Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Just wondering about the speedy decline on BIBS Quality Measurement. Creator and "system" get no ghits, and the creator's institution, the "Drools Institute", doesn't exist. Even stretching WP:AGF to the limit, I can't see how this is anything but vandalism. Care to enlighten me? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to hoaxes, my view is that speedy G3 is for cases where one sees no reason to even bother with a Google search, which wasn't exactly the case here. This looked more like bad writing than an actual hoax, and I was unaware of the article hijacking at BIBS. Also, one could easily assume that "drools" has a different meaning in Dutch. (I've seen too many German and Italian last names that are not exactly flattering, one of which belonged to a former president of the Ordre des Ingénieurs du Québec) But if you want to speedy it, be my guest. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's been AfD'd here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my bit at the AfD. Unfortunately, the vandals have figured out that if they write something exactly like this they can have it up for a week or two and get a lot of comments on it at AfD, giving them the attention they crave. :( --Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After you put the tags on the article The Write Place At the Write Time (literary magazine) concerning notability and references, I put in several inline citations. Have you looked at the article in the last day or two? Can the tags you put in be removed? ThanksRayjameson (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the concerns have been addressed. I removed the tags. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Rayjameson (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The article 'fat_imgen' that I just created got tagged. Now, there is a reason for this of course, so I am curious what exactly made you tag it. How should the article be edited for these tags to be removed?

Thanks in advance,

-- BugHunter2 (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability tag means I am not sure that the topic meets our notability guidelines. Although there is no reason to initiate a deletion process right away, the fact remains that if the software's notability is not demonstrated in a reasonable time, a deletion process might be initiated at any moment by any editor.

And the next tag, primary sources is related to the first one. It is by showing that the software has already been reviewed by a third-party reliable source, that is, not affiliated in any way with the subject, that you can show that it does indeed meet our notability guidelines. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what exactly should I do about it? Should I try to get people who run a sort of software indexing website to review the tool? Can you be a bit more concrete about what to do?

BTW, just the fact that there may not be any "reliable sources" (judging by the standards of Wikipedia) doesn't mean necessarily that an article is unreliable, right? I think that, before deleting such an article, editors should be careful.

-- BugHunter2 (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You write, Should I try to get people who run a sort of software indexing website to review the tool? You mean that hasn't been done yet? No, you should wait for "people who run a sort of software indexing website to review the tool" without you even trying to get them to do it.

If an article is not based on reliable sources, then that means its reliability cannot be assessed or evaluated. If none are available, then that simply means the topic does not meet our notability guidelines for the time being, and the time is not right for Wikipedia to have an article on it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one thought this tool could be extremely helpful to various people, e.g. kernel hackers that want to test their kernel on a virtualizer or emulator (edit: What I meant to say is that, that fact on itself makes the article "notable". And by having an article on Wikipedia, it probably increases the likeliness of the tool being used and thus would also probably speed up the process of having it reviewed. But I digress, if you think the article should be deleted then by all means do so.

-- bughunter2 (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article made no assertion that it applied to a particular living person, hence A7 was inappropriate. I'm not sure any speedy deletion criteria would have been appropriate. If none apply, please feel free to use {{prod}} rather than speedy with a marginal reason. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured, but I've seen articles like that speedied as A7's in the past, even after I prodded them. Thanks anyway. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I declined speedy as he is a member of the Nigerian House of Representatives. However, given the primary author's username, there could be a COI problem. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are zero G News hits for Finnair 341, or for the person, perhaps you should reconsider your decision not to speedy delete this--I would consider the article clear vandalism DGG (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I see DGG was thinking the same thing. I was just coming here to inform you that I deleted the page. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my edit summary I stated that the article was plausible enough to avoid a G3 speedy deletion. The G3 criterion, by its very nature, assumes bad faith on the part of the article creator, and that's why I go with Item 2 of WP:NOTCSD, and I reserve the criterion for cases where I see no reason to bother with a G News search. Which does not mean I will disagree with deletion: if indeed you find no sources backing it up, then it must be deleted, just not as speedily as an article about Saddam Hussein being a Martian. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should be cautious with speedy deletions. You did the right thing to be cautious. I was stopping by to let you know that I did a bit more research. FYI, in this particular case, the editor in question has only made two contributions and both have been deleted. Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have probably said sometimes that one should always check, but in practice there is clearly a certain level below which it isn't needed . This is such a major event that I cannot imagine i would not remember it, but I would not have deleted on my lack of memory alone. Had I seen it before you I would have double-checked in gnews archive, and then speedy deleted, because the absence of finding anything there makes it unquestionably false. DGG (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, care to remove the notability tag? See the discussion page. Hedgehog83 (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I have put this aside for the time being. Amitiés. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlanchardB,
You just put a speedy deletion tag of the CALICO - The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium, article. It appears also that you have already deleted the article in spite of my adding an HangOn tag. A quick follow up of the link to its website , in particular :

• CALICO home page
• CALICO members directory

and then:

• associated organisation

will determine that this is a serious organisation concerned with education, managed by Texas University. It is a consortium of high level academics from many important US universities and colleges, and its mission is to promote and control the quality of computer assisted language learning programmes. The article may be short, but I feel that within the scope of any WikiProject concerning education, it has sufficient notability. I am a professor of linguistics, but I am personally in now way a member or otherwise connected with the organisation. if after reviewing the links and the organisation, you really feel it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article, I have no objection to it being removed. I do however consider 'Speedy Deletion' to be a harsh tagging, and that at least PROD would have been more appropriate. There are numerous less worthy articles in our encyclopedia that I would personally hesite before hanging an AfD on them.
Best regards, --Kudpung (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]