Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2019 August 20
2019 August 22 >

21 August 2019

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bike or Die! (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a highly popular game on the PalmOS platform, similar to X-Moto on PC. It is difficult to find references and sources for this game since many of the older PalmOS websites have since closed down. But the game lives on on iPhone today with Bike or Die 2 (much less popular, likely due to the lack of hardware controls on iphones and the simplistic graphics by today's standards), and the main website is still online for more info. Almost all of the other [Palm OS games list have died since except for this one (and Warfare incorporated) - but this is just one example of its notoriety. A very large online community was generated around this game, which was significant for what were largely offline devices. Deletion history here

There are other articles I would suggest for deletion on the [Palm OS games list], but this is not one of them. pinchies (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (the one who created the AfD) You are free to nominate any of the PalmOS games on the list you wish if you think they are not notable. That doesn't mean Bike or Die is notable. There are also multiple issues with your deletion review:
1) There were no issues with the closure, which is the basis of a deletion review
2) There were no new sources brought forward, also one of the points of a deletion review
3) "highly popular game" and "A very large online community was generated around this game" What is your proof of that? I will WP:AGF that you have no WP:COI in this, but WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSNOTABLE aren't good arguments.
4) WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument does not stand, as per WP:NRV we need evidence for significant coverage. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh / Relist. I can't say the close was wrong per-se, but I dislike deleting pages based on so little input. Had I closed this, I would have either relisted it or (more likely) closed it as WP:SOFTDELETE. I'm not impressed by the nom's argument that since it's difficult to find sources, we should forgo the sourcing requirement, but there's no harm in letting them make that argument at AfD and see how it plays out. Who knows, maybe somebody will find sources? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS, draftify seems like a reasonable alternative. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear your comments around "I like it" and "no available sources" being poor excuses to relist - totally fair enough.
Here's a quick effort to find some examples from others, some more credible than others:
Reviews Bike or Die! has received many five star reviews, by both customers and official reviewers.
My complaint would be that assessing articles like this one for deletion based on lack of sources is difficult, as many of the websites have closed down - as you will notice the large number of archive.org links above. I don't think a lack of present day sources is reason to suggest something was not notable at the time, but I understand that the burden of proof falls on the article writer. Without having seen the original article I am not in a position to assess whether this was the case or not. I would like to add the links above as supporting evidence to the article, if it does get relisted. Thank you for your consideration. I have no conflict of interest except a passion for this old game, that I wasted many many hours on as a teen.
For better or worse, it has actually been deleted and reinstated before too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_or_Die pinchies (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section headers need to be removed here as it's made it more difficult to comment than usual, but there were only two !voters at the AfD (including the nom) making it a soft delete, so I really don't see any harm in a relist given the DRV has been challenged, even though this could have been avoided entirely by just asking the closer on their talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 20:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "The section headers need to be removed" I've done as likewise it was breaking formatting of the whole page, making it more difficult to comment and to me my mind at least making it a confrontation between the lister and the other commenters rather than a discussion. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm fine with restoring this, but perhaps it would be preferable if I restored to Pinchies' sandbox so he could work on it further first, and possibly submit via AfC when he's done? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reclose as Soft Delete The author can then make a request for undeletion or have the article go to draft space. That said, I do think the onus is on the author to make the case that there is sufficient sourcing for the article. --Enos733 (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reclose as soft delete with largely the same thinking about next steps as Enos. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response from requester Firstly, apologies for the formatting problems, I appreciate your patience. I'm happy with the suggestions to have the article as a draft to work on, and to try to improve the quality and sourcing before submitting it for review. Also did not intend to make this a confrontation, I think I misunderstood how this review process is supposed to work. I appreciate the open minds and frank discussion, so thanks to you all. Finally, I am a bit curious - is there anyone here who has used PalmOS, or tried this game in particular? pinchies (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as first preference; draftify as second preference. I remember playing a really good bike game some years ago, and when I saw this DRV this morning I thought it was about the game I'd played. That was rather shocking because the game I played, and I don't play many computer games, was such a good game. And I recall doing reasonably well at it. But then it struck me that I've never had a Palm OS, whatever that is. It turns out through my googling that I was thinking of Elasto Mania, which I see has quite rightly attracted a 96% google review score (but who are the 4%???) and a wikipedia article in no apparent danger of deletion. Anyway, back to the point: this was a low-participation AfD for a subject that could well be notable. I think re-opening the AfD would be the best course, as many if not most admins would have re-listed it. If there's no consensus here to do that, draftifying seems acceptable to the article's creator and a good approach. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reclose as Soft Delete as per Roy Smith. But draftify is comparable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Here is one time where we need more participation. WP:RUSHDELETE is a useful guideline Lightburst (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. It was a low participation AfD, and the sole non-nominator !vote was rather perfuctory. Nsk92 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2019 (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.
Jessica Yaniv waxing case (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Highly contested AfD and deletion review. But majority users wanted Keep or Revive this article.

This reasonings are entirely subjective to the closing admins. There was no consensus for deletion or Deletion review.

I oppose the deletion because If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. --Sharouser (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • I disagree, and I disagree strongly enough to respond out of the box. She's a non-notable individual, a search of her name brings up only WP:FRINGE content which would make it difficult to write a BLP article that isn't an attack piece, and her original name should have been salted at DRV. If there is a way forward here that's not deletion, it would be to create an article in the style of a legal case article with the actual legal name of the case as the title at AfC. SportingFlyer T·C 06:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Galbraith (property consultancy) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The reason for deletion is that the company if not of any note just ogin around its daily business as any other firm in this industry does. If this is the case why are all estate agency/property consultancy articles not removed, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savills or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Frank ? The Galbraith article was just as relevant as either of these appear to be. If they are classed as more noteworthy I would like to know why. 51.148.106.137 (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse and even speedy close Invalid rationale (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST even if just an essay) that doesn't address the result of AfD itself or the way the consensus was interpreted at all, nor it is offering any evidence that the subject became notable since then. Not to mention it is done by an IP user whose edits are only about this (possible COI). If you believe they are not notable, you are free to nominate both Savills and Knight Frank if you wish. That doesn't change the fact that Galbraith is/was non-notable at the time of the discussion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it did go through an AfC apparently and the AfD wasn't the best in terms of participation, but I'm not seeing any reason to overturn on the merits at this time (though I haven't seen the article) as all that's being referenced here is WP:OSE. SportingFlyer T·C 20:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was clearly appropriate on the arguments presented. I've independently looked for coverage in reliable sources of this business. All I have found is (a) quite a lot of real estate news about particular properties that Galbraith sells, and (b) press-releasey articles on business websites about Galbraith hires and promotions and the like. The problem on count (a) is that it isn't significant coverage of Galbraith, which our notability guidelines require, and on count (b) is that the coverage isn't in reliable sources that can give us a good independent assessment of the company. Deletion was both procedurally and substantively correct.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per User:Jovanmilic97. No error by closer. Only real issue is whether the IP has a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the AfD was unanimous, so no other possible way to close it. Speedy close as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. Not to mention almost certainly WP:COI and/or WP:UPE. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2019 (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.
Aleluya (En La Tierra) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was moved to draftspace without consensus by a now CU-blocked user. This should have been left to run its course or be closed by an admin. Note was redirected through AN. Thanks Nightfury 08:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist - being CU blocked aside, it should have had a discussion at the very least. Being closed less than an hour after it's listing seems odd, if nothing else. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Endorse, and a huge trout to myself for not picking up on what Mkativerata (talk · contribs) did. Article creator moving it back to draft space completely justifies procedural close. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for full discussion. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The diffs say that it was the article creator who moved the article back into draft space: [1]. All the AfD closer was doing was recording that occurrence and closing the AfD accordingly.[2] Is that right? If so, the closer's description of the close as a "procedural close" seems entirely correct, and he or she did the right thing. And we should have no problem with an article-creator draftifying an article for which they're the only editor, so that the article avoids the guillotine of an AfD and the creator can do some more work on it. I think there's nothing to see here. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse. This is all a little weird (including the WP:NAC by a sock), but the end result is clearly reasonable. The article's out of mainspace, and the primary author gets to continue work on it in the safety of draft space. I don't see that anything else has to happen. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per RoySmith and Mkativerata. SportingFlyer T·C 22:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per RoySmith and others. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse By my reading, on 14 August: The article was created at 22:24. It was put up for AfD at 23:09. At 23:12, the author moved it to draft space, which rendered the AfD obsolete. Because of this, a non-admin "procedurally" closed the discussion at 23:53. It's unfortunate the user who closed the discussion didn't make it clear that it was the OP who moved the page and not the closer, but the closure was nonetheless correct. The outcome (a draft is now in draft space) is also, imho, desirable. Suggest speedy close if my analysis is correct. --kingboyk (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse peer Roy Smith rationale. Lightburst (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2019 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_August_21&oldid=1039531754"