Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2013 November 17
2013 November 19 >

18 November 2013

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

The Article Appy Pie was deleted as its source list was considered as press releases, trivial mentions, deadlinks and blog posts, However this was not correct as the source list were from highly reputable news sources where journalists have featured mentions about the Company, As suggested by Mark Arsten ( talk) I created a well sourced draft in my userspace and here is the link for your kind review /info/en/?search=User:Cxs107/sandbox/Appy_Pie and after reviewing the same Mark Arsten ( talk) asked me to request for deletion review for my Article Appy Pie - Cxs107 ( talk) 22:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Needs more work, in my opinion. It's not really the role of DRV to review articles for publication (that would be WP:AFC) or for deletion (that would be WP:AFD). In this instance I suppose the role of DRV would be to give you some advice as to whether your new article is likely to survive another round of AFD (given that you seem to accept that the original deletion was justified and so reviewing that deletion is a bit pointless). At this stage, I'd say it would be touch and go. There are probably a couple of good sources there but a lot of it is about routine business announcements (generally not considered significant coverage) and there's some user-generate stuff there and at least one article on a platform specifically designed to promote new tech ventures. Those that might be okay spent a bit of time talking about the venture's competitors and I can't help but think this is an attempt to promote this subject rather than cover it in an encyclopaedic manner and Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Stalwart 111 06:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with Stalwart111 other than I'd say it would likely be deleted. There just don't seem to be any sources where there is an editorial process that doesn't look like a press release. Hobit ( talk) 14:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I don't necessarily agree with Stalwart111 opinion, mainly because of the fact that Appy Pie a cloud based mobile app startup and mostly all technology startups get a top level assessment of what the startup has to offer from the technology journalists, However, the previous article that I had created had issues in the sense it had some press releases that were sent out by the startup as notable sources, however in my latest article all the sources are independent technology journalists which came across Appy Pie and decided to share their feedback of what the startup and its product has to offer and in no way they are trying to promote the product on the contrary they are just sharing their honest opinion, and even thinking on the lines that they are promoting the product is like insulting them. Cxs107 ( talk) 18:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm talking about sources like NextBigWhat (previously Pluggd.in) who promote their site with testimonials and the first on the list starts: "Pluggd.in helped us establish our brand by featuring our products. We got many important business leads after this-clients were directly approaching us!". They exist to promote start-ups. That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't have much value to us here as an independent, reliable source. I don't think it's "insulting" to point that out. Stalwart 111 22:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • What you referring about NextBigWhat hold true for the world's most reputed websites like WSJ or nytimes, anyone can write a paragraph on their website that a listing on WSJ got them thousand of vistors and a lot of business, I don't think there is any wrong in those claims as long as the journalists on the websites did a non biased non paid review or assessment, also in the page Appy Pie there was mention of the same on TechCrunch http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/06/i-built-a-windows-phone-app-and-it-freaking-sucks/ in a negative sense but I decided to include that aswell so as long as we cover all the facts I think we are doing a good job in sharing facts to the world using WP. Cxs107 ( talk 00:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Considering that the article contains the sentences "Appy Pie will also soon allow you to sell products via your business’s app, a boon in the age of mobile shopping" and "no technical or programming skills are required nothing to download or install, just create you mobile app in 3 Simple Steps" I'm surprised it got as far as AfD -- I would have considered this a G11 candidate. If you want to try again, use AfC. It may take a little longer, but that won't matter unless you're trying to use WP to promote the new product. But you'll need references that are not just reprints from PRWire. One doesn't have to read between the lines to know that--it's stated right up at the top for Bloomberg, TeleCrunch, Reuters, and the WSJ. All these sources do also publish reviews by "independent technical journalists", but they publish this sort of thing also, which is why we are rather skeptical about sources in this area. Fox Business did write their own article, but it's one of 5 unevaluated products. CBS and NBC are no longer visible. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with DGG, send this to a draft page to let it develop. I clicked on the Wall Street Journal source and it was listed as a press release. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 16:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Yes Sportfan5000 I am not disputing the fact either that while creating this article I also used some press releases that were published on some highly reputed news sources, but on realizing my mistake I updated the article so that there is no reference of any press release sort of articles but current references are only made up of notable sources which meets the guidelines of WP and I was hoping to get my most updated article published on the restored page by consensus in the coming days. Cxs107 ( talk) 21:25, 21 November 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:CUM ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Well, I've been a log-time DRV contributor, but this is to my memory the first filing. A few weeks ago, I stumbled across a nastily juvenile and seldom-used redirect titled "WP:CUM", which is an alternate to WP:CMF for the Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files help file. Thryduulf closed it as a "keep" however, due to what is IMO an misapplication of WP:NOTCENSORED policy. The concept of "not censored is one I have defended many, many times, but from what I read into that policy, it is only applicable to article space. We can and do censor ourselves in project-space, there is no policy that protects the creation of an obscene term to title a user helpme file. The admin also cites the utility of the redirect, but this assertion is debunked by comparing the "what links here" of both (minus the page itself and the RfD) "WP:CUM" (6) vs. "WP:CMF" (28). In fact, over 500 link directly to the help file itself. The word "CUM" is not intrinsically linked to the creation and usage of media; it is not necessary to direct new users to this file via this shortcut, it has been used 6 times in the 3 years that it has existed, and it is not protected by our project's antio-censorship policy. The closing admin IMO erred counting 2 keep voted that were grounded in a censorship argument, and further in his explanation of utility and usefulness. Sometimes we need to consider the public face we put towards our readers and contributors; to maintain this shortcut looks egregiously bad. Tarc ( talk) 14:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • closing admin. In addition to my closing statement I have explained myself further on my talk page at User talk:Thryduulf#breaking the existing links and disrupting the users. The number of uses of a redirect is not solely determined by the number of linking pages, but also by the number of page hits, which Tarc neglects to mention. I stand by my determination that the arguments in favour of retaining this redirect outweighed those for deleting, despite tarc's numerous comments. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Well, obviously we discount hits made in the last few weeks, as I, you, and many others have clicked it only in the context of investigation and discussion. I stumbled across it on 7 Nov via this edit summary), so if we look before that date, there are only a smattering of 1-2 hits per day for ~40 over 90 days. Compare to the hits for WP:CMF, which was viewed ~300 times in the last 90 days, subtracting for recent events. And compare both to Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files which received 4,000 hits in the same time frame. Both redirects are lightly used, the one with the offensive term/acronym being the lightest of all. What we have here is that WP:R#DELETE #9 ("offensive or abusive") is pitted against WP:K#KEEP #5 ("is useful"). The weight of an offensive term should have been counted more than a redirect with 40 hits over 2-3 months. We can live without this redirect, given how much more the alternates are utilized by the readers. Apart from that, Thryduulf neglects to explain how the non-censored policy (which 2 keeps voted rested upon) for articles extends to project-space, an extension that does not appear to be supported by the respective policy page. Tarc ( talk) 16:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure. Irrespective of whether the closer misinterpreted the various WP:NOTCENSORED arguments (and I don't believe he did), the decision was also based on the abbreviation's plausibility and the redirect's current use (not just via incoming links, which can be retargeted, but also searches, which cannot, other than via this redirect). Taking into account all the arguments presented in the discussion, as well as the usual considerations common to all RfDs, the decision is entirely appropriate. — Psychonaut ( talk) 16:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • So apparently: (1) when Wikipedians say "WP:CUM" to each other, it's sometimes perfectly innocent and accidental, and (2) these innocent uses are causing offence, and (3) turning the shortcut into a redlink would stop that from happening. To my amazement, based on the 7th November diff, (1) actually does seem to be true. (That noise you can hear in the background is my mind boggling.) Is there any evidence of (2) or (3)?— S Marshall T/ C 22:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Ick. I don't think there was consensus as I don't think one side had significantly stronger arguments than the other (though delete was, IMO stronger as the potential to offend (intentionally or otherwise) seems to conflict with WP:IAR and the whole point of building an encyclopedia. overturn to no consensus as the vote was split and I don't see how the keeps could be seen to have a stronger argument. Delete would also have been an acceptable close IMO. Hobit ( talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Well for #2, my initial reaction was more along the lines of a "WTF? How is that a blue-link?" I'm not personally offended in a Mary Whitehouse kind of way, I just feel a term which is far, far more associated with the sexual word than anything else is quite inappropriate to use for a project shortcut. As I said in the RfD, what if we had a help file regarding the Creation and Usage of New Templates? Tarc ( talk) 13:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    "what if we had a help file regarding the Creation and Usage of New Templates?" The existence or otherwise of such a page is entirely irrelevant to both whether this redirect should be kept or deleted, and to whether my closure of the deletion discussion was correct or otherwise. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    You are not personally offended but simply assume that others are? Sounds like a textbook case of pluralistic ignorance. — Psychonaut ( talk) 14:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    By that logic then I cannot speak up if I hear an anti-gay slur, since I am heterosexual. Tarc ( talk) 14:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    No, in that case no assumptions are required, since there is ample evidence that anti-gay slurs are offensive to others. We're all still waiting for any proof that someone might be, or has actually been, offended by the contextually appropriate use of the three letters under discussion. — Psychonaut ( talk)
    That's an unnecessary and unreasonable standard to request, so, consider it discarded. An average reader will, when presented with the title "Wikipedia:CUM", not think "oh, creation and usage of media", but rather that will think "why is a Wikipedia page named after semen?" Tarc ( talk) 14:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Clearly you believe the "average reader"'s emotional and intellectual sophistication to be roughly on the level of Beavis and Butthead. I'm sorry you hold our visitors in such contempt. — Psychonaut ( talk) 15:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Wow, really? In the workplace I'd certainly avoid having an acronym as "CUM" because it would be likely to be found offensive. I've no doubt that if I tried to do something like that I'd be quickly called into _someone's_ office. I'd think that would be true in nearly any workplace. Would it be acceptable in yours? Perhaps we are all too "PC" these days (though I'd certainly never call Tarc that...), but yeah, this is pretty clearly a bad idea and would be treated so in any workplace (from fast food to academia) I've every worked in. To attack someone for upholding what is pretty typical work standards is really unacceptable. Hobit ( talk) 19:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    As I noted in the closing statement, when used in context, the redirect is clearly an acronym and not sexual and for example new users should be linked to the actual page title not the shortcut for all pages (not just this one). One of the standard things that is taken for granted in RfD discussions is that just because a redirect can be used inappropriately does not necessarily mean that all uses are inappropriate. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    While I think this should have been a NC close, I don't find it problematic per se. I do on the other hand think Psychonaut's characterization of Tarc's concerns are well over the line. I'd prefer for internal things we stick with "workplace acceptable" for our language and communication. I suspect it pushes away a lot of potential editors (I'd guess mainly women and older folks?) but I get that that's not where we are. Hobit ( talk) 23:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    The problem with "workplace acceptable" is that there is no such standard because what is acceptable varies from workplace to workplace. For example as a speaker of British English I had to seriously think about why on earth Tarc would cite "FAG" as something unacceptable as this side of the pond " fag" means "cigarette". Thryduulf ( talk) 23:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  1. While I understand what you are saying, I do think things are standardized enough that few English-speaking workplaces would consider using "CUM" as an acronym. Do you disagree? [1] is somewhat insightful on the topic. Again, I realize that Wikipedia isn't the workplace, but I do think trying to maintain a professional environment is a reasonable goal. Hobit ( talk) 00:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I seriously oppose holding Wikipedia to workplace standard, what with existing articles on the types of sex and porn and appropriate pictures. Konveyor Belt 20:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
In the workplace one can (say) be at a company that writes human sexuality books without throwing around gratuitous sexual references. Just because we cover that material doesn't mean we need to use it as part of our standard office conversation. I suspect you'd find that World Book Encyclopedia employees can mange to cover sexual or offensive words and ideas without having it be a part of their workplace culture. Hobit ( talk) 04:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Close was policy-based and within admin discretion. The delete votes were not grounded in policy. The suggestion that this was likely to cause offence was not substantiated. As the closer noted, it is an acronym that fits with the title of the page, so it is not there as some sort of bad taste joke. There is no reason to believe that most people will fail to realise that it is an acronym for a page title, rather than a gratuitous sexual reference. Neljack ( talk) 10:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    WP:NOTCENSORED governs article content, not our project pages, so I question an endorsement that claims "policy-based and within admin discretion". I don't believe admins are empowered to extend policy beyond their intended scope. Tarc ( talk) 13:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
OK, so NOTCENSORED may not technically apply, but Thryduulf identified the correct question: "whether the potential offensiveness of the redirect outweighs its usefulness." Indeed you have above, in different words, identified this as the crucial issue: "What we have here is that WP:R#DELETE #9 ("offensive or abusive") is pitted against WP:K#KEEP #5 ("is useful")." You just disagree with his weighing-up of the competing arguments. That's perfectly legitimate, but it's also where the closer's discretion comes in. We won't overturn that judgment unless it's unreasonable, and I don't think it was here. Neljack ( talk) 00:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Ok, but if you concede that "not-censored" does not apply, then the RfD would have to be overturned as 2 of the keep votes cited "not-censored" as the reason to delete. We're really not here to re-argue the merits of the deletion discussion....though invariably all DRVs do stray into that territory a tad...we're here to review the closing administrator's actions. Thryduulf incorrectly counted those 2 keep votes in his measure of the consensus of the discussion. It wasn't within Thryduulf's discretion to apply his own opinion to the matter, as that amounts to the proverbial SuperVote. I don't mean to come across as flippant here, but this is really a very elementary matter; if 2 editors improperly cite a policy that does not apply, their entries are to be discarded. The closing admin did not properly discard them, thus I seek to have his decision overturned, as with those votes discarded, the RfD would stand at 3-1 in favor of deletion. Tarc ( talk) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
But that was not the main reason given by Launchballer (with whom BDD expressed agreement). NOTCENSORED was mentioned briefly, but Launchballer went on to argue that CUM was more plausible that the other acronym, that people using the link would discover that it wasn't a sexual reference, and that it was hard to see why people would take offence. They are all perfectly valid arguments, though you may disagree with them. Neljack ( talk) 02:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
"Not censored" was the crux of Launchballer's input; he began with it and ended with it. In the middle was an argument about "plausibility", but that argument is deflated by the stats I showed above that showed this shortcut is rarely used. If C-U-M was indeed more plausible than C-M-F, then it would have been a more-used search terms by our readers. It was in fact outstripped 40 to 300 over a 3-month span. We have a mis-citation of policy and an inaccurate statement of plausibility in this user's call to keep. Tarc ( talk) 13:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
You appear to be confusing "plausible" (the standard used at RfD) with "most plausible" (a standard not used anywhere I am aware of). Thryduulf ( talk) 17:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The comment did not end by invoking WP:NOTCENSORED - it ended by saying that it will be apparent to people who click on it that it isn't a sexual reference. Neljack ( talk) 11:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Refuse to dignify with a !vote. This may be the single most pathetic waste of time in the history of policy nit-picking. WHO THE FUCK CARES if we have a redirect called WP:CUM?! I'd feel differently, I guess, if it were actually trying to make some crude point, but it's not, it's just a fucking acronym, Tarc. It's also not a particularly offensive word, and it's also a perfectly apt abbreviation. Look, I'm quite solidly in the group of Wikipedians who like to hang around project-space and comment on policy, but this DRV makes me ashamed to be in that group. Usually we metapedians further the goal of improving the encyclopedia; this nomination, however, just makes us look like collossal drains on the community's time and energy. I am only writing this in the hopes that others may either choose not to waste their breaths on something so utterly inconsequential, or !vote quickly and decisively and give this the speedy close it deserves. —  PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 15:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I don't see anything particularly bad about Thryduulf's close, being based on a balance of the arguments. I will say though that it makes some sense to get rid of the extra redirects (both CUM and CMF) because it is unnecessarily confusing to have lots of different names for the same destination (that applies to a lot of pet redirects for many policies/fora). I strongly oppose "salting" of the term, claims that it is "obscene", and so forth. Didn't anybody around here graduate magna cum laude? wikt:cum also notes the usage "barista cum waitress", etc. Try to keep it in your pants. I would suggest just wait the proper term before trying a new AfD, or if you really want a faster way, then let's get a general AfD going with a single consistent usage stats standard for MANY obscure abbreviations; we can agree once and all to AfD them all and replace them, for a limited period, with a template page saying that as part of a consolidation we're phasing out their use; maybe program a bot to go back and change the old instances. Wnt ( talk) 17:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I've been a bit confused myself - I see now there actually isn't a better-named redirect than this (there's no CUMF). Wnt ( talk) 18:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Okay you don't want article content? WP:JAP is prob the better example here, it is used as an acronym for Japan. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Not really, given the need to distinguish Jap from JAP. Mangoe ( talk) 02:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Whether something is capitalized or not is irrelevant. After all, CUM is capitalized yet you see a problem with that. Konveyor Belt 17:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to delete Serves no purpose, WP:NOTCENSORED only applies to topically-relevant content, which this is not. Only someone looking for obscene content would search for this. 2Awwsome Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up. 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep. "nastily juvenile" -- This far-fetched allegation borders on NPA. The redirect was created innocuously in the exact same way most project shortcuts are created. Evidently, the only thing "nastily juvenile" here is the nominator's reading of the redirect. You should never blame reality or other people for your own thoughts. The word "CUM" is not intrinsically linked to the creation and usage of media -- "CUM" is not a word, but an acronym, exactly like AGF etc. The nominator himself is reading the acronym as a word. -- 85.197.20.10 ( talk) 12:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC) — 85.197.20.10 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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/2013_November_18&oldid=1086354784"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2013 November 17
2013 November 19 >

18 November 2013

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

The Article Appy Pie was deleted as its source list was considered as press releases, trivial mentions, deadlinks and blog posts, However this was not correct as the source list were from highly reputable news sources where journalists have featured mentions about the Company, As suggested by Mark Arsten ( talk) I created a well sourced draft in my userspace and here is the link for your kind review /info/en/?search=User:Cxs107/sandbox/Appy_Pie and after reviewing the same Mark Arsten ( talk) asked me to request for deletion review for my Article Appy Pie - Cxs107 ( talk) 22:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Needs more work, in my opinion. It's not really the role of DRV to review articles for publication (that would be WP:AFC) or for deletion (that would be WP:AFD). In this instance I suppose the role of DRV would be to give you some advice as to whether your new article is likely to survive another round of AFD (given that you seem to accept that the original deletion was justified and so reviewing that deletion is a bit pointless). At this stage, I'd say it would be touch and go. There are probably a couple of good sources there but a lot of it is about routine business announcements (generally not considered significant coverage) and there's some user-generate stuff there and at least one article on a platform specifically designed to promote new tech ventures. Those that might be okay spent a bit of time talking about the venture's competitors and I can't help but think this is an attempt to promote this subject rather than cover it in an encyclopaedic manner and Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Stalwart 111 06:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with Stalwart111 other than I'd say it would likely be deleted. There just don't seem to be any sources where there is an editorial process that doesn't look like a press release. Hobit ( talk) 14:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I don't necessarily agree with Stalwart111 opinion, mainly because of the fact that Appy Pie a cloud based mobile app startup and mostly all technology startups get a top level assessment of what the startup has to offer from the technology journalists, However, the previous article that I had created had issues in the sense it had some press releases that were sent out by the startup as notable sources, however in my latest article all the sources are independent technology journalists which came across Appy Pie and decided to share their feedback of what the startup and its product has to offer and in no way they are trying to promote the product on the contrary they are just sharing their honest opinion, and even thinking on the lines that they are promoting the product is like insulting them. Cxs107 ( talk) 18:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm talking about sources like NextBigWhat (previously Pluggd.in) who promote their site with testimonials and the first on the list starts: "Pluggd.in helped us establish our brand by featuring our products. We got many important business leads after this-clients were directly approaching us!". They exist to promote start-ups. That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't have much value to us here as an independent, reliable source. I don't think it's "insulting" to point that out. Stalwart 111 22:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • What you referring about NextBigWhat hold true for the world's most reputed websites like WSJ or nytimes, anyone can write a paragraph on their website that a listing on WSJ got them thousand of vistors and a lot of business, I don't think there is any wrong in those claims as long as the journalists on the websites did a non biased non paid review or assessment, also in the page Appy Pie there was mention of the same on TechCrunch http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/06/i-built-a-windows-phone-app-and-it-freaking-sucks/ in a negative sense but I decided to include that aswell so as long as we cover all the facts I think we are doing a good job in sharing facts to the world using WP. Cxs107 ( talk 00:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Considering that the article contains the sentences "Appy Pie will also soon allow you to sell products via your business’s app, a boon in the age of mobile shopping" and "no technical or programming skills are required nothing to download or install, just create you mobile app in 3 Simple Steps" I'm surprised it got as far as AfD -- I would have considered this a G11 candidate. If you want to try again, use AfC. It may take a little longer, but that won't matter unless you're trying to use WP to promote the new product. But you'll need references that are not just reprints from PRWire. One doesn't have to read between the lines to know that--it's stated right up at the top for Bloomberg, TeleCrunch, Reuters, and the WSJ. All these sources do also publish reviews by "independent technical journalists", but they publish this sort of thing also, which is why we are rather skeptical about sources in this area. Fox Business did write their own article, but it's one of 5 unevaluated products. CBS and NBC are no longer visible. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with DGG, send this to a draft page to let it develop. I clicked on the Wall Street Journal source and it was listed as a press release. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 16:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Yes Sportfan5000 I am not disputing the fact either that while creating this article I also used some press releases that were published on some highly reputed news sources, but on realizing my mistake I updated the article so that there is no reference of any press release sort of articles but current references are only made up of notable sources which meets the guidelines of WP and I was hoping to get my most updated article published on the restored page by consensus in the coming days. Cxs107 ( talk) 21:25, 21 November 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:CUM ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Well, I've been a log-time DRV contributor, but this is to my memory the first filing. A few weeks ago, I stumbled across a nastily juvenile and seldom-used redirect titled "WP:CUM", which is an alternate to WP:CMF for the Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files help file. Thryduulf closed it as a "keep" however, due to what is IMO an misapplication of WP:NOTCENSORED policy. The concept of "not censored is one I have defended many, many times, but from what I read into that policy, it is only applicable to article space. We can and do censor ourselves in project-space, there is no policy that protects the creation of an obscene term to title a user helpme file. The admin also cites the utility of the redirect, but this assertion is debunked by comparing the "what links here" of both (minus the page itself and the RfD) "WP:CUM" (6) vs. "WP:CMF" (28). In fact, over 500 link directly to the help file itself. The word "CUM" is not intrinsically linked to the creation and usage of media; it is not necessary to direct new users to this file via this shortcut, it has been used 6 times in the 3 years that it has existed, and it is not protected by our project's antio-censorship policy. The closing admin IMO erred counting 2 keep voted that were grounded in a censorship argument, and further in his explanation of utility and usefulness. Sometimes we need to consider the public face we put towards our readers and contributors; to maintain this shortcut looks egregiously bad. Tarc ( talk) 14:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • closing admin. In addition to my closing statement I have explained myself further on my talk page at User talk:Thryduulf#breaking the existing links and disrupting the users. The number of uses of a redirect is not solely determined by the number of linking pages, but also by the number of page hits, which Tarc neglects to mention. I stand by my determination that the arguments in favour of retaining this redirect outweighed those for deleting, despite tarc's numerous comments. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Well, obviously we discount hits made in the last few weeks, as I, you, and many others have clicked it only in the context of investigation and discussion. I stumbled across it on 7 Nov via this edit summary), so if we look before that date, there are only a smattering of 1-2 hits per day for ~40 over 90 days. Compare to the hits for WP:CMF, which was viewed ~300 times in the last 90 days, subtracting for recent events. And compare both to Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files which received 4,000 hits in the same time frame. Both redirects are lightly used, the one with the offensive term/acronym being the lightest of all. What we have here is that WP:R#DELETE #9 ("offensive or abusive") is pitted against WP:K#KEEP #5 ("is useful"). The weight of an offensive term should have been counted more than a redirect with 40 hits over 2-3 months. We can live without this redirect, given how much more the alternates are utilized by the readers. Apart from that, Thryduulf neglects to explain how the non-censored policy (which 2 keeps voted rested upon) for articles extends to project-space, an extension that does not appear to be supported by the respective policy page. Tarc ( talk) 16:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure. Irrespective of whether the closer misinterpreted the various WP:NOTCENSORED arguments (and I don't believe he did), the decision was also based on the abbreviation's plausibility and the redirect's current use (not just via incoming links, which can be retargeted, but also searches, which cannot, other than via this redirect). Taking into account all the arguments presented in the discussion, as well as the usual considerations common to all RfDs, the decision is entirely appropriate. — Psychonaut ( talk) 16:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • So apparently: (1) when Wikipedians say "WP:CUM" to each other, it's sometimes perfectly innocent and accidental, and (2) these innocent uses are causing offence, and (3) turning the shortcut into a redlink would stop that from happening. To my amazement, based on the 7th November diff, (1) actually does seem to be true. (That noise you can hear in the background is my mind boggling.) Is there any evidence of (2) or (3)?— S Marshall T/ C 22:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Ick. I don't think there was consensus as I don't think one side had significantly stronger arguments than the other (though delete was, IMO stronger as the potential to offend (intentionally or otherwise) seems to conflict with WP:IAR and the whole point of building an encyclopedia. overturn to no consensus as the vote was split and I don't see how the keeps could be seen to have a stronger argument. Delete would also have been an acceptable close IMO. Hobit ( talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Well for #2, my initial reaction was more along the lines of a "WTF? How is that a blue-link?" I'm not personally offended in a Mary Whitehouse kind of way, I just feel a term which is far, far more associated with the sexual word than anything else is quite inappropriate to use for a project shortcut. As I said in the RfD, what if we had a help file regarding the Creation and Usage of New Templates? Tarc ( talk) 13:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    "what if we had a help file regarding the Creation and Usage of New Templates?" The existence or otherwise of such a page is entirely irrelevant to both whether this redirect should be kept or deleted, and to whether my closure of the deletion discussion was correct or otherwise. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    You are not personally offended but simply assume that others are? Sounds like a textbook case of pluralistic ignorance. — Psychonaut ( talk) 14:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    By that logic then I cannot speak up if I hear an anti-gay slur, since I am heterosexual. Tarc ( talk) 14:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    No, in that case no assumptions are required, since there is ample evidence that anti-gay slurs are offensive to others. We're all still waiting for any proof that someone might be, or has actually been, offended by the contextually appropriate use of the three letters under discussion. — Psychonaut ( talk)
    That's an unnecessary and unreasonable standard to request, so, consider it discarded. An average reader will, when presented with the title "Wikipedia:CUM", not think "oh, creation and usage of media", but rather that will think "why is a Wikipedia page named after semen?" Tarc ( talk) 14:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Clearly you believe the "average reader"'s emotional and intellectual sophistication to be roughly on the level of Beavis and Butthead. I'm sorry you hold our visitors in such contempt. — Psychonaut ( talk) 15:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Wow, really? In the workplace I'd certainly avoid having an acronym as "CUM" because it would be likely to be found offensive. I've no doubt that if I tried to do something like that I'd be quickly called into _someone's_ office. I'd think that would be true in nearly any workplace. Would it be acceptable in yours? Perhaps we are all too "PC" these days (though I'd certainly never call Tarc that...), but yeah, this is pretty clearly a bad idea and would be treated so in any workplace (from fast food to academia) I've every worked in. To attack someone for upholding what is pretty typical work standards is really unacceptable. Hobit ( talk) 19:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    As I noted in the closing statement, when used in context, the redirect is clearly an acronym and not sexual and for example new users should be linked to the actual page title not the shortcut for all pages (not just this one). One of the standard things that is taken for granted in RfD discussions is that just because a redirect can be used inappropriately does not necessarily mean that all uses are inappropriate. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    While I think this should have been a NC close, I don't find it problematic per se. I do on the other hand think Psychonaut's characterization of Tarc's concerns are well over the line. I'd prefer for internal things we stick with "workplace acceptable" for our language and communication. I suspect it pushes away a lot of potential editors (I'd guess mainly women and older folks?) but I get that that's not where we are. Hobit ( talk) 23:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    The problem with "workplace acceptable" is that there is no such standard because what is acceptable varies from workplace to workplace. For example as a speaker of British English I had to seriously think about why on earth Tarc would cite "FAG" as something unacceptable as this side of the pond " fag" means "cigarette". Thryduulf ( talk) 23:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  1. While I understand what you are saying, I do think things are standardized enough that few English-speaking workplaces would consider using "CUM" as an acronym. Do you disagree? [1] is somewhat insightful on the topic. Again, I realize that Wikipedia isn't the workplace, but I do think trying to maintain a professional environment is a reasonable goal. Hobit ( talk) 00:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I seriously oppose holding Wikipedia to workplace standard, what with existing articles on the types of sex and porn and appropriate pictures. Konveyor Belt 20:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
In the workplace one can (say) be at a company that writes human sexuality books without throwing around gratuitous sexual references. Just because we cover that material doesn't mean we need to use it as part of our standard office conversation. I suspect you'd find that World Book Encyclopedia employees can mange to cover sexual or offensive words and ideas without having it be a part of their workplace culture. Hobit ( talk) 04:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Close was policy-based and within admin discretion. The delete votes were not grounded in policy. The suggestion that this was likely to cause offence was not substantiated. As the closer noted, it is an acronym that fits with the title of the page, so it is not there as some sort of bad taste joke. There is no reason to believe that most people will fail to realise that it is an acronym for a page title, rather than a gratuitous sexual reference. Neljack ( talk) 10:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    WP:NOTCENSORED governs article content, not our project pages, so I question an endorsement that claims "policy-based and within admin discretion". I don't believe admins are empowered to extend policy beyond their intended scope. Tarc ( talk) 13:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
OK, so NOTCENSORED may not technically apply, but Thryduulf identified the correct question: "whether the potential offensiveness of the redirect outweighs its usefulness." Indeed you have above, in different words, identified this as the crucial issue: "What we have here is that WP:R#DELETE #9 ("offensive or abusive") is pitted against WP:K#KEEP #5 ("is useful")." You just disagree with his weighing-up of the competing arguments. That's perfectly legitimate, but it's also where the closer's discretion comes in. We won't overturn that judgment unless it's unreasonable, and I don't think it was here. Neljack ( talk) 00:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Ok, but if you concede that "not-censored" does not apply, then the RfD would have to be overturned as 2 of the keep votes cited "not-censored" as the reason to delete. We're really not here to re-argue the merits of the deletion discussion....though invariably all DRVs do stray into that territory a tad...we're here to review the closing administrator's actions. Thryduulf incorrectly counted those 2 keep votes in his measure of the consensus of the discussion. It wasn't within Thryduulf's discretion to apply his own opinion to the matter, as that amounts to the proverbial SuperVote. I don't mean to come across as flippant here, but this is really a very elementary matter; if 2 editors improperly cite a policy that does not apply, their entries are to be discarded. The closing admin did not properly discard them, thus I seek to have his decision overturned, as with those votes discarded, the RfD would stand at 3-1 in favor of deletion. Tarc ( talk) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
But that was not the main reason given by Launchballer (with whom BDD expressed agreement). NOTCENSORED was mentioned briefly, but Launchballer went on to argue that CUM was more plausible that the other acronym, that people using the link would discover that it wasn't a sexual reference, and that it was hard to see why people would take offence. They are all perfectly valid arguments, though you may disagree with them. Neljack ( talk) 02:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
"Not censored" was the crux of Launchballer's input; he began with it and ended with it. In the middle was an argument about "plausibility", but that argument is deflated by the stats I showed above that showed this shortcut is rarely used. If C-U-M was indeed more plausible than C-M-F, then it would have been a more-used search terms by our readers. It was in fact outstripped 40 to 300 over a 3-month span. We have a mis-citation of policy and an inaccurate statement of plausibility in this user's call to keep. Tarc ( talk) 13:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
You appear to be confusing "plausible" (the standard used at RfD) with "most plausible" (a standard not used anywhere I am aware of). Thryduulf ( talk) 17:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The comment did not end by invoking WP:NOTCENSORED - it ended by saying that it will be apparent to people who click on it that it isn't a sexual reference. Neljack ( talk) 11:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Refuse to dignify with a !vote. This may be the single most pathetic waste of time in the history of policy nit-picking. WHO THE FUCK CARES if we have a redirect called WP:CUM?! I'd feel differently, I guess, if it were actually trying to make some crude point, but it's not, it's just a fucking acronym, Tarc. It's also not a particularly offensive word, and it's also a perfectly apt abbreviation. Look, I'm quite solidly in the group of Wikipedians who like to hang around project-space and comment on policy, but this DRV makes me ashamed to be in that group. Usually we metapedians further the goal of improving the encyclopedia; this nomination, however, just makes us look like collossal drains on the community's time and energy. I am only writing this in the hopes that others may either choose not to waste their breaths on something so utterly inconsequential, or !vote quickly and decisively and give this the speedy close it deserves. —  PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 15:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I don't see anything particularly bad about Thryduulf's close, being based on a balance of the arguments. I will say though that it makes some sense to get rid of the extra redirects (both CUM and CMF) because it is unnecessarily confusing to have lots of different names for the same destination (that applies to a lot of pet redirects for many policies/fora). I strongly oppose "salting" of the term, claims that it is "obscene", and so forth. Didn't anybody around here graduate magna cum laude? wikt:cum also notes the usage "barista cum waitress", etc. Try to keep it in your pants. I would suggest just wait the proper term before trying a new AfD, or if you really want a faster way, then let's get a general AfD going with a single consistent usage stats standard for MANY obscure abbreviations; we can agree once and all to AfD them all and replace them, for a limited period, with a template page saying that as part of a consolidation we're phasing out their use; maybe program a bot to go back and change the old instances. Wnt ( talk) 17:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I've been a bit confused myself - I see now there actually isn't a better-named redirect than this (there's no CUMF). Wnt ( talk) 18:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Okay you don't want article content? WP:JAP is prob the better example here, it is used as an acronym for Japan. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Not really, given the need to distinguish Jap from JAP. Mangoe ( talk) 02:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Whether something is capitalized or not is irrelevant. After all, CUM is capitalized yet you see a problem with that. Konveyor Belt 17:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to delete Serves no purpose, WP:NOTCENSORED only applies to topically-relevant content, which this is not. Only someone looking for obscene content would search for this. 2Awwsome Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up. 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep. "nastily juvenile" -- This far-fetched allegation borders on NPA. The redirect was created innocuously in the exact same way most project shortcuts are created. Evidently, the only thing "nastily juvenile" here is the nominator's reading of the redirect. You should never blame reality or other people for your own thoughts. The word "CUM" is not intrinsically linked to the creation and usage of media -- "CUM" is not a word, but an acronym, exactly like AGF etc. The nominator himself is reading the acronym as a word. -- 85.197.20.10 ( talk) 12:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC) — 85.197.20.10 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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/2013_November_18&oldid=1086354784"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE