so sure. I'd like to see what a sourced article could look like DGG ( talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
All the claims of notability in the article I made are sourced although it might not be the best article out there. Here it is in my userspace if you would like to have a look. I'd appreciate the input. OlYeller Talktome 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - As the admin who most recently deleted the article, I'd like to point out what its content was at that time:
Are you a sucker for gadgets and/or gizmos? Want to see what’s new in the technology world? Then Geekologie will grant your every need. This site offers the user articles about every new gadget or gizmo launched, whether it’s something useful for everyone, or just a whacky new invention someone decided to create (see the pillowig to understand what I’m talking about). Even if you are not really interested in this type of things, the humorous style of the site is already worth entering it. The site has different categories, guaranteeing to narrow down your search results in order for you to quickly find what you are looking for. There’s no registration required in order to enjoy the contents of this site, so it is totally free to browse.
Whether any other version is suitable for inclusion is debatable, but I don't think a G11 deletion of that article was a stretch. I am open to other interpretations, but if this deletion review is about that most recent action, I am not sure there's much to discuss here.  Frank  |   talk  02:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
While some may debate it, that looks like total crap to be honest. Even if it wasn't a G11, it's certainly an A7 for not having any claim of notability. OlYeller Talktome 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
That article looks terrible and I support the G11. However, I don't believe OlYeller21's version, if created, would be eligible for A7 but would have to go to AfD. Perhaps C. Fred's suggestion to wait for more sources is the best one? I do think, though, that we need clearer policies about notability of news sources, whether they be papers of blogs. Computerjoe 's talk 07:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The version in OlYeller21's user space is very similar to the 3 February 2009 version that was speedy deleted A7. IMO, notability is asserted but not clearly demonstrated. I think a little more refinement in user space is the best route for the article at this point (as opposed to overturning the speedy deletion, only to see it nominated for AfD). — C.Fred ( talk) 05:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Ya, that was the initial article that I made (one of my first). If anyone has any input they could give on the article in my usrespace, I would be very grateful. OlYeller Talktome 19:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Moot – article already recreated in userspace, though hardly NPOV. Otherwise, every deletion per G11 or A7 were proper. I do agree that notability has not been established, nor has the article gotten anywhere away from an advertising/promotional tone, though it's a far cry from other previous versions. MuZemike 05:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As the article has only been deleted through WP:CSD, it's permissible for anyone to recreate it as long as the new version overcomes the problems that led to the original deletion. Bear in mind, however, that given this page's deletion history, if it ends up being deleted again, it is very likely to be protected from further recreation. I endorse the most recent G11 deletion. Stifle ( talk) 08:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michael Ewart Smoke Alarm Foundation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

1. I created this page with a basic outline of the nonprofit organization and was planning on adding more references and images later. 2. Within 45 minutes the page was deleted. 3. Can someone please undelete this page, it was not advertising, but valuable information about a nonprofit organization that educates on fire safety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesafe ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Deleting admin's comments. The article contained one prose sentence about the organization, then fire alarms tips and an email address where readers could request smoke alarms and batteries. This was clearly a public-relations placement, especially since the username suggests a conflict of interest. Even if it were not deletable as spam, it would have been deletable as a group lacking as assertion of significance (criterion A7). — C.Fred ( talk) 04:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't have deleted under CSD:G11 as the article wasn't really spammy, but it is certainly about a group or club and lacks any assertion of importance, qualifying it for deletion anyway. Endorse. Stifle ( talk) 08:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted The part that is not about how to contact the association is a copyvio from http://www.me-safe.org/safety.html. Articles that appear even somewhat promotional have a considerable likelihood of failing copyvio & I usually check, because it's the least disputable reason to delete. DGG ( talk) 18:33, 27 April 2009 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_26&oldid=1144712341"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 April 25
2009 April 27 >

