Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stifle (talk | contribs) at 11:16, 8 December 2008 (→Xdelta: endorse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

5 December 2008

User:akanemoto (closed)

Ashkenazi intelligence

Ashkenazi intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) - AfD discussion is here

Page was kept due to popular vote, not consensus. None of the arguments which countered the Keep votes were addressed, merely ignored. The discussion did not attract enough users for a consensus. I move to either overturn the decision or relist the article for deletion and expand the discussion. Closing admin has no talk page, merely a link to deletion review. ScienceApe (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse decision. There was no consensus to delete the article, nor did the strength of the delete arguments outweigh the strength of the keep arguments. The admin made the right decision. —BradV 05:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse decision. There were valid arguments made to keep the article - this is consensus. It seemed that the proposer was more concerned with the science (or lack of) itself rather than the notability, and that an encyclopedia article is not a scientific journal piece. The admin did the right thing. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• endorse decision a popular vote of informed established editors using consideration of policy is consensus. There was no apparent sockpuppetry, no ILIKEIT, no IKNOWITSIMPORTANT, no pile-ons. Every Keep argument had a sensible reason. so of course did most of the delete arguments, but more of the people there said keep. I think that's all an admin need judge. If he were to judge relative strength of the arguments, some of the deletes were based on the topic being inherently racist, which is not a good argument and verges on CENSORship, and a persistent effort by the nominator to assert inadequate data, which was not substantiated. There was a first noconsensus keep on Feb 2007, and then a keep on Nov. 2007. This is a year later. Consensus has not changed. Reading the afds, I'd say the keep is a little stronger now. It would be in my view improper to bring this up gain fora at least another year. (I dod wish Stifle had explained his close a when the afd is as much contested by responsible editors on each side.; I think also it is his obligation as a closing admin to have a talk page and respond to questions there. But nonetheless his decision was right. )DGG (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC) .
  • I choose to ask all users opposing my AFD closures to come straight here because I consider that reversing a closure is unfair to the users who have seen and are satisfied with the result, and I consider my closures carefully (by opening several tabs, considering the decisions separately, and then posting them all at once — this action is for reasons related to my internet connection) and find that I rarely, if ever, reverse my closures on request. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The majority of the deletes were not based on the topic being inherently racist at all. They were based on the reasoning of two key issues. That the article was based on a paper, so it therefore the paper itself counts as a first party source, and the lack of reliable third party sources. Furthermore my claims of inadequate data is substantiated by the sheer amount of original research in the article that would require the removal of at least two sections leaving only a paragraph on the original paper. This is not sufficient for an entire article. The previous AFD closing admin admitted that the article was bad and in need of citations, but in over a year the article's quality was not improved because reliable third party sources for this topic do not exist. So the original research persisted. ScienceApe (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse own decision. AFD is not a court of law or a debating society where users "win" or "lose" by making arguments that aren't refuted by others; rather, it is an attempt to gauge whether the general feeling (or consensus, if you will) of Misplaced Pages users is towards keeping or deleting the article. Users aren't required to have good, watertight reasons for having their opinion (although the users in this deletion discussion did, as a general rule). Stifle (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There weren't enough opinions to reach a consensus. The discussion should be extended to include more opinions on the matter. ScienceApe (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • If you feel that the official deletion process terms of when deletion discussions should be amended (you can read what's currently there at WP:RELIST), feel free to propose a change at Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion process or elsewhere. However, this deletion discussion had 17 contributors, which is three times the usual amount. Therefore, with due respect, it seems to me that while you say you would like more opinions, what I think you want is more opinions that agree with yours. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Can we wrap this up now? There was consensus and there appears to be no basis for this appeal (according to the directions on appeals). The user seeking deletion simply does not agree with the consensus opinion (or that there was even a consensus) and this probably won't change. Remove the tag and let's get on with other things. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
        • We may as well leave it for the five days unless ScienceApe withdraws. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not really sure what you are saying I can do. Proposing a change at Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion process doesn't seem very useful in this situation. What can I do at WP:RELIST)? Considering the subject matter, I would like to have more opinions actually. The article is subject to bias, and quite a few of the contributers who voted "Keep" were Jewish including A Sniper. A discussion on this subject should have more opinions than the typical article to help weed out any possible bias. ScienceApe (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
            • As I already said, this discussion did have more opinions than the typical article. Three times as many. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
              • Like I said. I would like more than what the AFD had considering the controversial nature of the subject matter. ScienceApe (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

quite a few of the contributers who voted "Keep" were Jewish WTF!? Not only is this proposal for deletion absurd, but ScienceApe's standing is near zero if not less than zero after this statement. Close the deletion review already. Arguments for deleting the article mostly boil down to opposition to the theory (which I agree is pretty weak) rather than notability. CAVincent (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC) - After cooling down, I realize I was overly sensitive here and owe ScienceApe an apology for the personal attack (re: his standing). I'd remove it, but then part of his response wouldn't make sense. CAVincent (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Whether you like it or not, what I said is true. There is a possibility for bias which would interfere with the AFD discussion. Arguments for deleting the article were covered comprehensively if you read the AFD discussion, which I'm assuming you didn't since your last statement was incorrect. The arguments for deleting the article are clearly presented. Please read them carefully before commenting. ScienceApe (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I did read the arguments. You started the nomination discussion with "Article is poorly written, and does not have much scientific supporting evidence. Seems to be supporting racial superiority rather than reporting actual scientific data. There are really only three sections, none of which support the claim that Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than other ethnicities. " While no one is disputing that the article is poorly written, the rest of this as well as your subsequent arguments stem from the mistaken belief that the article's purpose is to present as fact arguments for superior Ashkenazi intelligence. As numerous editors have attempted to point out, this is not true - the article is instead about the existence of claims of superior Ashkenazi intelligence and responses to those claims. (I do think a better job could be done making this distinction in the article.) Your statements such as "there was only one reliable source" make sense only in the context of this mistake. There are in fact many reliable sources cited and more which could be added to verify that this topic has been notably discussed among scientists and covered in major publications (NY Times, Washington Post, National Geographic, etc.). Just because the claim for superior intelligence is not scientifically well-supported is not a valid reason to delete the article. And as for the comment that many "keep" voters are Jewish, I don't know how you are able to establish this (do Jewish edits in wikipedia look Jewish?) but are you seriously suggesting that people who endorse keeping the article are motivated by a desire to claim their ethnic superiority? CAVincent (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I should point out that every user who is endorsing the decision, also voted to keep the article in question in the AFD to begin with, other than the closing admin. ScienceApe (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • And? Stifle (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it's pretty obvious. They would logically support the decision because it supports their view that the article should be kept. ScienceApe (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Correct reading of the debate, with reasonable keep arguments based on their interpretation of policy. It was also well attended compared to many AFD discussions. Davewild (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Keep was based on support by participants referencing the reliable and verifiable sources in the article. No evidence that there is any aspect of the close that is out of process. Alansohn (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There was only one reliable source. The paper itself which we established was a first party source since the article is based on it. The other sources are unreliable. There are no reliable third party sources. According to Misplaced Pages's policies, reliable third party sources are required. No reliabloe third party sources are cited, nor were any presented. There might be bias in the discussion due to the controversial nature of the subject matter. I feel the discussion should be expanded to gather more opinions on this matter. ScienceApe (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Scripps Health

Scripps Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Page was deleted citing G11. It is my feeling that the page in question was no more advertising that that of any of our local competitors:

• Former Scripps Health page
• Sharp Healthcare
• UCSD Medical Center

Or, for that matter, any other article on Misplaced Pages about a healthcare organization. Original article was created by members of the community and should thus be reinstated. I also feel that the former Scripps Health page did a good job in representing our organization's dedication to our community, our mission and our deep history.

Issue was discussed at length with responsible admin to no avail. Markle1111 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem when editing an article with a conflict of interest - Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be encyclopedic; text that details an organisation's "dedication to the community, mission and deep history" is promotional press release material, not an encyclopedia article. Somno (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Restore and rewrite This is a major organization. The article was promotional, but there was the core of a usable article there. It can be a difficult balance whether to try to rewrite something that needs this degree of rewriting, but I'd be willing to help do it when the organization is clearly important as this. . Most of the articles in the timeline are relevant nonpromotional content--the earlier advertising part can be readily removed. I do point out to the ed. that the UCSD article he mentions is a model of how to do it right, and the sharp, is at least adequate. Do as well and there shouldn't be problems. For a guide , I recommend our Business FAQ (which also applies to non-profit organisations) DGG (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Restore to user space. As this was a speedy then a restore should be almost automatic if an editor is making a committment to improve it and it appears to have a chance of notability (assuming, for example, it wasn't a G10). Of course, the requester can just create the article again - as long as it is then fit for purpose it won't be deleted without a prod or AfD review. However, per Somno, it is much more likely to be deleted if "members of the community" (i.e., those with a potential conflict of interest) write it. Given the likelihood of attracting another speedy if it is just restored I'd suggest it was moved into the user space for revision first. Unusual? Quite 09:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy only. The content there is far too much in the nature of an advertisement to be restored straight. But there could be a good article made out of this; make sure to wikify properly and add citations to third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment could someone who is able to see the article make sure it's not a copyvio a fair percentage of G11 candidates are copied directly from press releases or official websites. I really have no idea, so maybe it's obviously not, but I just thought we should be certain before anything is restored. Guest9999 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This user is an employee of the company who worked on the deleted version and thought it was mostly appropriate and neutral. I have no objection at all to an article on this subject being created, and would cheerfully copy the deleted article to someone's userspace to be made into a usable article... I'd just prefer it wasn't someone with a conflict of interest and a goal of promotion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and recreate as stub per WP:CSD, "Deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria. Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate." There is a clear claim of notability and there is no reason that any material deemed as advertising could not have been removed, leaving a bare stub to describe the entity. This article is far more likely to become a viable article if it can expand in mainspace, rather than relying on one editor to expand it as a user page. Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Xdelta

Xdelta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I'm asking to undelete article about Xdelta tool from http://xdelta.org or you can create new article. Reasons are simple:

• This tool is one of very few opensource tools implementing delta compression technique so I believe it is worth of mentioning.
• This tool significantly differs from mentioned diff tool in sense that it is a generic tool suitable for delta-compressing of arbitrary binary files in efficient manner. Diff in contrast only suitable for text files and can not handle arbitrary binary files gracefully.
• This tool targets different goals than cited rsync tool and they can't replace each other directly and fully. These are two different and not equivalent tools.
• Xdelta is one of very few VCDIFF delta-encoding standard implementations described in RFC 3284.
• Xdelta could be a good example of practical implementation for Delta compression article.
• It is not seems to be good if someone (like I did) have to use Google just to get idea what is this Xdelta tool rather than quickly read full and competent description of tool on Misplaced Pages. When I'm searching about explanation "what is this thing?" I'm really prefer to use Misplaced Pages. That's why everyone uses encyclopedias at all, right?
• Xdelta could be a good point to start for those who want to study some efficient practical implementation of delta compression techniques. There is just few implementations of delta compression techniques in the world. And even fewer are opensource (so you're allowed to learn how such tool works). And surely only very few tools (if any) can compete with xdelta in it's efficiency.

In short I see no need to deny Misplaced Pages visitors from rights to have this knowledge. I can see some benefits from this article for everyone interested in delta compression topic. The only persons who will really benefit from this deletion are manufacturers of commercial tools with same functionality who are surely interested to hide such knowledge as far as possible. 91.78.236.168 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• This article was deleted almost six months ago. Can you please explain why you are only requesting deletion review now? Stifle (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why does that matter? It's never too late to bring an article up for deletion review. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I would like to understand the user's reasons for listing here. The answer won't prejudice my recommendation (although failing to give one will result in an "endorse by default". Stifle (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Clear cut AfD. The statements listed above even if raised at the AfD would be unlikely to have changed the consensus. Per normal policy I'd suggest the person wanting it recreated simply goes ahead and creates a properly referenced article if they can. Unusual? Quite 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment take a look at the notability guidlines they don't mention styuff like being "one of very few VCDIFF delta-encoding standard implementations described in RFC 3284" or "a good point to start for those who want to study some efficient practical". What it's generally about is does the broader world believe it's notable such that they've bothered to write about it. If those points you raise are signficant to the world at large, and this is indeed a good example, then surely they will have bothered to write about it? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Surely that's formally right but after all, are you about knowledge or you're just about bureaucracy? What is your priority, people? I'm really sure that article will not make Misplaced Pages anyhow worse but it will make it better at least for these persons who is interested in topic of data compression. Surely, delta compression is not widely known technique, at least yet so specific tool implementing it like Xdelta is not overpopular, too. But look, 150 years ago electricity has also been rare and unpopular topic. So, what if Misplaced Pages existed 150 years ago? Will you deny all articles about electricity until you have electric bulb in your house, yeah? And even delete articles about Edisson and incandescent bulbs as "insignificant"? As for me this seems to be strange and frustrating and definitely, your developed bureaucracy does not encourages me to share knowledge. What the hell I have to cope with your awful bureaucracy rather than simply try to improve article if I can? And as for me, deletion of such articles is a vandalism or ignorance unless you're completely out of a disk space for your data and have to delete "less valuable" data so "more valuable" data can fit the space. As for me, I have some knowledge on data compression topic but I'm surely do NOT want to cope with awful bureaucracy and all barriers you're trying to create for me. I'm sure it is easy to trash article. But it is not easy to write new one and why should I bother myself? Just to waste my valuable time to see how someone else will request deletion and voila, work of few hours gone into trash in just a second?! Then corporate guys can celebrate small victory over knowledge and can sell their closed-source undocumented and highly-secretive tools where license prohibits me from gaining knowledge on how their tool works at all. With increased profits since it become a bit harder for interested in topic to discover existence of open tool they needed. Go on with your bureaucracy, I don't care. The only thing is that I like opensource tools because they somewhat have same goal as Misplaced Pages itself: you can get information about how tool works from it's sources. Not to mention that people has requested such information few times and Delta compression article lacks of it (there is only one simplest example covering only certain aspects of delta encoding and nothing else at all). Regards, guy who had IP 91.78.236.168 before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.243.47 (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Well most of those things get bought up again and again, and the policies don't change on this stuff. Most of it comes from what wikipedia is not as the policies/guidelines are wrapped around that. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the notability standards help enforce this, wikipedia shouldn't be a dumping ground for anything and everything, you may believe that this is really important and you may be right, but in that case the rest of the world will soon pick up on it and then we've no issue. Misplaced Pages is not a source of original thought/primary source, we rely on being referenced to reliable third party sources, it's a common thing here for people to threaten not to share their knowledge and it's a meaningless threat since we don't want to be the first published of such knowledge... "No harm" type arguments tend not to hold much sway, it's a matter of perspective (and therefore subjective) as to the harm caused, say this one is deemed not to meet our standards but by "no harm" we keep it in, what about the next and the next and the next, then we find the quality of the goals of the encyclopedia are being diluted by all these which don't meet those standards. Your argument about electricity is rather false, there will have been millions of other things which were being investigated/experimented/invented 150 years ago, many of those will have disappeared into obscurity or never got outside of the inventors mind, wikipedia editors aren't the ones to decide which ones are significant in that lot. If At a point in time details on electricity would have been published in reliable third party sources long before there was an electrical supply to everyones home, wikipedia could have documented it at that earlier stage. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The AfD debate was clearly in support of deletion. If the original requester User:91.78.236.168 wants to re-create the article, they can do so, although they will have to register a Misplaced Pages account first because one has to be a logged-in editor to create articles. If any registered editor (including 91.78.236.168 after they log in) wants a copy of the former Xdelta article to work on in their user space, they can post here, and either I or someone else will undelete the article and move it to their user space for them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (note - I have not viewed the deleted article) fair reading of consensus at AfD, any reliably sourced information about the topic might be includable in an article on the broader subject area. Guest9999 (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Kink.com (closed)