Wikipedia:Deletion review/Dualabs


 * The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Endorsed outcome but strong objections to closure. - brenneman  {L} 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dualabs

 * Closing admin says "The outcome of the debate was keep and expand", but as near as I can tell a total of zero (that's zero, none, nada) of the participants in the discussion suggested keeping and expanding the article. Admin discretion in closing is reasonable, but "discretion" doesn't (and shouldn't) mean wholesale misrepresentation of the discussion (whether intentional or not). Link to debate. Nandesuka 11:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Overturn and delete. The close was a clear error.  Nandesuka 11:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You want to pick a fight with Tony Sidaway? Go right ahead.  He has a long history of completely ignoring process when it conflicts with his (generally correct) view of what is of encyclopaedic value. I'd say merge and redirect, which seems to be the best way forward if we can't find more to say about the subject than this. Just zis Guy you know? 11:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and delete Debate was here. While I would probably have voted keep or merge, myself, we need to stand firm that administrator's closing discretion is not the same thing as ignoring every single vote. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While I frequently disagree with Tony, I must say that the closure is not completely out of touch with reality. From the nomination we have: "The interesting information about the technology employed could probably be usefully merged to US_Census" and the last vote is "Merge with Census information, easy". Two people saying that merging some or all of the content might be an idea, and doing so would require us to not delete. The difference with a merge and a keep is not all that great, since merging (and unmerging) can be done by anybody. Also the argument for deletion is only the "it is not notable" assertion, and considering that we are talking about data handling for a huge dataset as the U.S. Census, I am not convinced that assessment is a good one. Hence, I will endorse Tony's decision to not delete, and recommend that the article be merged if feasible. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse Closure as no real useful rationale for deletion, either. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure. I've considered this close very carefully.  The information is verifiable and is too important to remove from Wikipedia--DUALabs compression format poses an ongoing problem for 1960 and 1970 Census microdata .  While a merge may be in order, I considered that article to be too new (just over a week) for this.  A merge can be attempted by anyone--no need for a deletion discussion. After the close, I added another reference and added more information about the company.  Of course the suggestion that the company that handled the compression of *all* of the 1960 and 1970 census data archive is "non-notable" is simply incomprehensible. --Tony Sidaway 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Being more process wonkish I probably would have closed it "no consensus, keep" as I'm not seeing a consensus there, too few people commented, but I think Tony did the Right Thing, if possibly for the wrong reason. It would have been a keep either way, (when in doubt, keep, after all...) Change close reason but keep closed  + + Lar: t/c 13:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think two 'delete's and a 'merge' constitute a clear consensus to delete. *The closing admin's use of discretion was appropriate. I suppose he might have said, "No consensus" rather than "consensus to keep and expand", but I endorse the closure. Change the close reason if that's useful. Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure Contra JzG, I will gladly disagree with Mr. Sidaway when given good cause, but this isn't it. The nominator suggested merging, and the final commenter cast his lot that way. That's two out of four "votes", if one counts. In a debate with so few participants, it is also not illogical for closer to give some small weight to his own opinion of article merit. Closer also provided an explicit rationale. This case is within discretion. Xoloz 13:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * At first I thought the close was somewhat reasonable, but when I thought about it more I realized- if this article was about a company that still existed, this would have unquestionably been deleted as vanispamcruftertisement. Do these guys get special treatment because it was several years ago?  If Sidaway wanted to make the points he made in the closure, he should have commented on the Afd.  He could have relisted it for more input rather than acting in his unfortunately-too-typical "I am unquestionably right so I will disregard everyone else" fashion.  Then, we'd have seen what other people thought of his rationale, and we wouldn't be here at DRV.  The sources do verify a couple things- the name of the company, the guy who started it.  If the census employee had not happened to start a new company for this, we wouldn't even be having this conversation- nobody would think of an article on a single individual just because they happened to work for a large organization.  If there's something useful here to merge, let it be merged to United States Census Bureau.  However, if the determination is that this is just a small crufty detail, unworthy of a merge, then it doesn't warrant its own article, either.  Anyway, I think the answer is already clear for purposes of DRV- overturn, relist, and ask Sidaway to not close any more AFDs.  I'm not even saying his answer is neccessarily wrong, but if he wants to be that activist, he should get involved in the afd discussion, not just swoop in and close according to his whim.  Friday (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. You're saying that you think an article about a modern company that handled, say, the compression of data sets for the 2000 Census would be deleted as "non-notable"?  As I have said above, I find the suggestion quite incomprehensible. We certainly don't want articles on every single landscaping company, but at the same time we should avoid deleting obviously important information.   --Tony Sidaway 13:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, a company that has their hands on the data is "notable", but a company that has their hands on the grass clippings is obviously not? That's silly- you're just showing your own pro-IT bias here.  If the modern company that did work for the 2000 census was covered in several reliable third-party sources, certainly they should be included.  If all we can dig up is a government doc that says "we hired company XYZ for this", then they should not be.  It all comes down to verifiability.  And, simple verification that something existed is not enough.  Census Bureau is a "notable" organization, but this  does not automatically make everyone they do business with notable.  Friday (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Show me where Business Week, or the Wall Street Journal talked about this company, and it will probably instantly change my mind. WP:CORP explains all of this- it's a pretty decent guideline (but the core concern here is WP:V, of course).  Friday (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no concern about verifiability here. The article documents the precise contracts under which DUALabs performed the tasks for US government agencies.  WP:CORP is a guideline for inclusion.  Not every encyclopedic company is in the pages of Business Week or WSJ.  "The simple verification that something existed is not enough" is of course incorrect.  That is precisely and solely what verification entails. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It surprises me that someone who's been around for a long time would so misunderstand what we do here. We try to avoid making our own judgments about what is interesting or important, due to personal biases.  Instead, we use reliable sources.  Your dog is interesting to you, and would apparently be verifiable according to you also, assuming it has registration papers, a local dog permit, or whatever.  There are some editors who believe that anything that can be shown to exist needs an article about it, but I believe they're still quite in the minority.  Take it up on WT:V if you wish, but last I noticed, the consensus among experienced editors was that we need verifiability by reputable sources, not just by any record we can find.  Friday (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The government contract numbers under which DUALabs performed the job are in the article. This satisfies the verification criterion.  The question of whether there should be a separate article on this company is a different matter, which I left open in my closing comments, to wit: "Keep and expand Failing expansion, may be considered for a merge with US Census". --Tony Sidaway 14:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems to me that, with respect, the last critique is returning to the controversy over the game (game) -- namely the view that a reputable source is one which, by its existence or non-existence, supports the view which TPTB within Wiki have already come to. Moreover, my understanding was that Deletion review was to review deletions, not to act as a covert means of deleting articles which had reached either a "keep" consenses, or a "no consensus" position and therfore fell to be kept rather than deleted.  But increasingly it would appear (to me) that Wiki process is directed toward deleting articles, rather than making poor articles good ones. IMHO, Simon Cursitor 14:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It would of course be wrong to interpret the verifiability criterion to mean that we can only ever have articles about companies that have been written about in business newspapers. It does look to me as if at least some of the move to review this close has come from this misconception. There is no reason to doubt the sources available on this company and its products, which are still in regular use by researchers, some thirty years after its demise.  --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure per Sjakkalle, JzG and Tom Harrison. Three votes isn't much to go on, and I think it's okay that Tony used his discretion here. FreplySpang (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure 4 people does not consensus make, even if it is 75% to delete. There is also that whole when in doubt don't delete thing. Kotepho 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The way I see this is 1 delete by putting on prod, 1 keep by removing prod, 2 delete on AfD, 1 merge on AfD and AfD nom who suggested possible merge. So roughly speaking that's 3.5 delete, 2.5 keep (in some form). That means no consensus to delete. Once that has been sorted it's not up to the deletion process to decide if article should be expanded, kept, or merged as they can do decided through normal talk page channels. (Disclaimer: please don't think that I'm strictly vote counting here, I know AfD is not a vote, but the figures are just a way of expressing the lack of consensus to delete). Petros471 17:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the unintentionally humorous complaint from a user above who makes a habit of out-of-process experimental deletion, I think Tony did the right thing by stepping in to save the article. The lack of any serious debate or meaningful participation in the original AfD essentially renders the deletion process void. In my view, this is a proper use of admin discretion. I say endorse close and ask Sidaway to close all AFDs. Incidentally, Dualabs was extensively featured in a Washington Post article, Ginda, Thomas. Old Census, New Twist; Four Area Districts, Mar 29, 1970. pg. E1, 2 pgs; and its business problems were discussed in the Wall Street Journal, Jacobs, Sanford. "Data Analyst Sues to Save Program Priced at $8,000, Vs. U.S.'s $110 Tag", Dec 18, 1981. p. 25. -- JJay 19:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That looks like verifiability to me. I hope those sources make it into the article.  I'm still uncomfortable with the level of activism in the closure, but it looks like the answer was the right one, at least.  Friday (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I should hope that all administrators would be activists in their promotion of our deletion policy. One thing that our deletion policy has always been clear on is that one does not delete verifiable information from an encyclopedia where an alternative exists that has not yet been fully explored. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Promoting the deletion policy is great. However, let's be a bit more honest here, eh?  You disregarded the deletion policy in this case more than you promoted it.  The answer you got is not unreasonable, now that other sources have been produced after the fact.  I would rather see people put their argument IN the Afd and let it run longer to see if folks agree or disagree. I'm a product-over-process guy every time, but this could have gone more smoothly.  Friday (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure. There are a number of things I might've done differently, but Tony certainly made the right call given the circumstances: if in doubt, don't delete.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse, good closure. Unfortunately, sometimes facts and reality must disturb the delicate vote-counting machine that is AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In a debate as anemic as this, I can't see a strong reason to say that the article should be deleted; if I had seen it, I would have relisted it. That said, a merge would be more appropriate here, unless someone is actually interested in doing the grunt work of expanding the article (I know I have better things to do). Tito xd (?!? - help us) 23:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: While the outcome is satisfactory one wonders if there wasn't a less disruptive way to achieve the same result, for example voting on AfD (the horror!) as the plebs must do, saying "[source] and [source] tell us that amongst librarians Dualabs is a byword for data obsolescence" and trusting the admin who closes the debate is swayed by the force of the argument and concludes that the article is worthy enough to keep. It appears that the action taken was to prove the point that the deletion policy is broken and I fully expect this debate to be recycled next time the subject comes up. Dr Zak 14:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the deletion policy seems to be working fine. Hence my close. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The deletion policy is fine. As usual the debate is about its implementation. Dr Zak 02:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps this should be relisted. It is highly possible that upon reviewing the debate as it existed, people simply didn't bother adding to it since the deicions seemed to be foregone. Eusebeus 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure. This wasn't controversial; it's just that nobody cared or even much thought about it until Tony took a look.  There was no good reason to delete this article, and plenty of reasons not to.  He could have voted, and brought this silliness to others' attention, and the debate would have become a keep&mdash;but that would have been more time for the same result.  There's also no reason to use this non-incident as an excuse to debate Tony's approach to deletion. -- SCZenz 23:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, deletion review is most definitely the right place to review a deletion, is it not? This includes the merits of the article (which, to me, now, is a keeper) and the merits of the Afd closure, which to me, in this case, wasnt't handled all that well.  Friday (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Overturn and relist I am not persuaded by Tony's argument; and he should have made it as an argument, and kept open, to see who agreed with it. Septentrionalis 04:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Relist, let's get some more eyeballs on it. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure - within reasonable admin. discretion. Metamagician3000 05:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.