Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filterset.G


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was No consensus, if someone has a good merge target fine, but at this point there doesn't seem to be a clear one. RxS 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Filterset.G

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not assert notability, which would be difficult to do in any case. Filterset.G is simply a set of filters -- one among many -- created for the Firefox extension Adblock and its variants. As such, it does not adhere to WP:NOTE. R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Adblock. Then delete Adblock. Capmango 22:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Adblock is the most useful thing on the web. If it was a choice between wikipedia and adblock, I'd choose the latter. Nick mallory 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that last part was meant as a joke. Seriously, it seems like Filterset.G would be reasonable as part of the Adblock page. Capmango 02:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a comment about the notability of Adblock, it's a comment about the notability of one of the many filter sets available for it.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 08:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 10:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough! MERGE to adblock page. Nick mallory 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is the first popular filterset (probably the first but I could be wrong on that); definately the most notable. A merge is inappropriate, as it is supported by other browsers (i.e. not via Adblock or Adblock Plus). John Vandenberg 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not the first filterset. They existed long before Firefox did and used to require manually editing /etc/hosts (and whatever the Windows equivalent is).  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 05:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you know of another one that was widely distributed, now would the time to provide the evidence... John Vandenberg 07:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It will take a bit of digging. List of websites to block emerged soon after the mainstreaming of the web but Google isn't very helpful searching for historic web related items that have modern counterparts.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Worth remembering at this point that it is the responsibility of those seeking to keep to provide any evidence. The default assumption is that an article is unverifiable and non-notable in the absence of evidence to the contrary (to do the opposite would require proof of absence).  81.104.175.145 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, notability was asserted before the Afd as the first popular filterset for web browsing, and the article had some sources. The default assumption should not be that an article is unverifiable; the default assumption should be that sources may be found and added when one looks, or failing that, tags can be used to request sources.  I have included some more references, and there are others, even if they are trivial. John Vandenberg 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That cannot be the default assumption, because it cannot be disproved. "First popular filterset for web browsing" would be an over-specific intersection if it were actually true.  81.104.175.145 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What cant be disproven? "The first"? or reliable sources?  "The first" can be disproven by mentioning any other filtersets that could have comparable notability and/or date of creation.  The nonexistence of reliable sources can be established by looking and asking, which is then followed by removal of the unsourced facts. John Vandenberg 22:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The default assumption (null hypothesis) must be falsifiable. The assumption that "sources may be found" cannot be proven false, because no evidence can possibly be presented to support it.  The default assumptions that an article is not verifiable and not notable can be proven false, since evidence can be presented to refute them (verification in the former case, meeting the WP:N criteria in the latter).  In all cases, the burden is on those who claim that an article is verifiable or its subject notable to demonstrate so.  81.104.175.145 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Afd is not intended to be a forum for proving things. Opinions are given, and either there is a clear way forward, or there isnt enough information at hand or consensus cant be reached.  The default assumption is that we can keep an article, and delete it next week when new evidence comes to hand.   see Guide to deletion.  This is the best all round strategy for growing the encyclopedia.  wrt to sourcing, our Verifiability policy allows "Any edit lacking a source [to] be removed" ... please feel free to either tag or remove any part of this article which is not verifiable. John Vandenberg 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be making several mistakes here. (1) You appear to be taking this personally and specifically.  I'm not trying to get at you, and I'm not trying to suggest that you are specifically wrong in this article.  I am merely pointing out an error in your logic.  (2) If AfD is not a "forum for proving things", then one should not be asking for proof.  (3) You seem to be reading the words of WP:V without understanding them.  Wikipedia is not a system of laws, and our rules are to be read in their spirit, and not their letter.  (4) Without wanting to needlessly throw accusations around, it seems somewhat less than kosher to be trying to handwave around the debate by glibly saying "if you don't like it, edit it out".  I'll assume that was well-meaning advice not quite coming out right as opposed to an attempt at misdirection.  It is true that opinions are offered, but we do rather they are backed up for others to evaluate them (and maybe use the information to re-evaluate their own).  To deal specifically with this debate, nobody has suggested why a merge is inappropriate - after all, blacklists have been around almost as long as bureaucracy itself.  Any combination of "firsts" in this article would by necessity be over-specific.  81.104.175.145 23:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) I haven't been taking it personally; I took exception to the way you initially put it (i.e. "The default assumption is that an article is unverifiable and non-notable in the absence of evidence to the contrary") as I expect the reader to verify the text in an article irrespective of what evidence is provided that it is verifiable and notable. I also feel it is appropriate that someone who contributes to an article should also get their feet wet on the topic and do a search or two.  If the nominator believes something is not notable and guidelines dont make the outcome clear, then I think it is reasonable that they also can define what (in that general topical area) is notable in their opinion. (2)  My comment to RandomHumanoid was a round a bout way of saying that it would be good to know what is older or is more notable, in his/her opinion.  It wasnt intended to be an ultimatum.  It goes without saying that my opinion is subject to change if more info is provided; obviously I shouldnt have said anything. (3) I think I understand WP:V correctly, but if you think otherwise, a direct email would be welcomed (honestly). (4) It was more than a bit tongue in cheek; the point I was making is that prior to your last comment, you were not talking about content, we were going around in circles, so would you kindly come to the point.   Merging with something like DNSBLs has been in the back of my mind, but they are usually server side rather than client side, so the target audience of the article is quite different.  The Windows web proxy anonymisers also have filter lists IIRC. John Vandenberg 01:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi John, two things. First, I am a "him." :)  Second, I'll try a brief search for older filter sets as they certainly existed so I'm hoping some reference to them is locatable.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And more generally in response to many of the comments above. In the article, the burden of proof is on the editors to establish notability. There, a claim such "this is the first filterset ever" without a published citation would be a violation WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability.  Here however, we are simply discussing notability and it doesn't seem to me that WP:NOR even applies.  Nonetheless, the article does not happen to claim notability, but I will make a quick effort to find something that came earlier, just to put the matter to rest.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Subsequent request 4/7/2008

 * This article seems like nothing but a chance for FiltersetG + Adblock plus creators to snark at each other in the Criticism section. The entire article seems to have left behind the NPOV concept. It is not notable, in the same way that any of the other millions of software products out there are not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.141 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - having my blog post quoted here as the ultimate wisdom certainly wasn't my idea. I was simply disappointed with the way Wikipedia was misused. Also, the "snarking" is very old, Adblock Plus and Filterset.G simply go separate ways nowadays - and have been for a long time already. —Wladimir Palant, 16 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.61.171.11 (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)