Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-21/

Where is the dispute?
The dispute is on LinkedNow.com

Who is involved?

 * User:Ukexpat editor on one side
 * User:suzan.nguyen on the other

What is the dispute?
I feel that User:Ukexpat intentions are questionable, while the merits for the proposed article deletion are wrong.

1. Taunting, Not editing: Per User:Ukexpat's own statement: "If you want to move the draft to the mainspace, go ahead and let's see what happens. – ukexpat". Instead, he waited 2 days and flagged the article himself -- that's what happened. 2. Impartial Judgment: ukexpat clearly showed bias. I mentioned three times another article that has 2 minor references by non-notable sources. In turn, he responded: "For what it's worth, I don't think the Hunch article adequately deals with the notability of its subject matter". Yet, he failed to nominate the other site for the deletion. Why? 3. Wrong Definition: Most importantly, User:Ukexpat uses wrong definition of notability. In our conversations, he used the "significant coverage" as the main argument for the deletion. According to Wikipedia, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" LinkedNow more than met this criteria. The site was featured on TechNow TV show [2 minutes] in July 2009 and 9 different NBC websites, including MSNNBC. Finally, the article passed thru another notability review in Aug 2009. [ -- Warrior4321 04:46, 22 August 2009]

Please provide me with a link to the policy that states "Non-notable website, leans too much on passing mentions" as an acceptable reason for the deletion. In conclusion, User:Ukexpat's intentions are questionable [per #1,2], and his reasons not supported by Wikipedia's own policies [per point #3].

What would you like to change about this?
I would like to stop the deletion of this article. Also, stop the harassing behavior of User:Ukexpat. For example, frequent undo's of my changes despite my detailed explanation 2 days prior why some items are needed and NO clear objection from the user.

How do you think we can help?
Please explain your view on the definition of "significant coverage". User:Ukexpat is looking for a "certain number of instances of significant coverage". What is the magic number?

Discussion

 * Doesn't seem like mediation is required here. If the editor doesn't want the article deleted, they can remove the prod templates and then someone can nominate it for AFD if they still think it needs to be deleted at which point a community discussion will occur to determine the status of the article. –xenotalk 17:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)