From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2018 May 5
2018 May 7 >

6 May 2018

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Medwriter77/sandbox/Rome Criteria and Rome Process ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
User:Medwriter77/sandbox/Rome Foundation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) (added by — RHaworth ( talk · contribs))

My page was deleted. I spent a lot of time researching and providing this information. I was trying to provide educational material on the Rome Foundation because there is NO information about in Wikipedia. It is a well-established international organization that helps patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders. It is not promotional and may actually help someone improve their lives by connecting them to an organization that could helping them identify difficult diagnoses. Please restore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medwriter77 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Striking comment about tag&bag -- I somehow mis-read the history. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 15:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
It was tagged by User:73.159.24.89 and deleted by User:RHaworth. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Not to mention the author's very first edit indicates some history. Clearly a mix of sock/meat/coi/ WP:NOTHERE going on. The nom is concerned about inaccuracies that may have been written in the past. That's squarely a content question, and should be worked out on the appropriate talk page in a collaborative fashion with other editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
I've created Rome foundation as a redirect to Rome process. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly endorse my deletion. Anything more that needs to be said on this topic should be said at Rome process and Medwriter77 is not the right person to be saying it. Quite apart from the obvious CoI, Medwriter's comments here indicate a totally unhealthy attitude to collaborative editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHaworth ( talk • contribs) 12:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the deletion. Medwriter's behaviour is fairly concerning to me as well; he's more-or-less spammed WP:Requests for undeletion demanding we restore the article, and isn't listening to the responding administrators when they tell him they won't do it as G11 deletions are not restored there. Given there is a (handwritten) copyvio warning on his talk page as well and the fact that he's not disclosed given he's so obviously associated with the subject, I would actually argue that Medwriter should be indeffed, or at the very least blocked until this DRV closes so that he can stop forum-shopping. As to the sandbox itself, neither it nor any of the pages deleted alongside it should be restored; at best they're POV forks and at worst they're a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. — Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • removed comment meant for the discussion below. Hobit ( talk) 17:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse This is an attempt to use WP as promotion, for material which belongs of the group's web page--I think it much more than only a marginal G11. There's an existing article, and even that is a little on the promotional side, not making any reference to any possible criticism.--I tagged it just now as a press release. Probably Medwrite should be blocked asa promotional-only editor, but I don't want to do it while this afd is in process. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Wikipedia notability is not determined by doing good deeds. Medwriter77 If you cannot establish notability from Wikipedia reliable sources or if you create an article that is promotional or use any other copyrighted material from an organization's website the article is going to be correctly deleted. Nothing in this discussion leads to the conclusion that your article is not a case of G11 and G12. Of course, we assume that you created it in good faith, and, as there was no salting, you can recreate the article with proper sources to show notability if they exist. Please do not waste your time to do so without the sources as the article will be deleted again.-- Clean-up-wiki-guy ( talk) 21:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Koimoi – No Consensus. There was so little discussion in the original AfD, it's not surprising people can't agree on what the outcome should have been. I'm going to leave the result as is, but if anybody wants to bring this back for another debate, there's no prejudice against immediate renomination.
A lot of this discussion had more to do with inter-personal relationships than with the quality of the article. It seems to me that User:Winged Blades of Godric needs to chill a bit. If anybody wants to pursue that further, there's other forums for that. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Koimoi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The discussion with the closer can be viewed at this t/p thread, where he declined to vacate his close and relist the XFD and at this t/p thread, whence he indirectly advised me against a speedy-renomination.My quasi-aggressive form of communication stems from my previous experiences with him which could be aptly summed as :--Asking him to vacate his close is an exercise in futility.

Basically, to repeat the arguments:-

I have no idea about how:--

and

  • a weak-keep vote based on a self-admitted PR source and vague thoughts ramblings, semblant to ILIKEIT, without providing any decent source,

manages to generate a keep outcome (which by the lack of any closing statement, seems to be more worse).


I am thus seeking either an entire vacating of the close, followed by a relisting or an overturning of the close to no Consensus with no bar on speedy renomination.

Obviously, I will like to hear the views of the community on the merits of the issue and I am here.Best,

~ Winged Blades Godric 13:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse somewhat hypocritical to complain of uncivility when you question the competency of the closer on his talk page and call my comment vague ramblings, see WP:NPA. The fact that the site is referenced in over 500 articles and thus needs some explanation as to what it is for the reader is a valid argument. There were no votes for delete and it had a relist so a close was valid, it could have been no-consensus but keep is acceptable. Atlantic306 ( talk) 14:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Who the fuck is complaining of uncivility?! (Unless you can't distinguish between passive-agreesive behavior and the like with unpleasant questions....) And, I have an admiration for blunt-speak.
    • Anyways, please provide sources for the article, covering the subject nontrivially and in an enough-significant manner, which are not so pathetic, that you have to self-admit themselves to be PR-rubbish. ~ Winged Blades Godric 14:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
      • You misinterpreted my comment at the AFD, I was trying to be helpful by showing what the dead link in the article was about and when I said it was pr I was discounting it from consideration. Also don't tell editors what to do, notability is not the only consideration at AFD and you know full well that finding sources for Koimoi and similar is extremely difficult because there is a mountain of trivial mentions in Indian press sources, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 15:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
        • I could not agree more when you say that notability is not the only consideration at AFD.Surely, notability is the most minimal' criterion that shall be evaluated at an AfD.Others like NOTPROMO et al surely exist.Best, ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I'd speedy this article in a heartbeat if I saw it in CAT:A7 and it hadn't inexplicably survived two afds. — Cryptic 15:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Without bothering to do any hard work such as to look for sources, or noting its linked to over 500 pages so that speedy would also end up at deletion review, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 15:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
      • You didn't bother either. The difference is that I did not vote (and I use that word advisedly) at the afd without having bothered to. — Cryptic 15:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
        • I did a search for at least an hour and got mired down in brief mentions so am not a hypocrite as you suggested in your edit summary Atlantic306 ( talk) 15:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
          • But you know that distance does not equal(s) displacement always and it is the latter that matters.Best, ~ Winged Blades Godric 16:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • It might be useful to look at the two interactions I have had with Goderic about recent closes. The discussions are one after the other and can be seen here. The second one of them relates to this close. When I close an AFD I do not look at the article. I look at the discussion and try to judge discussion from the comments rather than just looking at the bits in bold. I'm also mindful of the poor state of activity at AFD in recent days and the impact that has on the quality of debate. There is no doubt that this was a rubbish discussion and I might have been better relisting rather than closing but people complain too if I relist. At the time I was undoubtedly in the mindset that it had a relist and neither of the substantive discussions contributors had agreed with the nomination. Neither contributor looks like a sock or spa and I see one around regularly at AFD and the opinions they offer are generally policy based if a bit further along the inclusion line than I am personally. NC or keep seem valid outcomes but there is not way I could have deleted it and relisting in the hope of getting some delete arguments is pretty much a supervote of its own and disrespectful to the editors who did make the effort to comment. When this was raised on my talk page by Goderic you will see that I was not afforded the option to reply before they made rude personal attacks and questioned my competency. The matter was then raised again here as a threat. Hence I asked for this to come to DRV. I have not made a bolded comment as I frankly have no personal opinion about the article but I would be grateful if editors could give Goderic some feedback about the tone and nature of their engagement with me. Spartaz Humbug! 15:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC) meaning clarified strike discussions add contributors. It was the overall state of the discussion that was in my mind when I was typing. Spartaz Humbug! 16:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Do you see the irony when you simulataneously state There is no doubt that this was a rubbish discussion and ....relisting in the hope of getting some delete arguments is pretty much a supervote of its own and disrespectful to the editors who did make the effort to comment.....Sigh.....I suppose that you can at least try to do better than a head-count. ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
    • And what do you mean by and neither of the substantive discussions had agreed with the nomination?! ~ Winged Blades Godric 16:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
    • And, I knew one new thing.As long as somebody is manifesting efforts, (irrespective of his/her competency), we can put up with rubbish outputs.How can we but otherwise encourage such over-eager folks?!..... ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I think that NC or a relist would have been a better outcome. This was a very limited participation AfD, and the only editor other than the nominator who said anything about the state of the article left a tentative comment which isn't based on any policies and guidelines and doesn't rebut the nomination. AfDs which don't have enough participation for a definite outcome tend to get closed as No Consensus or relisted in the hopes of attracting more participation. There wasn't any way this could be closed as Delete. I do have to say, though, that "quasi-aggressive form of communications" is a more accurate description of the nominator's comments regarding the close than the closing admin's. Hut 8.5 17:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Huh!! That was my own characterization of my comments. ~ Winged Blades Godric 18:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
      • OK, I misread that, but nevertheless there's no excuse for you to be leaving aggressive comments and making personal attacks. Particularly over such a minor issue. The difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is small and they will have the same practical effect in this case. Hut 8.5 19:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Hmm.... I don't have any idea about what you consider as personal attacks.At any case, NPSR clause is a typical outcome of these discussions which despite a count of heads is entirely worthless and if Spartaz is willing to grant that, I will be happy to pull off the DRV and laubch another AfD de novo. ~ Winged Blades Godric 02:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
          • Seriously, with all the noise you have made about my supposed incompetence, this needs to run for a full review. This might be a good point to remind you about the point I raised about catching more flies with honey that you dismissed out of hand earlier. Spartaz Humbug! 08:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, it is the only possible close based on the discussion. Valoem talk contrib 00:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Re-list. Even though it the discussion was open for 2 weeks, that clearly wasn't long enough for a meaningful consensus to develop. There are no deadlines here. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Relist. A nonvote plus a weak vote from someone who admits to not having looked into it thoroughly and thus doubts their own vote does not equal a consensus to keep. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 21:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse or Overturn to no consensus I really don't see the issue here. Nobody voted delete other than nom in two weeks, so the article can't be deleted. I don't see any harm in changing to a no consensus vote without opening it back up for a speedy renomination. I don't really see anything wrong with the close, and this DV seems to be more of a personal issue with the closer than anything else. SportingFlyer talk 05:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Relist it. The consensus does not appear to be a clear keep.  samee   converse  11:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Relist Incorrect close. A clear nomination for deletion, and one weak keep is not consensus to keep, since the nom itself is an opinion to delete. I reserve judgment on the merits--the argument that weshould have an article on an otherwise nonnotable "source that is used in at least 500 articles so the public would expect at least a brief explanation of what it is so they can judge whether it is reliable for themselves" does have some merit, but it would need strong support, since it would be an exception to our usual policy. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • weak endorse I'd say NC was a more accurate reading of the (very limited) tea leaves, but given the very limited useful input, I'd say this is probably within discretion to say that the delete argument didn't hold water. Hobit ( talk) 04:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_May_6&oldid=1039541880"