Taiwanese archipelago ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Votes and comments after the article was significant expanded (i.e. from 01:00, 27 January onwards) show a slight inclination towards keeping the article. Further, most of the votes and comments were cast/left before the article was renamed, and some supported the deletion only because the article was improperly titled. The AfD should be relisted/extended, with the article restored for the time being. 218.250.159.25 ( talk) 18:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Relist I don't think the closer is at fault here, as that AFD is a total mess. Leaving out the IP votes as obvious wp:Meatpuppets there is a large numerical majority for delete/redirect. However, all of the delete votes rest on the basis that Taiwan island group is original research as it is not used in reliable sources. Searching for Taiwanese Archipelago I immediately found two reliable sources discussing the islands ( [1] [2]) and a few more mentioning the term. It is still quite meagre, but it is clear that there are reliable sources making a distinction between the geographical Taiwan archipelago and List of islands of the Republic of China, so this needs more discussion. Yoenit ( talk) 21:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I guess the talk page has to be temporarily restored too, since it contains the move request discussion. 218.250.159.25 ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

quite right; I've now done this. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much. 218.250.159.25 ( talk) 12:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as nom. Of the 10 "votes" that did not support outright deletion, 6 were IP voters who did not provide a detailed rationale. Of the remaining 4:

• Two (Huayu-Huayu, Deryck C.) said that the archipelago / island group exists as a notable concept.
• One (Dmcq) suggested merger because they think it is an identifiable topic, just lacking in sources.
• One (Peterkingiron) suggested merger as he considers the scope of the article to be the same as that of List of islands of the Republic of China because recent discussions suggest that ROC's common name is Taiwan.

In the last case, the "vote" does not amount to an endorsement of the article—which makes a distinction between the islands controlled by the ROC, and the islands in the "Taiwanese archipelago". Aside from that one, the question of whether the keep votes were valid thus rests on whether reliable sources talk about a Taiwanese archipelago. The list of references in the deleted article and searching on Google both suggest that while there are a few, there is almost no direct discussion in sources dedicated to geography, and the number of sources is very low for what one would expect to be a more major concept. Therefore, my assertion is that there are not enough sources to support the existence of such a concept, and the deletion should be endorsed.

I should note that some editors may consider the dispute political in nature, and I would concede that had I not been Taiwanese, I might have stayed out of such a contentious issue. However, even disregarding my own political views, I still don't think the subject is recognised in reliable sources beyond unintentional mentions and fringe views, to the extent that Wikipedia should have an article about it. As the existence of the concept is not well supported by sources, we run the risk of creating or publicising a fringe geographical entity should the article be kept. wctaiwan ( talk) 04:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

The first source put forward by Yoenit clearly demonstrates that the term excludes Quemoy, Wuchiu and Matsu from Taiwanese archipelago. I suppose this fact has to be emphasised and observed in the AfD discussion. Taiwanese archipelago doesn't include all the landmasses of the contemporary ROC. 218.250.159.25 ( talk) 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 22:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Procedural note: both the DRV nominator (218.250.159.25) and the article creater (Huayu-Huayu) are sock puppets of different sock masters. Neither has standing to start a DRV or have their thought counted in an AfD. There isn't any reason to continue this discussion unless Deryck wants it and I think that's unlikely. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)

Please provide the evidence for your claim. 218.250.159.25 ( talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I understand SchmuckyTheCat's concern that 218.250.159.25 may be a sockpuppet (and the corresponding sockpuppet request was declined by CU clerk), but calling Huayu-Huayu a sockpuppet without formal allegation of such is simply a personal attack which is outright unacceptable. Der yck C. 17:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Other than that, I respect Fram's judgement of the AfD. Der yck C. 17:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Deryck, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Huayu-Huayu, is not a personal attack. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)

Thanks. Huayu-Huayu's block has expired, so they're free to contribute to this discussion if they so wish. As for 218.250.159.25, since the link to banned user is inconclusive, I think WP:AGF applies. Der yck C. 18:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• What a mess. Its pretty clear that the AFD was severely tainted by meat and sockpuppetry. The outcome in such cases depends on how the closing admin chooses to weight votes and whether ip commentry is discarded - which the closing admin is entitled to do. Its impossible to decide whether the closing admin properly weighted the votes in such circumstances without a proper closing rationale but from my own reading of the discussion I wouldn't find fault with the closure based on ignoring the non-policy votes, discarding assertions and discounting ip votes. But worse, the article discussed was Taiwan Island Group but the page was moved to Taiwan Archipelego during the discussion, which is surely a different subject with different referencing possibilities so the discussion is such a mess I can't see that we can rely on the AFD as any assessment of consensus. I suggest we relist the discussion but semi-protect the new discussion to reduce the amount of abusive socking. It might also be worth asking a CU to review the discussion before closing... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

From what I've read from the edit history of the article it was an IP editor (not me) who first expanded the article significantly to give it an unambiguous subject, and suggested a more proper and accurate title for it, and provided the sources to support the new title. Further, as exhibited by the AfD discussion, and as Wctaiwan had already pointed out above, many registered editors didn't actually understand the differences in territorial extent between the Taiwanese archipelago and islands of the ROC. If the relisted AfD is going to be semi-protected, IP editors will no longer be able to contribute to the discussion. 218.250.159.25 ( talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Please don't misrepresent what I said. wctaiwan ( talk) 06:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Could you elaborate? 218.250.159.25 ( talk) 12:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello? 218.250.159.25 ( talk) 07:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• I have informed the closing admin of this discussion here. wctaiwan ( talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Relist as Spartaz says, the previous discussion is inconclusive and cannot be relied on to show the true consensus, but there is a reasonable chance that a new one might come to a resolution. It would be better done there at AfD2 than by arguing the merits here. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per nomination. 175.159.193.30 ( talk) 08:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)— 175.159.193.30 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at This SPA has identical !voting record as 218.250.159.25 (UTC).— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I have compared the contributions of 175.159.193.30 with my own. Only some of his/her votes are the same as mine. 218.250.159.25 ( talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. A further exchange with wctaiwan has convinced me that while several sources refer to "台灣諸島", they do not all agree on a well-defined geographical entity; the use of it as a geographical term is also unheard of within the said islands. Therefore, piecing the loose fragments of evidence together in the article was WP:Synthesis. (As I also said above, I wouldn't support a direct overturn because Fram acted appropriately as the closing admin.) Der yck C. 09:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The sources invariably show that this term doesn't cover the Fukienese islands and the South China Sea islands of the ROC. (The only difference is on whether or not the Pescadores Islands are included. But the Pescadores are, anyhow, geographically, culturally and historically tied with the Taiwanese Archipelago.) This term is a well-defined one, but the point regarding the exclusion of the Fukienese and SCS islands was basically ignored all through the AfD discussion. The sources also show that the term is used in academic publications from within and outside the ROC (both in Chinese and in English). The closing admin should be supposed to have the duty to weigh comments based on their understanding of the subject matter. 218.250.159.25 ( talk) 12:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• 218, could you back up your claim that "this term is a well-defined one...used in academic publications from within and outside the ROC (both in Chinese and in English)" with a list of sources? Relisting this AfD might be appropriate due to procedural problems, but I have misgivings about doing so because Deryck Chan, one of the editors who previously voted to keep the Taiwanese Archipelago article, has now called it a misleading synthesis of sources. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Sure. Yoenit has submitted two sources above. The first one (a paper in the International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy) defines the term rather unambiguously. There are also various sources included in the article (see #References). The first one there, from Encyclopedia of the peoples of Asia and Oceania, defines the archipelago to be the main island and 79 other islands. The sixth one defines it as the main island and 15 other islands, and talks about the 64-island archipelago. The seventh one says "In addition to the main island of Taiwan, Taiwan comprises 15 islands in the Taiwan group and 64 islands in the Penghu (Pescadores) Archipelago.". The second to fifth ones reveal the actual application of the term in Chinese-language publications. 218.250.159.25 ( talk) 07:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that's very helpful. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per Deryck C, and procedural issues. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)

Please sign your comments with four tildes. 218.250.159.25 ( talk) 07:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Relist While this article could be a " synthesis" as Deryck contends, 218's response to my query above demonstrates that there is a case to be made that "Taiwanese archipelago" is a legitimate topic for an article. That's enough to satisfy my concerns about restoring the article for a relist. And per Spartaz, I think that relisting is a good idea because of (a) the page-move while the AfD was in progress, and (b) the apparent sockpuppetry. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. 147.8.246.68 ( talk) 08:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Why? → Σ τ c. 03:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply

TamoGraph Site Survey ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The article was deleted by Fastily; the reason was G11. The article text was factual and, in my understanding, contained no "unambiguous advertising". Adequate outside sources were quoted, including Lisa Phifer, a leading networking professional. The article described a software tool by a reputable software company, the products of which are featured in vendor-neutral WLAN books, study guides, training courses (see, for example http://books.google.com/books?id=CBPnytQp7q8C&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=cwna+tamosoft&source=bl&ots=&sig=u1hhN_JB5L3l45N6INmrwLFPBfE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mHcyT4O8LZTb4QT_yMmsBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) and magazines. I tried to resolve this issue on the Fastily's talk page, but Fastily simply restated the G11 reason without any explanations. WiFiEngineer ( talk) 13:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. G11 seems to have been appropriate here. WP:NOTADVERTISING states, "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." Half the article touted the survey's features without referencing a single reliable source, while the other half discussed functionality with support from two sources, only one of which is reliable (Blogger is user generated). If you think these issues can be addressed, request that an admin move the deleted text to your user space, so you can work on it before creating the article again. — Eustress ^talk 19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Fastily. I also spent some time checking the deleted article and its sources, and support Fastily's description. If the nom takes up the suggestion of requesting a move to user space, then I suggest that the nom also takes some care to check that the resulting article clearly demonstrates notability per WP:NSOFT, and particularly per WP:GNG. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply

  Restore (changing my !vote). I am persuaded by the comments below that there is a case to be made that a) this topic meets the notability criteria and b) the article to be fixed to be less promotional. I don't agree with that case, but restoration will allow the case to be properly considered at AFD (if somebody wants to open one). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Permit restoration Oddly , I was the one who marked it for speedy G11 in the first place, But looking it over, I was wrong. The sources are [3]. [4] [5], and I think they are reliable enough and sufficient to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you, DGG, that was unexpected and is much appreciated. If it is relisted, I will add more sources. BTW, just found another one that will probably be considered reliable and independent: TamoGraph Site Survey receives the PC Magazine/RE - Best Software 2010 Award. WiFiEngineer ( talk) 11:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Restore Looking at the cached file I had thought the article was not excessively promotional and would have probably got a "keep" from me at AfD even if others had thought otherwise. However, I also saw DGG had originally flagged it and I know his knowledge of sources is better than mine (and, frankly, he is more thorough). So, I am here to make up numbers and say the speedy should be overturned. Thincat ( talk) 15:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as a reasonable contest of a G11. List at AfD to discuss if desired. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per DGG. -- He to Hecuba ( talk) 09:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion. This appears to be a case where fixing the article's problems through editing is a better approach than outright deletion. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abdolreza Razmjoo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Please re-check the sources new I think delete this is not right deleting admin Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farkoh ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 February 2012‎ (UTC) reply

• Endorse - The AFD looks like a straightforward close, and the discussion on the closer's talk page confirmed the decision. Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There was clear consensus to delete the article. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 12:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Question - Can you show us (or at least quote) some of the new material from Chelcheragh and Nezafati's book that you tried to cite?   —  C M B J   13:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply

  You can look there, how the article looked before deletion. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 13:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply

  There appears to have been more added to the article since Google cached it; a live mirror can still be found here. I'm particularly interested in 'Weekly magazine Chelcheragh,iran(February 2002)' and 'Nezafati,Iraj. Kermanshah music, Taq Bostan Publications, Kermanshah, 1998, ISBN 964-5551-11.' -- these could substantially alter the discussion if they're meaningful enough.   —  C M B J   13:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Completely agree with you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 13:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Please see my comments on these new sources here. Farhikht ( talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) Comment As part of the post-AFD discussion, User:Farhikht (a native speaker of Farsi) wrote:

I verified the new sources in the "Further reading" section. The first one is from Chelcheragh, a tabloid weakly which its primary target group is young higher educated people. I can't verify the depth of coverage but I think that Chelcheragh can't be considered a reliable source for music articles. The second is probably a history of music in Kermanshah, published by a local book publisher and written by a local journalist born in 1976 according to his bio here. The writer claimed in his biography that he is head of the "current event" service in Kayhan newspaper which do not make him an expert on the topic. So I think that the article still fails WP:MUSIC.
—  User:Farhikht 03:48, 31 January 2012

Based on his statement, " Chelcheragh can't be considered a reliable source for music articles," I don't believe it should affect the close. Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Chelcheragh is described as a "reformist periodical" that is "popular among youth for its articles on culture, art, and sports, and its cartoons and satire" by Payvand, and we're more or less relying on conjecture to evaluate "Kermanshah Music" because no one else has actually seen the book. Farhikht may very well be right on both counts, but I'm still willing to hear Farkoh out if he's able to produce that material for our viewing or otherwise substantiate it.   —  C M B J   22:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict)Endorse as deleting admin. I have tempundeleted the article so that versions can be compared. The one deleted at AfD is here. The article author pointed out on my talk page that he had added references after the two delete !votes were cast; I therefore told the nominator and the two delete !voters about the new refs, and asked whether they would alter their opinions. The additional references they considered included 'Weekly magazine Chelcheragh,iran(February 2002)' and 'Nezafati,Iraj. Kermanshah music, Taq Bostan Publications, Kermanshah, 1998' and user Farhikht ( talk), whose user page shows he speaks Farsi, explicitly commented on them here. The other two also said that their opinions were not altered: WikiDan61, Spada2.

The new version Farkoh has produced is here. It actually has fewer references than the one deleted at AfD. The only new one is this, given as a reference for "Yar" instead of this. I do not think any case has been made to overturn the result of the AfD. JohnCD ( talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted per Farhikht's comment vouching for the inadequacy of the sources held up here as evidence of verifiable notability. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Reference - Hello and thank you dear friends.

nezafati "Kermanshah Music"

Chelcheragh and Abdolreza Razmjoo

persian wikipedia

Official Website Abdolreza Razmjoo Farkoh ( talk) 15:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply