Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 28#Guitar%20controller%20compatibility

:{{lu|Moreschi/If}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:User:Moreschi/If}} cache]|MfD)

Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases. Administrator Angr's claim that "consensus doesn't outweigh WP:CSD#G11" is, to put it delicately, insane. Speedy deletion policy is clear that "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead [of speedy deletion]." The discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Moreschi/If clearly demonstrates reasonable doubt. Overturn and keep. ➪HiDrNick! 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:Note The page :User:Moreschi/If is spread through out Wikipedia since it is linked to Moreschi' signature which appears as "Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}" -- Jreferee t/c 10:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• RelistOverturn and keep - Although WP:CSD#G11 applies to all namespaces, the MfD discussion indicates reasonable doubt regarding the promotional nature of the user subpage. One of the major arguments raised during the discussion was that Veropedia, although advertising-funded, is a sister related project that provides its content free of charge and adheres to GDFL licensing. Given that this page is a personal recommendation from a user (specifically, from an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=1&username=Moreschi administrator]) who does not stand to benefit commercially, it is hard to justify speedy deletion under promotional criteria. Relisting would enable the community as a whole to reach a consensus on what needs to be done with the page. After reading the arguments below and looking more carefully at the MfD, it seems that it was indeed heading for an early close as keep, and there is no need for further discussion to obtain consensus. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 03:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• I would like to object to any reference of Veropedia being a "sister project", since that implies it's a Wikimedia or Wikipedia-sanctioned project which it isn't. They're a commercial mirror of Wikipedia content - and as such as to comply with the GDFL anyhow. It particularly worries me that an administrator linking to it may also be seen as making it "official", when it's nothing of the sort. -Halo (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'll concede my point above referring to Veropedia as a sister project, but it is certainly related to Wikipedia. And my point about the user in question being an administrator refers not to any official air they bestow upon it, but rather to the fact that the page does not belong to a spam artist or SAP but rather to an editor in good standing, which in turn allows them a certain degree of the latitude outlined in WP:UP. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 06:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and admonish closer Looks like consensus was achieved, and the admin just steamrolled right over it. Close was handled badly and was in the wrong outcome. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• (aec) Overturn and close as keep I need not, I suppose, to undertake, as sometimes I do at DRV, to address at length the impropriety of one's speedying a page about the consistency with policy of which there is some dispute, especially where that dispute is codified in an XfD, and especially where those partaking of the XfD, having at least nominatively considered policy, support keeping; Nick makes the case quite well (much more cogently, to be sure, than might I). Were the MfD discussion inconsistent on its face with WP:USER and WP:CSD#G11, were the discussion visited by but a trivial number of editors, or were the outcome not plain, a relisting might be in order, but it seems clear to me that the MfD, having been perfectly valid, ought simply to be reclosed, to-wit, as "keep". Joe 04:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as keep It should be more than obvious that the participants in the MfD were aware of WP:CSD#G11 and thought it didn't apply. User:Akhilleus

::Although it is not uncommon to tag AfD or other items for speedy deletion based on arguments raised, given the advanced nature of the discussion at the time of your deletion I have to suggest that either bringing the issue up at the ongoing MfD or tagging the article for review by another administrator would have been preferable to unilaterally deleting and then redeleting it yourself. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 06:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes, WP:CSD specifies that only the most clearcut violations are deserving of speedy deletion, and as I said, this was an incredibly clearcut violation. This page is the reason WP:CSD#G11 was written. —Angr 06:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:::It is common for pages pending at XfD to be speedy deleted. The speedy deletions then may be brought to DRV. Angr's speedy deletion should have been brought directly to DRV, not wheel restored. In addition, Moreschi should not have used his admin tools to restore a page that he created and Angr was correct to redelete it. -- Jreferee t/c 09:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

::::I agree that speedy deletions happen during XfDs--I've tagged a fair share myself, although to the best of my recollection this has been in response to the chorus of people asking why a given article hadn't been speedied already. But my point about the presence of reasonable doubt (incidentally, a random search through the WP:CSD history shows that this has been around at least since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=136115195 April], so it's not a recent policy change) has not been addressed, and as such I am not convinced that the deletion was appropriate under Wikipedia policy. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, this was fairly blatant advertising, even if for a sister project. It still doesn't belong here, and I think it's a valid G11. --Coredesat 07:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. MfD really needs to stop interfering with people's user spaces. WP:USER gives people pretty broad latitude here. I'm largely indifferent to the whole veropedia thing, but I read Moreschi's essay and, from what I recall, it's largely about improving content on Wikipedia. How exactly is that something that we need to urgently delete from his user space? It's no more advertising than thousands of user pages that link to real world interests. --JayHenry (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• WP:CSD#G11 claims it applies to all namespaces, and WP:USER includes advertising clauses in it. I also think you've remember Moreschi's essay wrongly - it largely said "Created something good on Wikipedia? Ensure it doesn't get ruined by posting it on Veropedia" (or something along those lines), and he prominently included it in his signature with a link "If you've written a quality article...". I wouldn't have cared or submitted it to MFD if it wasn't for the latter. -Halo (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse WP:SPEEDY applies anytime, including before, during, and after XfD. This was the most blatant advertising I have seen. WP:CSD#G11 applied. User:Moreschi can try to get such information listed at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, but keeping blatant advertising is not the way to go. -- Jreferee t/c 09:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:*Erm, no it doesn't. From WP:CSD "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements". While this had not technically survived its MfD as it hadn't been closed, it was clearly on ts way to a keep result, so speedily deleting the page went against the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

::*Pages whose AfD keep close are overturned at DRV are CSD G4 speedy deleted all the time, even if they survived a prior AfD deletion discussion. Whose been monkeying with the speedy delete policy? -- Jreferee t/c 10:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

::*The blatant advertising was spread throughout Wikipedia by Moreschi because Moreschi's signature included a disruptive internal link to the blatant advertising and appears as "Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}" Speedily deleting the page clearly was with the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. -- Jreferee t/c 11:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:::*The policy has had that wording for as long as I can remember - certainly for months. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=141684202] Obviously it's not meant to apply to recreations of material which was kept at one AfD and deleted at a second, but otherwise I think it's sound - speedy should not be used to override good faith objections to a deletion, such as those which resulted in it being kept. As for Moreschi's signature, several people have suggested that he change it, but that's a different matter from the deletion of the page itself. I also think that the bottom line is that if sixteen people at the MfD didn't see this page as blatent advertising, it can't be blatent. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Speedy is for uncontroversial, clear-cut cases; the discussion at the MfD should be more than ample evidence that this wasn't. Obviously the community didn't see this as blatent advertising, or if they did, they thought that the potential benefit to Wikipedia outweighed any annoyance it might have caused. Even the nominator described it as "a borderline case". If Angr disagreed with the emerging consensus he should have expressed his opinion in the debate and tried to persuade the keep voters of it, instead of simply trying to impose his own interpretation of a subjective clause over that of the rest of the community. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn What and what isn't blatant advertising is determined by the community. Admins who disagree can add their arguments at the bottom of the discussion in the hope to sway the community. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion, and close MfD as keep. The policy issues here do not justify going against clear consensus in the MfD debate, which was that this page does not constitute advertising. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, and reprimand Angr for blatant abuse of admin tools to further an ideological goal. This is an example of why we need a much easier way to desysop people. Walton^One 11:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and consider sanctioning Angr for misuse of his tools and for ignoring consensus. The article was not a clear cut speedy deletion candidate, rather, it was something that required discussion and consensus was in favour of the article being legitimate, and that it should be kept. Nick (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Guitar controller compatibility}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Guitar controller compatibility}} cache]|AfD)

contains useful information 206.169.113.251 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion "useful information" is not the same as "encyclopedic information"; closer's comments summarised the debate correctly. WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason to keep or restore. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Undue deletion: The admin clearly overstepped by going against consensus when there was a clear and overwhelming decision to keep the article MusiMax (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted admins aren't vote counters. Useful info isn't the same as encyclopedic. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 02:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• I applaud the closing administrator for his close, which I support. I (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Blatant original research. Guy (Help!) 04:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:*The table itself makes no comparision conclusions. However, the Yes/No conclusion that a particular Guitar controller has a certain features was original research. Certainly, it was not based on independent reliable sources material as only the manufacturer would likely detail such information and any reliable source would merely repeate what the manufacturer published (so that such repeating would not be "independent"). -- Jreferee t/c 08:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Undo deletion: Comments:

:#How is it original research? Every entry in the table was sourced to IGN, 1UP, or the Harmonix press release. The information was well-sourced, notable, and in no way violating WP:NOR.

:#WP:USEFUL wasn't the only pro-inclusion argument. The alternative is to duplicate this info at Rock Band, Guitar Hero III, and Guitar Hero II, which unnecessarily clutters all three articles.

:#The only pro-deletion arguments I've ever heard were that it's "not an article or list" (since when is there a rule that a page has to be one of these, there are numerous articles that are primarily tables), that the page was a mess (true, but not a reason for deletion), and WP:GUIDE (it was never explained how this is remotely game guide information), and WP:USELESS.

:I'm still yet to hear one policy this page violates or one reasonable reason why the page should no longer exist. My understanding of the AFD process is that there needs to be a consensus to delete something based on a reason, as opposed to requiring a consensus to keep something. The consensus in the original AfD was clear and the pro-deletion folks didn't even try to discuss it. So I ask again, is there a valid reason for deleting this article? Oren0 (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:: Most likely WP:IINFO. -Halo (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:::I do not think that the information was indiscriminate. -- Jreferee t/c 08:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Um, I did try to discuss it. No one replied to any of my comments except for some bad faith assumptions and personal attacks on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Based on a bold assumption of what was there, can I suggest changing to a template for transclusion? It's probably not worth an article on its own, but it is relevant for the three games -Halo (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and closer's reasoning. Something possibly being useful isn't a reason to keep, as lots of things can be "useful", but not for an encyclopedia. --Coredesat 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - WP:NOT seems the likely outcome. There are many, many of these product feature comparison table articles. While it seems that Wikipedia is not a features guide to be used to compare the features of competing products, WP:NOT does not seem to specifically cover this situation. Wp:not#sales was written to keep prices out of these comparison table articles. Someone should write an essay as a first step of getting WP:NOT revised and to provide something that may be cited to that specifically addresses these feature comparison table articles. -- Jreferee t/c 08:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion pretty good example of why AfD is not a vote: The delete voters had valid concerns about WP:NOT and original research. The keep voters more or less just repeated "It's useful!" Well sure it is. I'd find a wiki page with the menus and phone numbers of all the restaurants that deliver to me useful too, but it isn't something that would be right for wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:I repeat again, why is this original research? It is all well-sourced, published info. As for WP:NOT, who decides what's indiscriminate? The menus and phone numbers of your favorite restaurants aren't likely to be published in multiple reliable sources. This info is. I don't see how this is less encyclopedic than any of the comparison articles that exist all over Wikipedia. Oren0 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. The closing admin used a pinpoint focus on a few of the keep comments (Useful information not available anywhere else) as rationale for deletion. I think this was read out of context. IIRC, the comment refers to the fact that a comprehensive table did not exist, not that the information was not referenced. If the information wasn't referenced, I believe it could be by reliable sources. This table contained very notable information, due to the games' chart-topping sales, and the over $50 price of controllers, purchasing an incompatible one is a big deal. -- Norvy (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy - I'll Wikify this article in Encyclopedia Gamia, or at least put it somewhere where it can go to use. Obviously consumer advocacy is not in Wikipedia's best interests.--WaltCip (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse But then, I would, wouldn't I? More seriously, Starblind articulates my reason better then I can. Also, 15 people saying its useful and the information isn't available elsewhere don't significantly overcome policy based discussions and this is a classic example of why consensus measures arguments not numbers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (as original nominator). "Useful" is the reason for almost every comment in support of keeping. Most of the table was blank space due to controllers for one system obviously not working for any other system. Most of the actual prose was just a summary of the occasional unexpected compatibility issues. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - as per closing editor's rationale. Maybe also as original research. Useful informatinon ≠ Encyclopedia (and therefore better) information. — Rudget _{contributions} 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). As several have already said, this is an excellent example of why deletion discussions are decided based on weight of argument, not by vote. No objection to a temporary undeletion if someone wants to move the content to some other GFDL-compliant site where this content might be appropriate. Rossami (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I added a Propose: Not Features Guide at WP:NOT that links to this DRV. Please consider adding your comments there as well. -- Jreferee t/c 22:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - an outstanding example of a closure based on policy consensus, which trumps local ILIKEIT !voting. Eusebeus 14:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)