26 April 2009

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Geekologie ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I was made aware of this deletion via discussions on WikiProject Blogging. The article has been deleted on multiple occasions in the past (under G11 and A7). Whilst I didn't see the article, OlYeller21 has a potential article in his userspace but he says he didn't create it in the mainspace. I argue this website is notable. It's in the top 200 blogs [1] and Alexa top 7,000. The blog was discussed in a BBC programme [2] and has 43 Google News hits [3] in several languages in several countries. I am curious to see the consensus. Computerjoe 's talk 21:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle ( talk) 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
    it appears different articles on the same topic have been deleted. Consensus must be reached on these articles notability; contacting an admin would not generate the consensus needed. I would have to contact several admins due to this article's muddled deletion log and I suspect each would have differing rationales. As such, community consensus is needed to avoid several confused disussions over differing issues. I am not objecting to the deletion of a spammy article (if it was) but I feel we need to discuss this blog's notability before anyone tries to reinclude it into the encyclopedia. 78.86.135.169 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC). reply
    That's very true. At one point, I introduced the article to the Articles for Creation wikiproject where we invited the admin who deleted the article to comment on the recreation. He commented (as you can see on the page) but I'm not sure that he fully read the article. I commented on his talk page to check and see if he read the whole article but he never replied. I've thought that this venue might be the next best place to bring up a discussion on the article (as opposed to recreating it and taking it directly to AfD) but like I said, I wanted to wait until I was more certain that the article would be seen as notable. OlYeller Talktome 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Like ComptuerJoe said, I did not create the last mainspace article for Geekologie. I had created one before as one of my first articles, months ago, before I really knew anything about how Wikipedia works. I've been waiting to post the article in my mainspace for quite some time as I've been waiting for one more independent and reliable source to publish significant coverage on the subject. The notability of the blog is about as borderline as I think articles can get but I'm confident that it will be notability in the future but maybe just not now. To add to the list of criteria that possibly make Geekologie notable, it was also covered by G4TV on their show (AOTS) and website. Also, the 43 Google News Hits are almost all a sort of syndication of the article found on Geekologie. This may fullfill point 3 of WP:WEB, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)." As Geekologie has been in a way, syndicated by other sources, it may fulfill that criteria. Again, I did not make the last mainspace article and hadn't planned on bringing my newest version of the article to mainspace until it was more clearly notable. I would be more than happy to move it to mainspace if it was determined notable but I didn't want to muddy the deletion log of this page anymore than it already has been until I was sure that the article would be safe from deletion. OlYeller Talktome 22:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Permit recreation in user space I too would have deleted the most recent version of the article under both speedy G7 and G11; the earlier versions, i'm not so sure. I'd like to see what a sourced article could look like DGG ( talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
All the claims of notability in the article I made are sourced although it might not be the best article out there. Here it is in my userspace if you would like to have a look. I'd appreciate the input. OlYeller Talktome 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - As the admin who most recently deleted the article, I'd like to point out what its content was at that time:
Are you a sucker for gadgets and/or gizmos? Want to see what’s new in the technology world? Then Geekologie will grant your every need. This site offers the user articles about every new gadget or gizmo launched, whether it’s something useful for everyone, or just a whacky new invention someone decided to create (see the pillowig to understand what I’m talking about). Even if you are not really interested in this type of things, the humorous style of the site is already worth entering it. The site has different categories, guaranteeing to narrow down your search results in order for you to quickly find what you are looking for. There’s no registration required in order to enjoy the contents of this site, so it is totally free to browse.
Whether any other version is suitable for inclusion is debatable, but I don't think a G11 deletion of that article was a stretch. I am open to other interpretations, but if this deletion review is about that most recent action, I am not sure there's much to discuss here.  Frank  |   talk  02:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
While some may debate it, that looks like total crap to be honest. Even if it wasn't a G11, it's certainly an A7 for not having any claim of notability. OlYeller Talktome 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
That article looks terrible and I support the G11. However, I don't believe OlYeller21's version, if created, would be eligible for A7 but would have to go to AfD. Perhaps C. Fred's suggestion to wait for more sources is the best one? I do think, though, that we need clearer policies about notability of news sources, whether they be papers of blogs. Computerjoe 's talk 07:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The version in OlYeller21's user space is very similar to the 3 February 2009 version that was speedy deleted A7. IMO, notability is asserted but not clearly demonstrated. I think a little more refinement in user space is the best route for the article at this point (as opposed to overturning the speedy deletion, only to see it nominated for AfD). — C.Fred ( talk) 05:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Ya, that was the initial article that I made (one of my first). If anyone has any input they could give on the article in my usrespace, I would be very grateful. OlYeller Talktome 19:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Moot – article already recreated in userspace, though hardly NPOV. Otherwise, every deletion per G11 or A7 were proper. I do agree that notability has not been established, nor has the article gotten anywhere away from an advertising/promotional tone, though it's a far cry from other previous versions. MuZemike 05:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As the article has only been deleted through WP:CSD, it's permissible for anyone to recreate it as long as the new version overcomes the problems that led to the original deletion. Bear in mind, however, that given this page's deletion history, if it ends up being deleted again, it is very likely to be protected from further recreation. I endorse the most recent G11 deletion. Stifle ( talk) 08:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michael Ewart Smoke Alarm Foundation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

1. I created this page with a basic outline of the nonprofit organization and was planning on adding more references and images later. 2. Within 45 minutes the page was deleted. 3. Can someone please undelete this page, it was not advertising, but valuable information about a nonprofit organization that educates on fire safety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesafe ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Deleting admin's comments. The article contained one prose sentence about the organization, then fire alarms tips and an email address where readers could request smoke alarms and batteries. This was clearly a public-relations placement, especially since the username suggests a conflict of interest. Even if it were not deletable as spam, it would have been deletable as a group lacking as assertion of significance (criterion A7). — C.Fred ( talk) 04:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't have deleted under CSD:G11 as the article wasn't really spammy, but it is certainly about a group or club and lacks any assertion of importance, qualifying it for deletion anyway. Endorse. Stifle ( talk) 08:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted The part that is not about how to contact the association is a copyvio from http://www.me-safe.org/safety.html. Articles that appear even somewhat promotional have a considerable likelihood of failing copyvio & I usually check, because it's the least disputable reason to delete. DGG ( talk) 18:33, 27 April 2009 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_26&oldid=1144712341"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE