Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2013 January 27
2013 January 29 >

28 January 2013

  • FolderSize – Deletion Overturned I was going to list it but most probably it could be saved if we stub it down and allow it to regrow organically with both pros and cons reflected in the article. When I looked through the sources earlier there were some criticism that wasn't reflected in the article. NPOV and balance requires both sides so while you get your article back we have to get a both sides in it – Spartaz Humbug! 14:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Just editing to add that nothing in this DRV should be seen as justification for maintaining an advertorial tone in the article and that COI editors need to be extra careful to avoid giving the impression that they are editing to achieve a particular POV. Spartaz Humbug! 04:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
FolderSize ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page provides information regarding a reputable FREE tool referenced in many authority software web sites and magazines and also included in the PCWorld 2013 issue CD:


Please do not remove this page as it is a useful information regarding disk cleanup for home and professional users. Allancass ( talk) 15:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Allancass ( talk) 15:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

    • temporarily restored for consideration here DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and send to afd This was deleted twice, once for A7 no indication of importance, and a second time for being exclusively promotional, G11. It qualifies for speedy under neither count.
As for G7, the article text does not have any one statement make it clear what the importance is, but the article has links to acceptable references which do more than show importance, they show notability,. Even the first version had a joint review with another similar program from PC World, the present one has in addition an individual addition review from CNET. These are full reviews, not mere mentions. They are both editorial reviews, offering opinions from named writers, and are not just copies of their press releases. Both sources have a good reputation, and are frequently used here as RSs for software notability. The deleting admin took the reviews into account, a/c his talk p., but I see he objected there were only two of them. That's an invalid criteria, even for notability, let alone a mere indication of importance. (naturally , more do help; from that discussion, they seem to be available). There have been recent discussions at WT:AFD about the inadvisability of deleting a sourced article via A7; my own view was that we needed no prohibition against it, because any admin would check if the ref were a possibly acceptable source--but perhaps I was wrong and we do need such a rule.
As for G11, this is a straightforward factual description of the main features of the program. that is not advertising. An article about software should be composed primarily of such content, with addition matter about the reception (normally quoted from the reviews--the present reviews would do), often something about its degree of adoption by users; and something about the company and the production of the product. The opportunities for promotionalism are correspondingly: inclusion of a biased selection of positive reviews, or excessive quotations from them; excessively detailed description of minor or routine features; uncited irresponsible statements about its wide use, or long lists of companies that may have bought a copy; panegyrics about the quality and fame of the company or the programmers. And,of course, direct praise of the quality and usefulness of the program. None of these are present here.
I note that though there are good reasons for the appeal, some of the reasons given by the author are not valid--that the program is free is irrelevant, and we do not have the practice of telling people about what we personally consider useful things until they have been recognized as such by independent sources. But despite their unawareness of policy, they seem to have written a probably acceptable article.
I greatly respect the deleting admin, but he seems to have a higher standard of notability than the encyclopedia. He also blamed the user for going to DelRev not, as he had advised, REFUND, saying "I hate to be ignored" I think that amounts to biting the newbie. for one thing, it makes very little difference, except Refund is faster, and it's unreasonable of us to expect newcomers to recognize the importance of such fine points. In fact, if he thought it uncontroversial enough that Refund was acceptable, he could have restored it himself. Expressing annoyance at newcomer mistakes is inappropriate in any case, and I think he owes the new user an apology. (I agree the new user probably has COI, but that's no reason for disrespect, especially if they write a possibly acceptable article and aren't a nuisance about it. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • First of all I would like to thank DGG for the detailed analysis above and with no intention to flatter you I would say that I am impressed by your knowledge and competence. Thank you again for taking the time to provide so many details. I updated the page slightly and put it in the SANDBOX as instructed by RHaworth. I believe the update complies with all the guidelines that you have pointed and if you grant your permission I will restore it permanently. Thank you once again for your effort and time. Allancass ( talk) 02:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the A7 deletion of an article with two decent sources is clearly inexcusable. The G11 suggestion is ... close. I hestitate in whether I'd say it needs a substantial rewrite or a fundamental rewrite. It's probably the former, and I'm probably being set off by the use of the second person (which only occurs once). But I don't want to say "restore the article" - I want to say "Remind the admin who A7'd it that they shouldn't A7 articles that indicate the subject is significant, then write a decent stub for the subject that doesn't have a salesman-y tone.". Wily D 11:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The part of WilyD's post that I disagree with is the words "clearly inexcusable". New pages patrollers are playing an endless game of whack-a-mole, doing a boring, repetitive and typically thankless task, unpaid. It's unrealistic to expect 100% accuracy from them. NPP errors are annoying, and BITE-y, and they're an issue for editor retention, and the patrollers are in need of better supervision and support than they currently have. They're not inexcusable. But having said that, where DGG and WilyD are right is that DRV can't possibly sustain the speedy deletion in the face of the source-based arguments from good faith users that have been raised above. If anyone still wants to delete this then let them bring the matter to AfD, following the proper process in an orderly way.— S Marshall T/ C 12:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Restore, with the understanding that it will likely be at AFD soon. Let's be honest, if the article was spammy enough to be SD'd twice then it's going to need a lot of work, even if those SDs weren't ideal. But I can't see any major issue in letting someone do that work if they want to. There are obvious WP:COI and WP:SPA issues attached, so the editor should be prepared for that from the get-go. Perhaps sending it through the WP:AFC process would be a better bet - that way the author is made aware of WP:N ( WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:PRODUCT) and WP:V. Stalwart 111 00:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Restore You know, I've come to the conclusion that any speedy brought to DRV should be overturned by default unless it can be demonstrated that the original speedy was correct, while allowing immediate AfD nomination by default as well. In this case, it has been demonstrated above why the speedy deletion criteria were not applicable when applied. Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I would agree that in practice, most speedies that are brought to DRV by good faith editors should be listed for a full discussion. The view that any speedy brought to DRV should be overturned by default strikes me as a bit overstated and it sends the wrong message. Sysops need to have confidence that DRV is generally going to back them if they make a reasonable call.— S Marshall T/ C 10:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Restore A revised version of this article is located in my SANDBOX. Are there any further steps that should be performed or shall I upload it to the original location? Allancass ( talk) 17:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Please don't do that until Spartaz someone closes the deletion review. If we decide to overturn this deletion then the article history must also be restored, so that our contributors receive full credit in accordance with our terms of use which are linked at the bottom of every page. This means that the original article will have to be undeleted, not the copy in your userspace. Once that has been done, you can of course edit the restored article however you wish. Technically speaking, you shouldn't have an unattributed copy in your userspace and it's subject to speedy deletion as a copyright violation, although in these particular circumstances what you've done is understandable and no reasonable sysop would delete it until the DRV is closed.— S Marshall T/ C 20:56, 31 January 2013 (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/2013_January_28&oldid=1082508635"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2013 January 27
2013 January 29 >

28 January 2013

  • FolderSize – Deletion Overturned I was going to list it but most probably it could be saved if we stub it down and allow it to regrow organically with both pros and cons reflected in the article. When I looked through the sources earlier there were some criticism that wasn't reflected in the article. NPOV and balance requires both sides so while you get your article back we have to get a both sides in it – Spartaz Humbug! 14:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Just editing to add that nothing in this DRV should be seen as justification for maintaining an advertorial tone in the article and that COI editors need to be extra careful to avoid giving the impression that they are editing to achieve a particular POV. Spartaz Humbug! 04:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
FolderSize ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page provides information regarding a reputable FREE tool referenced in many authority software web sites and magazines and also included in the PCWorld 2013 issue CD:


Please do not remove this page as it is a useful information regarding disk cleanup for home and professional users. Allancass ( talk) 15:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Allancass ( talk) 15:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

    • temporarily restored for consideration here DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and send to afd This was deleted twice, once for A7 no indication of importance, and a second time for being exclusively promotional, G11. It qualifies for speedy under neither count.
As for G7, the article text does not have any one statement make it clear what the importance is, but the article has links to acceptable references which do more than show importance, they show notability,. Even the first version had a joint review with another similar program from PC World, the present one has in addition an individual addition review from CNET. These are full reviews, not mere mentions. They are both editorial reviews, offering opinions from named writers, and are not just copies of their press releases. Both sources have a good reputation, and are frequently used here as RSs for software notability. The deleting admin took the reviews into account, a/c his talk p., but I see he objected there were only two of them. That's an invalid criteria, even for notability, let alone a mere indication of importance. (naturally , more do help; from that discussion, they seem to be available). There have been recent discussions at WT:AFD about the inadvisability of deleting a sourced article via A7; my own view was that we needed no prohibition against it, because any admin would check if the ref were a possibly acceptable source--but perhaps I was wrong and we do need such a rule.
As for G11, this is a straightforward factual description of the main features of the program. that is not advertising. An article about software should be composed primarily of such content, with addition matter about the reception (normally quoted from the reviews--the present reviews would do), often something about its degree of adoption by users; and something about the company and the production of the product. The opportunities for promotionalism are correspondingly: inclusion of a biased selection of positive reviews, or excessive quotations from them; excessively detailed description of minor or routine features; uncited irresponsible statements about its wide use, or long lists of companies that may have bought a copy; panegyrics about the quality and fame of the company or the programmers. And,of course, direct praise of the quality and usefulness of the program. None of these are present here.
I note that though there are good reasons for the appeal, some of the reasons given by the author are not valid--that the program is free is irrelevant, and we do not have the practice of telling people about what we personally consider useful things until they have been recognized as such by independent sources. But despite their unawareness of policy, they seem to have written a probably acceptable article.
I greatly respect the deleting admin, but he seems to have a higher standard of notability than the encyclopedia. He also blamed the user for going to DelRev not, as he had advised, REFUND, saying "I hate to be ignored" I think that amounts to biting the newbie. for one thing, it makes very little difference, except Refund is faster, and it's unreasonable of us to expect newcomers to recognize the importance of such fine points. In fact, if he thought it uncontroversial enough that Refund was acceptable, he could have restored it himself. Expressing annoyance at newcomer mistakes is inappropriate in any case, and I think he owes the new user an apology. (I agree the new user probably has COI, but that's no reason for disrespect, especially if they write a possibly acceptable article and aren't a nuisance about it. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • First of all I would like to thank DGG for the detailed analysis above and with no intention to flatter you I would say that I am impressed by your knowledge and competence. Thank you again for taking the time to provide so many details. I updated the page slightly and put it in the SANDBOX as instructed by RHaworth. I believe the update complies with all the guidelines that you have pointed and if you grant your permission I will restore it permanently. Thank you once again for your effort and time. Allancass ( talk) 02:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the A7 deletion of an article with two decent sources is clearly inexcusable. The G11 suggestion is ... close. I hestitate in whether I'd say it needs a substantial rewrite or a fundamental rewrite. It's probably the former, and I'm probably being set off by the use of the second person (which only occurs once). But I don't want to say "restore the article" - I want to say "Remind the admin who A7'd it that they shouldn't A7 articles that indicate the subject is significant, then write a decent stub for the subject that doesn't have a salesman-y tone.". Wily D 11:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The part of WilyD's post that I disagree with is the words "clearly inexcusable". New pages patrollers are playing an endless game of whack-a-mole, doing a boring, repetitive and typically thankless task, unpaid. It's unrealistic to expect 100% accuracy from them. NPP errors are annoying, and BITE-y, and they're an issue for editor retention, and the patrollers are in need of better supervision and support than they currently have. They're not inexcusable. But having said that, where DGG and WilyD are right is that DRV can't possibly sustain the speedy deletion in the face of the source-based arguments from good faith users that have been raised above. If anyone still wants to delete this then let them bring the matter to AfD, following the proper process in an orderly way.— S Marshall T/ C 12:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Restore, with the understanding that it will likely be at AFD soon. Let's be honest, if the article was spammy enough to be SD'd twice then it's going to need a lot of work, even if those SDs weren't ideal. But I can't see any major issue in letting someone do that work if they want to. There are obvious WP:COI and WP:SPA issues attached, so the editor should be prepared for that from the get-go. Perhaps sending it through the WP:AFC process would be a better bet - that way the author is made aware of WP:N ( WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:PRODUCT) and WP:V. Stalwart 111 00:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Restore You know, I've come to the conclusion that any speedy brought to DRV should be overturned by default unless it can be demonstrated that the original speedy was correct, while allowing immediate AfD nomination by default as well. In this case, it has been demonstrated above why the speedy deletion criteria were not applicable when applied. Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I would agree that in practice, most speedies that are brought to DRV by good faith editors should be listed for a full discussion. The view that any speedy brought to DRV should be overturned by default strikes me as a bit overstated and it sends the wrong message. Sysops need to have confidence that DRV is generally going to back them if they make a reasonable call.— S Marshall T/ C 10:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Restore A revised version of this article is located in my SANDBOX. Are there any further steps that should be performed or shall I upload it to the original location? Allancass ( talk) 17:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Please don't do that until Spartaz someone closes the deletion review. If we decide to overturn this deletion then the article history must also be restored, so that our contributors receive full credit in accordance with our terms of use which are linked at the bottom of every page. This means that the original article will have to be undeleted, not the copy in your userspace. Once that has been done, you can of course edit the restored article however you wish. Technically speaking, you shouldn't have an unattributed copy in your userspace and it's subject to speedy deletion as a copyright violation, although in these particular circumstances what you've done is understandable and no reasonable sysop would delete it until the DRV is closed.— S Marshall T/ C 20:56, 31 January 2013 (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/2013_January_28&oldid=1082508635"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE