Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 March 11
2014 March 13 >

12 March 2014

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

I believe administrator is not applying properly wiki guidelines. The discussion on his talk page show this in my eyes.

Overview of Discussion on NawlinWiki ( talk):

Permit me to disagree on the Speedy Deletion of the Beer Auction Game. You refer to A7, which explicitly excludes educational institutions when using A7. I therefore would like to state that you used A7 incorrectly for Speedy Deletion of a University content output. Also I disagree to Speedy Deletion which would not have been the proper way anyway in this context.

Therefore please reinstateBmwtroll (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I could have also tagged it under category a11, something recently made up. Before I reinstate for what would almost certainly be a deletion at AFD, do you have any reliable independent sources that show the notability of this game? NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

without being to harsh, I understand what you say, but a quick excuse that you did not pay attention to the educational institution issue in A7 would have been a nice sign as well. Now you bring A11 and later in your sentence you talk about proven sources about notability. A11 has nothing to do with notability but only significance or importance (clearly either of them). Notability is explicitly put at a higher level. Why are you bringing in levels personally which are not in the guidelines? When you look at Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance and read 1-6 it contradicts what you are writing. Therefore please reinstate Bmwtroll (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not without sources other than the school that created this game. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A7 does not apply and A11 does not require sources. Nevertheless two separate sources have been included from the very beginning at the bottom. Permit me to say, I still believe this is acting outside the boundaries of Wiki rules. Please reinstate and still you can propose it for deletion in the proper way where I believe your arguments do not hold up Bmwtroll (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The first source is a blog (yours?) that describes the game. The second is the university's own site. Neither satisfies WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The first Website is a cooperate website of a 500 Mio. Euro company with an editorial desk where such topics are regularly published. And yes, certainly I have access to this company. But it passes the editorial desk. Nevertheless this does not justify that you apply A7 and A11 incorrectly in my eyes. So please give a final yes or no to my original request - Please reinstate and still you can propose it for deletion in the proper way where I believe your arguments do not hold up - so I can place my complaint through the alternative channels Bmwtroll (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not going to reinstate. Try Wikipedia:Deletion review. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Bmwtroll ( talk) 15:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • It's a downloadable game (thus subject to category a7, regarding web content), created in 2014. The two sources cited were a blog entry that the article author apparently wrote (see above) and the website of the university that developed the game. There's no assertion of notability per a7, and no citation of independent or reliable sources per WP:V. NawlinWiki ( talk) 15:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • A7 does not apply to educational institutions and its output. It is an academic topic similar to Beer distribution game by the MIT. So the argument of application of A7 does not hold. Additionally, although not required the university should hold as a either independent or reliable source. Additionally the publication on the second source PowerGuru with editorial desk of a large multi-national should also be evaluated. For the rest, consider original discussion because: all is said, but not by all Bmwtroll ( talk) 15:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • A7 doesn't apply to educational institutions, but nothing says it can't apply to its output. That a game was written at a school doesn't protect it from an A7. If there was a reasonable claim of notability, things would be different. But I've not seen any in the discussions. So Endorse speedy Hobit ( talk) 16:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Bmwtroll, there's no real chance of you getting what you want from DRV unless you can show us an independent source.— S Marshall T/ C 17:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Undelete and List at AfD. If an A7/A11 or several other non-offensive CSD deletions are contested, it means someone wants a discussion, so list at AfD and let the discussion happen in the appropriate place. A7/A11 does not mean that the article MUST be speedily deleted. There is no shame in the deleting admin listing the article for discussion. Reversing a reasonable speedy deletion so that an occasional contributor can benefit from a discussion is not a mark against the deleting admin. Clearly, Mmwtroll wants, and will get his discussion. Here is the wrong place. AfD is the right place. NawlinWiki, please just agreeably list contests at AfD so that we don't have to host this here. No, on the face of things, it will not pass AfD, but at AfD we can discuss the requirements for sources, while at DRV we find ourselves non-productively discussing the nuances of CSD criteria. Bmwtroll needs to learn about source requirements, not CSD nuance. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • thanks Bmwtroll ( talk) 08:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • List at AFD. I think that the speedy deletion was valid according to the specific WP:CSD#A7 criterion. However, this turns out to not be one of "the most obvious cases" for deletion [1] – we have an appeal and also a selective merge (or, conceivably, adequate referencing) isn't out of the question here. I agree with SmokeyJoe that it would be far better to discuss this at AFD rather than discuss here whether it should be discussed. We need to change the formal process for handling non-offensive appeals against the speedy deletion of non-offensive articles. Thincat ( talk) 08:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I'm generally in favor of overturning speedy deletions on reasonable requests and sending them to AfD. But A) the speedy (as you note) was applied correctly and B) there isn't even the beginning of a valid argument that this meets inclusion guidelines. If either A or B weren't true, I'd favor listing, but if we relist for any objection, it feels like our speedy and prod process are basically the same thing. Hobit ( talk) 09:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I am really at a loss with what I read because in the end, I want do things right and not provoke - and I often think that my English is not that bad :) When I read WP:CSD#A7 it says: 'It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion.' Since there is a referral to the University Page (www.fau.de) and a online magazine with editorial desk (www.powerguru.org) first I believe it is credible (obviously not invented) and carries two separate sources. Therefore I assumed - obviously wrongly but I still want to understand - that speedy deletion is wrong. And a normal AFD would have also given time either to improve the article with more sources and/or content or have at least a proper discussion before establishing facts. This is not a student's work project but a professors research work. Bmwtroll ( talk) 09:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I think technically the article ( here) had no claim to importance although "The learning effect ... is considerable" comes close and a credible claim could easily have been added. However, and more importantly, this material was not suitable as a stand-alone article because it lacks multiple independent reliable sources (but that is not for CSD or DRV). Perhaps if you ask the deleting admin to WP:Userfy the article or move it to WP:Drafts he would agree and then you could try to strengthen it. Thincat ( talk) 11:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse games which are purely digital can qualify for A7, and in any case it has absolutely no chance at AFD, so sending it there would just be a week-long waste of editors' time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This is a week long waste of editors' time, not well suited to educating Bmwtroll. It should have been immediately listed at AfD, where it would much less likely to be a waste of Bmwtroll's time. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Huh? Since when is the purpose of DRV (or AFD) about educating users? It looks like NawlinWiki told Bmwtroll the basics of why it was deleted, Bmwtroll simply disagreed. I'm not sure why you think AFD would "less likely to be a waste of Bmwtroll's time"--I've seen editors waste many hours expanding articles that were obviously destined for deletion, when a speedy and a link to WP:42 would have been much kinder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • List at AfD or move to WP:Drafts. Depending on how you squint while reading WP:CSD, you could make an argument that A11 applies, so I'm not going to go so far as to argue that the speedy deletion was wrong. I'm pretty sure this will be a snow delete on AfD, but that's a better outcome than, as has been pointed out, spending a week here arguing the nuances of WP:CSD (and if it really does get closed as snow, it'll be faster too). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Added later: modifying my opinion to include draft, per @ Bmwtroll:. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I think that proposal is the easiest solution: ' WP:Userfy the article or move it to WP:Drafts' until the independent sources are up. With a speedy deletion there is no chance to react to anything Bmwtroll ( talk) 07:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse A7. As this doesn't seem to stand a chance at AfD, it would be a waste of time to list it there. If the article creator thinks reliable sources that verify notability, then I would have no problem with userfication, as long as the article creator understands that substantial improvement is needed before the article can be restored to mainspace. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - find a couple sources, and I or someone else in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles can restore it to your userspace to be made suitable for the mainspace, at which point it can be moved back (and no longer A7-able). Without 'em, AfD is just going to delete so, so a trip there is pointless. Wily D 17:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as a valid A7 (as web content), but without any great enthusiasm allow it to a list at AFD. It has virtually no chance of surviving that, and in a week we'll all be back where we started, which leads me to conclude it's pure process wonkery. But if it makes the article creator or any other editors feel happy I don't see why not. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 01:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Endorse as per WP:IAR  I think the case has been made that best practice here is not to enforce the speedy deletion.  However, I can't get past the username here, and the highly competent application of Wiki policy with no edits to explain the mastery.  Unscintillating ( talk) 06:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @Unscintillating: yes, I know already that the combination for my user name was not smart. When I first registered I did not actually know for what Troll is used in the Internet and BMW is my interest. My knowledge of Wiki comes from my writing and use mainly in the German Wiki (see my contribution list since 2009 ). If I consider something valuable in the German Wiki then sometimes I create an English version. Bmwtroll ( talk) 08:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Admin's actions were valid. "explicitly excludes educational institutions when using A7" means exactly that: Institutions. We are not writing articles for every dorm of every school and for every MS thesis. Notability is not inherited.- Altenmann >t 05:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn speedy, list at AFD. The OP's argument is utter nonsense, but this "game" is downloadable software, not web content,and therefore expressly not eligible for A7 deletion. It may be "purely digital", but so are e-books and Itunes-exclusive releases. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 12:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and list. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has it right, the "game" is in a downloadable compressed archive containing of a number of files I don't usually think of executable (PNG, PSD, DOCX, PDF, XLS, etc.), but a narrow construction of CSD critieria probably excludes it, and if it didn't, it wouldn't exclude eBooks etc. either. Considering this "not web content" leaves us with a more consistent policy. -- j⚛e decker talk 01:16, 19 March 2014 (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/2014_March_12&oldid=1082336990"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 March 11
2014 March 13 >

12 March 2014

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

I believe administrator is not applying properly wiki guidelines. The discussion on his talk page show this in my eyes.

