Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28

28 September 2014
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
 * VideoPad – No consensus to overturn. The matter comes down to the differences when closing a debate on whether to delete or to redirect. We assume when an article is deleted that the physical action of deletion occurs.  When we vote to redirect, no deletion happens and the article is redirected.  The question in this debate is whether deletion is necessarily required.  Does a redirect achieve the same result to our readers while leaving advantages to our users?  The arguments for each side are either that it would set precedent where redirects are systematically not deleted or that redirects do not necessarily require systematic deletion.  Neither argument is well supported nor opposed explicitly in policy and so this comes down to a matter of consensus.  Unfortunately, no consensus has prevailed and the status quo remains.  However, I will contact the deleting admin and try to negotiata a drama-reducing solution to this problem.--v/r - TP 21:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Nom and closing sysop have agreed to relist this at AFD.--v/r - TP 21:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

I am not disputing the assessment that VideoPad is not notable. I find the other editors' arguments weak but can understand how a closing admin can come to the conclusion that the consensus is VideoPad is not notable. However, I disagree with the deletion of the redirect's history. As shown in this revision (the revision that was deleted), the article contains several reliable sources and content that could be useful to a future non-admin editor that found more sources. I wrote at Articles for deletion/VideoPad: "My second preference (after 'keep') is to redirect to NCH Software (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect would be better than a red link because this is a plausible search term. Preserving the history under the redirect would be better than deleting the history. As I wrote at Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19: The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect. A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject. Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this. In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect." Cunard (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC) The closer at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 61 wrote: "There is no consensus for automatic deletion of page history when an outcome is 'redirect' (though there's also no consensus against that deletion when appropriate), and several contributors felt that a number of well-argued !votes in favor of 'merge' and 'redirect' should lead to a closure of 'no consensus' rather than 'keep', since the latter close suggests that the content was accepted as-is." I believe the deletion here is inappropriate because the deleted content is useful and does not violate a core policy like Biographies of living persons or Neutral point of view. The encyclopedia does not benefit from its deletion. The closing admin declined to restore the article's history. Please restore the article's history under the redirect. Cunard (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Endorse deletion. This belongs to WP:REFUND. However, what violates Wikipedia's fundamental policies (in this case, WP:NOTADVERT) or fails to demonstrate its notability, has no business coming back stealthily, in the form of revisions histories of a redirect. Restoring an article's history is a discretionary action, performed when there are extenuating circumstances like attribution requirements of the contents licensing terms of Wikipedia. In this case however, those "several reliable sources and content that could be useful" are already present in the AfD discussion. I stress that WP:DELREV and WP:REFUND are not avenues of defeating the purpose of an AfD, circumventing consensus or requesting souvenirs for the nostalgic who fondly reminisce the days when the article was live.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the above contribution is by the AfD nom. Unscintillating (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Endorse deletion, not the redirect. As I argued to the closer, I think the correct call should have been a simple delete.  There was only one !vote to redirect, and that appeared to be a final plea for WP:MERCY after it had become clear the the consensus was otherwise unanimous to delete.  I also don't believe the redirect is consistent with the  Highbeam source in the Boston Globe that I turned up suggesting there probably is a notable Videopad topic, just not this one.  Msnicki (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MERCY is an entry into WP:ATA. It states, "Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view. They are of no help in reaching a consensus, and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either."  Are you still sure that this "appeared to be a final plea for WP:MERCY"?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is no article for, say, Videopad (1993), how is the current redirect not "consistent" with a topic that does not exist on Wikipedia? Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * He wasn't offering new arguments in favor of a redirect, he was offering the same arguments as had already been rejected, merely hoping for a different outcome. We do not decide notability of a topic based on whether sources have been cited but whether they exist.  By extension, it seems reasonable (and generally supported by WP:DAB) that primary, non-disambiguated articles should refer to the most notable interpretation.  I'm not volunteering to write it (it's the beginning of a quarter and I have classes to teach!) but it appears to me that there is a notable Videopad topic, just not this one.  But as I also said during the AfD, this may simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON.  If this product becomes notable as new sources appear, I see no reason why this article can't be recreated.  Msnicki (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is about VideoPad; the Highbeam source in the Boston Globe discusses Videopad. One product has a lowercase "p"; the other has an uppercase "P". This is acceptable per Naming conventions (capitalization). There is no conflict. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Restore edit history The key here is whether the closer deleted for wp:notability or for content.  Neither the close nor the admin's talk page discussion states the reason for deletion.  The vast majority of the discussion was in regard to wp:notability, although one of the five commentators states, "Looks like advertising to me."  As stated, this !vote is a personal opinion that does not cite a policy.  Based on the preponderance of evidence, this deletion was for wp:notability, which means there is no policy basis to keep the edit history deleted under the redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Restore history A decision to delete an article on notability grounds is a decision that a topic should not be included as a stand-alone article. It is not a decision that a topic should not be covered at all. It may be entirely appropriate for the topic to be covered elsewhere and it is absurd to place obstacles in the way of achieving this. If the content of the deleted article is abusive then history deletion will be justified. If an editor were to become disruptive in using material in the history then deletion or other remedial actions might become necessary. Thincat (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Restore history unless the history is inappropriately promotional. The closing admin said 'I am not swayed by your arguments in favor of keeping the edit history'. I'm aware this is going to look like undue micromanagement of the closing admin's task, but the question should be asked the other way around: is there a good reason to delete the history? Unless the article was inappropriately promotional -- I can't tell -- there is no good reason. Let's put it another way: what was the substance of the consensus? Was there a consensus to delete the article's history? Or was the consensus that the subject of the article does not merit a Wikipedia page? Surely it was the latter. That's why a redirect was the correct outcome, but the deletion of the page's history was not. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Erm... it is inappropriately promotional. The article to which it is redirect is also promotional. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the article before it was deleted, and it was not inappropriately promotional. The article it redirects to is not promotional. It contains a lengthy "Criticism" section, which occupies much of the article's prose. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral My close was based on my reading of the consensus ("delete"). Given that redirects are cheap (and, if a better target comes up, can easily be changed), I saw no harm in leaving a redirect. I'm not impressed by arguments to leave the history: those apply to all articles that we delete for reasons other than promotion or BLP concerns. Having said that, I have no strong feelings about this either way. Funny, this is the first time that a close of mine managed to draw flak from both sides of the debate :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.pcmag.com/author-bio/michael-muchmore says, "Michael Muchmore is PC Magazine's lead analyst for software and Web applications. A native New Yorker, he has at various times headed up PC Magazine’s coverage of Web development, enterprise software, and display technologies." The article says, "Product not yet reviewed by PCMag Editors", though I'm still inclined to consider this a reliable source since PC Magazine published it. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: NCH Software is now at Articles for deletion/NCH Software. DRV participants, , , , and , please participate in the AfD if you're so inclined. If not, then no worries. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/NCH Software was closed as "withdrawn" after three participants voted to retain the article. Cunard (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Endorse Reading the AfD, this seems like a clear consensus to delete.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline request to restore the history, on grounds of procedure. The "delete" closure appears uncontested. As such, there is no particular reason to restore the history, which would change the outcome from "delete" to "redirect" contrary to the consensus correctly established as a result of the discussion. If we decide to delete an article, then this applies to its history as well. As has been said above, the argument to restore the history would apply to almost every article deleted on notability grounds, and would contravene settled community consensus to reject any form of "soft" deletion where deleted content routinely remains user-accessible.  Sandstein   07:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I contest the "delete and redirect" result. The result should have been "redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect)". As noted above by Unscintillating, Thincat, and Mkativerata, the substance of the AfD's consensus was that the subject does not merit a Wikipedia page. That conclusion does not foreclose the possibility of retaining the redirect's history. Editing policy says that "instead of removing text", consider VideoPad's content, as preserved at http://web.archive.org/web/20131021185643/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VideoPad, could be merged selectively into NCH Software. That alone is a sufficient reason for restoration to allow selective merging to comply with the guideline Copying within Wikipedia. When an AfD results in a "redirect", the article's history should not be deleted unless it is irredeemably unusable (example: violating a core policy like Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view, or No original research). Recent DRV precedent has supported this commonsense view:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19 – endorse and undelete history behind redirectDeletion review/Log/2014 August 28 – restore and redirect Thincat put it well: "It may be entirely appropriate for the topic to be covered elsewhere and it is absurd to place obstacles in the way of achieving this." Because VideoPad's non-policy-violating history can be used in a selective merge or in a draft if new sources are found, keeping it deleted would be a net negative to the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation. The AfD was not closed as "redirect". It was closed as "delete". After deletion, a redirect was, put in place at your suggestion, as they are cheap and can easily be re-targeted if a better target becomes available later. All the other policies about fixing problems and such apply before an article goes to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability is not a content policy/guideline, and hasn't been since early 2008. So when an article is deleted for wp:notability, there is no content in the article that needs fixing.  Even now you have not explained (unless I missed it) your close as to whether it was for wp:notability or for a content policy.  It is the current consensus that you deleted in this case for wp:notability.  Do you want to amend your closing?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy is a policy and specificly states at WP:DEL #8: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". So I fail to see the relevance of your remark about "WP:Notability is not a content policy/guideline" (which is partially incorrect, it is a guideline). --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, WP:N is neither a content policy nor a content guideline. WP:N states, The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.
 * See also, Category:Wikipedia content guidelines and Category:Wikipedia content policies. Unscintillating (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Randykitty, you are a participant at WP:Articles for deletion/Quarterly Review of Film and Video, where I stated,

WP:Notability is not a content policy, it is a guideline as to whether a topic has received enough attention from the world at large to merit a standalone article rather than a lesser role within a larger topic, and requires no sourcing in an article. Nor is WP:N a deletion policy, although a special case exists within WP:Deletion policy for when there is no suitable larger topic.
 * The section #8 you have quoted from within WP:Deletion policy is prefaced with the statement, Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
 * In the case of wp:notability, the "offending section" is the data structure in which the topic is posted as a standalone article. Policy here is that "improvement...is preferable to deletion".  WP:Deletion policy similarly states, {{cquote|1=

Editing and discussion
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.}}
 * Unscintillating (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand where you are going. My close was based on the whole article not meeting any notability guideline and no convincing arguments that improvement would be possible. To me, that means "delete". --Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A baseline issue is what do our policies and guidelines say, which may or may not be that with which editors agree. The first sentence of WP:N states, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article."  So if your close was based on the article rather than the topic, IMO that provides the basis for an out-of-process deletion.  The improvability of the topic is not a point of contention, since you improved the topic to correct the problem of non-notability.  So WP:Notability is not a current point of contention.  WP:Deletion policy states, "improvement...is preferable to deletion", and the topic has been improved.  Is there another policy that supports keeping the edit history deleted?  How does keeping the edit history deleted improve the encyclopedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn (from "Delete, then redirect" to "Redirect with history intact").
 * Cunard's !vote was not opposed or referred to, but just ignored. Including by the closer.


 * The closer and Msnicki cited WP:TOOSOON. However, WP:TOOSOON is not a argument for deletion where there is a merge and redirect target.  The clear implication of TOOSOON is that the topic may possibly be suitable for coverage, it is not (yet) suitable for a standalone article.  Giving a topic a standalone article is a higher test than allowing coverage.  Msnicki made no argument that the content was unsuitable for any article and that history deletion was required.


 * The_Banner's issue is a fixable issue, especially when content is merged.


 * Rhododendrites makes a detailed argument for why the topic doesn't meet the GNG. However, the GNG specifically limits standalone articles, and does not speak to content contained within an article, and therefore his !vote does not imply a requirement to delete the history.


 * Nobody argues to delete and redirect. Cunard argued against deleting the history when redirecting.


 * Why not just expand the coverage at the target without relying on the deleted content? Because that is content forking and dangerous with regards to Wikipedia copyright compliance.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I closed as "delete" because the article did not meet WP:GNG, as argued in the AfD (and I note that even the person intitiating this appeal explicitly states above that he is not contesting the lack of notability). TOOSOON was not given as an argument for deletion, nor did I use it in the close. Citing TOOSOON in situations like this usually is mostly done to emphasize a current lack of significant coverage, not excluding that perhaps such coverage may become available in the future. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not meeting the GNG is not per se a reason for deletion if there is a redirect target. Thinking it is a common misconception about WP:N.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn to delete, because that's what the consensus in the afd plainly was. (The editorially-created redirect is acceptable.)  Filibustering the same points over and over when they've already failed to convince anyone creates no onus to repeat the rebuttals already given. &mdash;Cryptic 05:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Deletion process states (emphasis in original), {{cquote|1=

Consensus
Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes.

Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale.}}
 * Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've begun to write things about this on several occasions but them changed my mind. I find the matter rather difficult because it turns on how much weight to give to an argument that was made and not refuted, but simply ignored.  I suspect we'll see more and more such cases as participation at AfD continues to wane.  On the one hand, it shouldn't be necessary for those advocating deletion to isolate and destroy every single argument in favour of keeping it; but on the other hand, it shouldn't be possible to defeat a well-reasoned argument by sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you didn't hear it. The business about meeting the GNG is a red herring.  Whether or not something meets the GNG has no bearing on whether there should be a redirect.  It also has no bearing on whether to delete the history under the redirect.  On balance I think that there's a rough consensus that the redirect should continue to exist; and therefore, this being a wiki, there's a presumption that the history should be visible.  If there's a particular revision that's problematic for some reason, it can be revdelled, but to remove the entire history is uncalled-for.— S Marshall  T/C 11:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }