User talk:Thparkth/Archives/2016/January

Removal of Speedy Deletion template on Baby on the Move and AuCom Electronics
Hi, you removed two speedy deletion templates I placed, your reasons seems to be "some substantial press coverage already linked in the article, google search revealed more - this is not a speedy deletion candidate" and "some press coverage, claim of 17 stores in New Zealand means it is likely a widely-recognized brand there." My understanding of the db-inc template policy is that press coverage or google search are irrelevant - "an article about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. " In the articles I did not find anything important or significant about the company compared to other companies operating in the same ara, market etc. Did you? Is having 17 franchise stores (no manufacturing) so significant? Both articles look like PR to me. Could you explain how you understand A7 and WP:CCS so that I know what not to evaluate and tag? I agree that in the theoretical group of articles that could be tagged db-inc, these two are by no means the worst, but where do you think the boundary is? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello and Happy New Year!
 * It's well established practice that any non-trivial press coverage about a topic is enough to make it immune from A7 deletion - the press coverage is a credible claim of significance, even if it isn't referenced in the article. See this discussion for example.
 * All of the other points you make, which I agree are valid and pertinent questions, are really matters of judgement suitable for discussion at AfD, not reasons for CSD deletion. For example, New Zealand is a small country, and having 17 stores means this is basically a nationwide retail chain. Are nationwide retail chains notable? Yes kinda maybe but not always, right? There is a discussion to be had, a judgement to be made, and a consensus to be reached. Speedy deletion deprives the community of the opportunity to have that discussion.
 * Similarly, the other article has some press coverage. Is it enough? Does it establish notability? Different people will have different ideas about that. But as soon as you can see that there is a legitimate question about notability to be discussed, you immediately know that speedy deletion A7 does not apply.
 * In general, any time you know that there is a legitimate argument that could reasonably be made in an AfD in favour of keeping a particular article - even if you don't agree with it - that article is no longer a speedy deletion candidate.
 * I wouldn't say that you are doing anything wrong in your deletion tagging - those weren't abusive or thoughtless tags, they were reasonable ones which I just happen to feel push the speedy deletion definitions a little further than they are meant to go.
 * Cheers,
 * Thparkth (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I like your answer but do you think it necessary to search for press coverage that might estabilish notability before placing db-inc if it is not in the article? For example, the AuCom Electronics has only one acceptable source, by Hedquist about New Zealand Hi-Tech Awards, but all the info about Aucom in there comes directly from Aucom. I know that this is a different thing but does it make it really notable? I came across these two orphans by chance but generally I do not like company articles with no real info besides what I can learn from their official sites etc. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is necessary to search for press coverage. There have been on-and-off discussions over the years about putting WP:BEFORE into the A7 template, effectively making it mandatory to search for press coverage before nominating. However not everyone agrees! Thparkth (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems I am one of those who take the opposite stance. The link you provided is useful concerning AfD but it does not deal with speedy deletion; my reasoning would stop at B 1. "Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep." Anyway, thans for your comments. --WikiHannibal (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Computerworld New Zealand is probably a reliable source, and an editorial article with a staff byline is probably independent coverage, unless the article is obviously just a cut-and-paste-job from a press release. This one looks like it's based on an interview. Trade press articles aren't usually as aggressively-inquisitive or critical as we might wish, but I'd say that the starting point on that article is that it carries weight for notability. Again, we're into judgement calls... Thparkth (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like an interview but if you look into it, all info about it is attributed to Craig Tuffnell, who probably just sent in the company's press release(s). That's why I do not like these company profiles infesting wiki. The difference is whether you assess the article as it is per A7, or its subject - and looking for independent coverage for each subject someone writes an unsourced or superficially sourced article about is too time-consuming (=when to stop looking). --WikiHannibal (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You may well be right about the article - but your argument is one for AfD, not a basis for speedy deletion. Thparkth (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing
The content you've re-added to the Talbot article is not "verified." An author quoted his claims about himself. She clearly did not do any research or investigation. That is not a WP:RS source. You can't "verify" that a white guy is a Native Elder by reading his own claims then repeating them verbatim. You are reverting to add misinformation to the 'pedia. The other sources you've reverted me to re-add aren't in English, so regular users of en-wiki cannot evaluate them. This is inappropriate. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 22:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any basis at all for your opinion that this book, from the Oxford University Press, is not a reliable source, other than your disagreement with what it says?
 * Do you have any policy basis for discounting sources not in English? That's a silly question actually - your position on this is directly contrary to policy.
 * Look, I don't have any emotional investment in this topic. But you clearly do. In all seriousness I think it is affecting your ability to assess the situation dispassionately. Why not back off for a while? Thparkth (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the concerns voiced in the AfD. I think it's clear. His genealogy and real history is available online, but most Natives do not have access to academic journals or mainstream coverage, so the criticism has appeared in Native forums and blogs (so is not usable as inline cites). I'm really not sure how else to explain it to you. That writer has no expertise in issues of Native identity. It's a passing quote from Talbot's book, and she simply repeats his bio. If she had checked, it wouldn't be in there. Just google the guy. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 22:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess when it comes down to it, I believe in verifiabiliy, not truth, particularly when we're talking about issues of self-identification by a living person. He says he is X, a number of solid sources say that he is X. We should say he is X too, in the absence of reliable sources stating otherwise. Anyway, Indian Bands can determine their membership any way they like, so it's not completely impossible that the claim is true regardless of this genetics. Thparkth (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Manitonquat DRV: disgruntled editors institute edit war
FYI: Despite notability has been established (See DRV just concluded) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_29 One apparently disgruntled contributor thereto User:CorbieV seems to be instituting redundant deletion attempt. Otherwise I'm not seeing any indication that nominators for deletion are at all familiar with the contents of this DRV.

'''I copy you notice of deletion Nomination from User:Montanabw Talk page: ''' Nomination of Manitonquat for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manitonquat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Manitonquat (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Montanabw (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Horse Dancing (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I don't know if you did already, but it's quite important that in the interest of fairness you also bring this new AfD to the attention of the people who !voted not to allow recreation in the DRV. Thparkth (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Thparkth. This is my first experience taking part in a deletion / recreation debate, so very much appreciate all tips, directions to instructions page, etc. Hope to do everything kosher, but probably miss some bits alright. Horse Dancing (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please readdress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_January_17#East_Asian_myths_about_the_evolution_of_folded_eyelids
Please readdress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_January_17#East_Asian_myths_about_the_evolution_of_folded_eyelids

Basically, I introduced "here are the existing myths in this topic of evolution." Then, I linked the related relevant scientific & ethnological facts in East Asia. Then, the article was deleted because "virtually nothing in this article is validly sourced" (which is false claim because I linked research institutes & newspapers) & "you are wrong in considering that "worthy of interest" means "notable"." (which is false because the article was notable by being an existing topic of significant facts) & "The topic of how folded eyelids evolved could be interesting, but this article sheds no light on the subject. It states right up front that there is no scientific information on the subject" (which is irrelevant as I was introducing myths instead of talking about the actual evolution). So, 2 of them are false claims, and the last one doesn't apply if the title is not on the evolution but on the myths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolution_of_folded_eyelids

Be very specific in your claims. Which part is wrong why? Wikibreaking (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi ,
 * At "deletion review" (DRV) we are not really discussing the article itself, but rather reviewing whether or not the deletion discussion was carried out correctly. As you can tell from the fact that I !voted to endorse the outcome, I do believe it was carried out correctly.
 * Thparkth (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And I am objecting that it was not carried out properly for the 3 reasons I listed above.
 * Wikibreaking (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but there are only certain reasons why a deletion discussion can be overturned, and those aren't them :) There is only one reason for overturning the deletion which might possible apply here; if you can identify reliable sources which clearly and specifically talk about the subject, then that might persuade DRV participants that the article should be recreated. Thparkth (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)