Overview of Discussion on NawlinWiki ( talk):

Permit me to disagree on the Speedy Deletion of the Beer Auction Game. You refer to A7, which explicitly excludes educational institutions when using A7. I therefore would like to state that you used A7 incorrectly for Speedy Deletion of a University content output. Also I disagree to Speedy Deletion which would not have been the proper way anyway in this context.

Therefore please reinstateBmwtroll (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I could have also tagged it under category a11, something recently made up. Before I reinstate for what would almost certainly be a deletion at AFD, do you have any reliable independent sources that show the notability of this game? NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

without being to harsh, I understand what you say, but a quick excuse that you did not pay attention to the educational institution issue in A7 would have been a nice sign as well. Now you bring A11 and later in your sentence you talk about proven sources about notability. A11 has nothing to do with notability but only significance or importance (clearly either of them). Notability is explicitly put at a higher level. Why are you bringing in levels personally which are not in the guidelines? When you look at Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance and read 1-6 it contradicts what you are writing. Therefore please reinstate Bmwtroll (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not without sources other than the school that created this game. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A7 does not apply and A11 does not require sources. Nevertheless two separate sources have been included from the very beginning at the bottom. Permit me to say, I still believe this is acting outside the boundaries of Wiki rules. Please reinstate and still you can propose it for deletion in the proper way where I believe your arguments do not hold up Bmwtroll (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The first source is a blog (yours?) that describes the game. The second is the university's own site. Neither satisfies WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The first Website is a cooperate website of a 500 Mio. Euro company with an editorial desk where such topics are regularly published. And yes, certainly I have access to this company. But it passes the editorial desk. Nevertheless this does not justify that you apply A7 and A11 incorrectly in my eyes. So please give a final yes or no to my original request - Please reinstate and still you can propose it for deletion in the proper way where I believe your arguments do not hold up - so I can place my complaint through the alternative channels Bmwtroll (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not going to reinstate. Try Wikipedia:Deletion review. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Bmwtroll ( talk) 15:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • It's a downloadable game (thus subject to category a7, regarding web content), created in 2014. The two sources cited were a blog entry that the article author apparently wrote (see above) and the website of the university that developed the game. There's no assertion of notability per a7, and no citation of independent or reliable sources per WP:V. NawlinWiki ( talk) 15:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • A7 does not apply to educational institutions and its output. It is an academic topic similar to Beer distribution game by the MIT. So the argument of application of A7 does not hold. Additionally, although not required the university should hold as a either independent or reliable source. Additionally the publication on the second source PowerGuru with editorial desk of a large multi-national should also be evaluated. For the rest, consider original discussion because: all is said, but not by all Bmwtroll ( talk) 15:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • A7 doesn't apply to educational institutions, but nothing says it can't apply to its output. That a game was written at a school doesn't protect it from an A7. If there was a reasonable claim of notability, things would be different. But I've not seen any in the discussions. So Endorse speedy Hobit ( talk) 16:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Bmwtroll, there's no real chance of you getting what you want from DRV unless you can show us an independent source.— S Marshall T/ C 17:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Undelete and List at AfD. If an A7/A11 or several other non-offensive CSD deletions are contested, it means someone wants a discussion, so list at AfD and let the discussion happen in the appropriate place. A7/A11 does not mean that the article MUST be speedily deleted. There is no shame in the deleting admin listing the article for discussion. Reversing a reasonable speedy deletion so that an occasional contributor can benefit from a discussion is not a mark against the deleting admin. Clearly, Mmwtroll wants, and will get his discussion. Here is the wrong place. AfD is the right place. NawlinWiki, please just agreeably list contests at AfD so that we don't have to host this here. No, on the face of things, it will not pass AfD, but at AfD we can discuss the requirements for sources, while at DRV we find ourselves non-productively discussing the nuances of CSD criteria. Bmwtroll needs to learn about source requirements, not CSD nuance. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • thanks Bmwtroll ( talk) 08:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • List at AFD. I think that the speedy deletion was valid according to the specific WP:CSD#A7 criterion. However, this turns out to not be one of "the most obvious cases" for deletion [1] – we have an appeal and also a selective merge (or, conceivably, adequate referencing) isn't out of the question here. I agree with SmokeyJoe that it would be far better to discuss this at AFD rather than discuss here whether it should be discussed. We need to change the formal process for handling non-offensive appeals against the speedy deletion of non-offensive articles. Thincat ( talk) 08:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I'm generally in favor of overturning speedy deletions on reasonable requests and sending them to AfD. But A) the speedy (as you note) was applied correctly and B) there isn't even the beginning of a valid argument that this meets inclusion guidelines. If either A or B weren't true, I'd favor listing, but if we relist for any objection, it feels like our speedy and prod process are basically the same thing. Hobit ( talk) 09:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I am really at a loss with what I read because in the end, I want do things right and not provoke - and I often think that my English is not that bad :) When I read WP:CSD#A7 it says: 'It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion.' Since there is a referral to the University Page (www.fau.de) and a online magazine with editorial desk (www.powerguru.org) first I believe it is credible (obviously not invented) and carries two separate sources. Therefore I assumed - obviously wrongly but I still want to understand - that speedy deletion is wrong. And a normal AFD would have also given time either to improve the article with more sources and/or content or have at least a proper discussion before establishing facts. This is not a student's work project but a professors research work. Bmwtroll ( talk) 09:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I think technically the article ( here) had no claim to importance although "The learning effect ... is considerable" comes close and a credible claim could easily have been added. However, and more importantly, this material was not suitable as a stand-alone article because it lacks multiple independent reliable sources (but that is not for CSD or DRV). Perhaps if you ask the deleting admin to WP:Userfy the article or move it to WP:Drafts he would agree and then you could try to strengthen it. Thincat ( talk) 11:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse games which are purely digital can qualify for A7, and in any case it has absolutely no chance at AFD, so sending it there would just be a week-long waste of editors' time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This is a week long waste of editors' time, not well suited to educating Bmwtroll. It should have been immediately listed at AfD, where it would much less likely to be a waste of Bmwtroll's time. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Huh? Since when is the purpose of DRV (or AFD) about educating users? It looks like NawlinWiki told Bmwtroll the basics of why it was deleted, Bmwtroll simply disagreed. I'm not sure why you think AFD would "less likely to be a waste of Bmwtroll's time"--I've seen editors waste many hours expanding articles that were obviously destined for deletion, when a speedy and a link to WP:42 would have been much kinder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • List at AfD or move to WP:Drafts. Depending on how you squint while reading WP:CSD, you could make an argument that A11 applies, so I'm not going to go so far as to argue that the speedy deletion was wrong. I'm pretty sure this will be a snow delete on AfD, but that's a better outcome than, as has been pointed out, spending a week here arguing the nuances of WP:CSD (and if it really does get closed as snow, it'll be faster too). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Added later: modifying my opinion to include draft, per @ Bmwtroll:. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I think that proposal is the easiest solution: ' WP:Userfy the article or move it to WP:Drafts' until the independent sources are up. With a speedy deletion there is no chance to react to anything Bmwtroll ( talk) 07:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse A7. As this doesn't seem to stand a chance at AfD, it would be a waste of time to list it there. If the article creator thinks reliable sources that verify notability, then I would have no problem with userfication, as long as the article creator understands that substantial improvement is needed before the article can be restored to mainspace. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - find a couple sources, and I or someone else in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles can restore it to your userspace to be made suitable for the mainspace, at which point it can be moved back (and no longer A7-able). Without 'em, AfD is just going to delete so, so a trip there is pointless. Wily D 17:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as a valid A7 (as web content), but without any great enthusiasm allow it to a list at AFD. It has virtually no chance of surviving that, and in a week we'll all be back where we started, which leads me to conclude it's pure process wonkery. But if it makes the article creator or any other editors feel happy I don't see why not. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 01:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Endorse as per WP:IAR  I think the case has been made that best practice here is not to enforce the speedy deletion.  However, I can't get past the username here, and the highly competent application of Wiki policy with no edits to explain the mastery.  Unscintillating ( talk) 06:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @Unscintillating: yes, I know already that the combination for my user name was not smart. When I first registered I did not actually know for what Troll is used in the Internet and BMW is my interest. My knowledge of Wiki comes from my writing and use mainly in the German Wiki (see my contribution list since 2009 ). If I consider something valuable in the German Wiki then sometimes I create an English version. Bmwtroll ( talk) 08:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Admin's actions were valid. "explicitly excludes educational institutions when using A7" means exactly that: Institutions. We are not writing articles for every dorm of every school and for every MS thesis. Notability is not inherited.- Altenmann >t 05:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn speedy, list at AFD. The OP's argument is utter nonsense, but this "game" is downloadable software, not web content,and therefore expressly not eligible for A7 deletion. It may be "purely digital", but so are e-books and Itunes-exclusive releases. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 12:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and list. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has it right, the "game" is in a downloadable compressed archive containing of a number of files I don't usually think of executable (PNG, PSD, DOCX, PDF, XLS, etc.), but a narrow construction of CSD critieria probably excludes it, and if it didn't, it wouldn't exclude eBooks etc. either. Considering this "not web content" leaves us with a more consistent policy. -- j⚛e decker talk 01:16, 19 March 2014 (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/2014_March_12&oldid=1082336990"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE