- psyBNC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I see 5 keep requests and 4 delete requests, yet the article was still removed. The delete requests were made by JBsupreme, Joe Chill, and Theserialcomma, plus Miami33139 who raised the AfD who are all clearly involved in a case against tothwolf, which is clearly a COI and does not assume good faith to those impartial to this case. If these were ignored, the article would have been kept. Hm2k (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On reading the discussion I agree with Sandstein that the strength of the arguments was on the "delete" side. However, I am perplexed by Sandstein's refusal to userfy the article, which strikes me as bizarre. I hope he will explain.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment: I didn't participate in the AFD to attack Tothwolf. I have been participating in software AFDs for over a year. Most of my participation is in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe you too. Hence my reply to Hm2k [1] as well as my comments here and elsewhere. While we may not always agree, I don't think you were acting maliciously. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In addition to that, I was not implying Joe Chill had done anything in bad faith, but instead was merely pointing out that he is involved in both the arbcom case and the psyBNC AfD. --Hm2k (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I was checking sources and giving the historical background for this software. There was a mass deletion of IRC related articles going on at that time and I remember that the tone was hostile, to a point where it was pointless to discuss and work on issues together. When one article that I worked on was dragged into AfD (possibly as a sort of revenge [2]), I stopped participating. However, you can see an old article version here with 14 references in online and print media. Cheers! -- 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. One of the keep arguments was to WP:IAR, despite the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Citing a doc file isn't really "non-trivial coverage", either, so the closing administrator was well within his/her bounds to find reason to delete. JBsupreme (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
- Comment Due to your involvement in the case against tothwolf, I don't think your endorsement should be counted. Further more 12 references is not just "a doc file" and IAR does not give anyone permission to be ignorant. --Hm2k (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll call bullshit on that. I am just as entitled to comment as anyone else. I will agree however that IAR does not give permission to be ignorant. Whoever closes this review can make their own decision regarding my statements here and the merits of the tothwolf case. JBsupreme (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Endorse AfD is not a vote. (I am involved in the Arbcom case. I don't see that as important to independently judging this article on its own merits.) Miami33139 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a direct correlation between issues with User:tothwolf and Wikipedia:WikiProject_IRC articles being deleted. Articles should be deleted on their own merit, not to get back at another user. Your point of view on this subject is clearly not neutral. --Hm2k (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are accusing the discussion participants of bad faith. This is not a user conduct RfC. Sandstein judged this article on its merits. Miami33139 (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am mealy pointing out the facts. If there has in fact been bad faith, which it does seem to indicate then that is not an accusation. User conduct is not in question here. Sandstein judgement was influenced by the comments left on the AfD, which is one of the topics I am disputing here. --Hm2k (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: only one of the keep votes made any attempt to establish notability, and the closing admin was justified in deciding that the other keep votes could safely be discounted. I don't often agree with closing rationales that say (in a context where "votes" seem equally split) that one side was "stronger" than the other, but in this instance that conclusion seems perfectly reasonable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's likely because notability is clear and obvious. As I keep pointing out, there are over 12 references (see User:Hm2k/psyBNC) and numerous entries on reliable sites for psyBNC such as Dmoz, SourceForge.net, Ohloh and freshports. It also appears in the FreeBSD and Ubuntu operating system distributions. I find it absurd that such obviously notable software is even questioned, which is yet another reason why I put it down to this drama surrounding tothwolf. I also don't see how claims such as "Wow. I see a flood of keeps here, again a sign of systemic bias on Wikipedia for certain internet related things" make a strong case for delete. --Hm2k (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD addressed those sources and found them lacking, which is what Sandstein judged. Miami33139 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I was the keep voter in the original debate who went out and did a google search to find some sources to establish notability. I found a number of sources but they were dismissed by the delete voters as being self published or merely reflections of the developers documentation. At the time I was much less experienced in AfD debates than I am now, and I didn't think to check google books for better sources. A quick check of google books shows several published references to this SW including at least two, [3] and [4], which strike me as non trivial. I don't know anything about the dispute between the other parties (I just sometimes look for AfD debates to participate in when I don't have anything better to do), but I don't think that this article was given a fair shake in that I seem to be the only participant in the original AfD debate who made a good faith effort to really search for sources that might establish notability. Given that "psybnc" generates more than 10 hits on google books alone, and more than a million hits in a normal google search, I find that a puzzle. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: the sources do not pass WP:RS enough to prove WP:N. despite claims otherwise, the article was deleted on its lack of merits. furthermore, if notability exists for this software, someone should present some reliable sources that show mainstream, independent, third party coverage. then there's an argument. i wish hm2k, before accusing multiple users of bad faith efforts, would read WP:RS and WP:N to see that article was rightfully deleted. and to rusty cashman: i checked [5] and [6]. these books have 3 sentence mentions of psybnc. this is hardly anything but a trivial mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 November 2009
- Comment Your wish is my command for I am more than familiar with WP:RS and WP:N which is another reason why I raised this deletion review. The reference in the book Securing IM and P2P applications for the enterprise By Paul L. Piccard, Marcus H. Sachs is from page 379 to 386, possibly more (we can't see them all), that is not 3 sentences, that is more like 10 pages. The term "psyBNC" even appears on 4 of the pages. Are you deliberately being dismissive? --Hm2k (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I agree. The first of the books I mentioned devotes an entire paragraph of 8 sentences to the SW and includes a diagram illustrating how the SW works. However number of sentences (or even pages) is not the issue. The issue is whether the book discusses the topic in any detail. A trivial mention would be something like "one of the IRC bots out there is psyBNC." That is trivial because it gives no real information about the specific topic. However, both the books I listed describe specifically what the SW does, and how it can be used. The second also describes how the SW has been used in criminal activity. In most AfD debates I have participated in either of those sources would be enough to establish the notability of a topic. The original AfD may have been closed in good faith, but the new sources (all published books which gives them more weight) indicate that the subject has notability and that should be enough to overturn the original deletion. Notability is a threshold an article has to meet, but it is not supposed to be an impassable obstacle. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request I invite editors to read the following related AfDs which resulted in keep, which should assist you when making a decision: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PsyBNC, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BitchX, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PIRCH. --Hm2k (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a current AfD that may also be of interest, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacAmp (2nd nomination). I didn't follow the AfD under review here, but it looks like it was part of the IRC AfD Death March of Sept-Oct. 2009.--Milowent (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote. In order to be kept, an article's subject must be the subject of multiple, independent, and substantial sources. Mentions in passing in such sources do not establish notability, even if there are a lot of them. The closer of an AfD is to evaluate the arguments, not simply count them. In this case, even the "keep" arguments pointing at the "sources" used, which invariably mention PsyBNC only in passing or are simple use documentation rather than sources about it, strengthen the case for deletion. If those are the best sources available, the subject is not appropriate for an article. And a good job to Sandstein on reading the arguments rather than counting them. We could use that with some other types of articles where a flood of "keep" votes (! omitted intentionally) without presentation of a single decent source inevitably result in a "no consensus" outcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You raise some good points. However, if you actually look yourself you'll clearly see that there's more than just a mention. Although there admittedly aren't as many reliable sources I would like or expect, there clearly is notability, especially it the realm of IRC, which due to it not being logged is difficult to reference. The outlined security issues alone should give it justification to have a Wikipedia article as there is clearly sufficient coverage, as well as all the entries in operating systems such as freebsd, ubuntu and gentoo. --Hm2k (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I endorse the delete close, for reasons eloquently expressed by Seraphimblade above, I agree with S Marshall that the refusal to userfy was indeed very peculiar. It is always possible that participants in the debate missed some reliable sources on the subject - one cannot prove a negative - so IMO good faith userfication requests by an editor in good standing should be granted as a matter of course. Tim Song (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It has already been userfied here: User:Hm2k/psyBNC. As a matter of course, I believe the article is up to standard and should be restored. --Hm2k (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per seraphimblade's remarks. RayTalk 05:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn but with no prejudice towards the closer as I feel he did his best to close this AfD to reflect the apparent consensus based on the information that he had at the time. In reply to Seraphimblade, neither AfD nor DRV is a vote.
This book [7] is not a "mention in passing". While there are other sources that in my opinion absolutely should be added to the article for the purposes of verifiability, the notability of this software is not the issue here and the remaining issues can be handled via the normal editing process.
I do believe Seraphimblade is misunderstanding part of the notability guideline though. The notability guideline does not actually state that multiple sources are required. To quote WP:GNG: ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." The text is quite clear that multiple sources are preferred but it absolutely does not state that multiple sources are required for the purposes of notability (although, of course, I am personally still of the opinion that the more the better). The wording in this section seems to cause confusion where people believe that multiple sources are always required.
The verifiability policy and the notability guideline are also not a combined policy/guideline. It is perfectly acceptable to establish notability via one means and use other sources for the purposes of verifiability. In the case of software, it is common practice and perfectly acceptable per WP:SELFPUB to use the software's own documentation and/or website for the purposes of verifiability when covering such things as the features and functionality of the software itself.
All that said, having also personally spent 100s of hours compiling documentation on the behaviours of individuals named above over a span of months, it is pretty clear that there was something more going on here. Even when 3rd party reliable sources were provided or already present in articles, these individuals still wanted those articles deleted at AfD, and in many cases made false statements or claims against either the sources or the person presenting the sources in an attempt to sway the outcome. In addition to some of the other related AfDs linked above, the AfD for Konversation (AfD), which was also initially closed by Sandstein as delete is also very good example of these behaviours.
--Tothwolf (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I'm not sure how you figure. I don't believe I misunderstand notability, it would be very rare, though not impossible, for a single source to establish notability, and that source would have to be of extreme reliability. In this case, though, the book mentions psyBNC several times, but doesn't go into much depth about it. That's pretty much the definition of a trivial mention rather than a substantial source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought during the original AfD potential sources like these: [8], [9], and [10] were too quickly dismissed. As for the books, I think this is an example of a mention in passing: [11] as is this: [12]. On the otherhand this: [13] is very much not (passing mentions don't generally include diagrams) and this one (that I don't think has been mentioned in this discussion yet) is arguable: [14]. I understand that notability is a hurdle that an article has to clear, but it shouldn't be a mountain that an article is required to climb. I don't know whether any part of the original AfD process was done in bad faith, but it sure seems like the article wasn't given any benefit of the doubt, which is not how I think the process should work.Rusty Cashman (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You only have to take a quick glance on Google to find literally hundreds of references on gov psybnc site:gov and edu psybnc site:edu sites, surely it's worth a mention in Wikipedia if Governments and Educational bodies are referring to it and writing about it. --Hm2k (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse deletion, I could also see a no-consensus close, but deletion is quite reasonable. But userfy per Tim Song. Hobit (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you care to check the psyBNC page, you'll see that it's already been userfied here: User:Hm2k/psyBNC. I believe the article is up to standard and should be restored. --Hm2k (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still see only howto documentation and trivial mentions listed as "sources". That is insufficient, we would need reliable sourcing about the software, not simply guides as to how to install and use it. Wikipedia is not a howto guide. As far as I can tell by searching, such sourcing doesn't even exist—the software may be name dropped as useful for a particular purpose, and may be widely used, but I do not see substantial, in depth sourcing about the software and its impact. All I can find is use documentation and mentions of where it may be best used. Use of that sourcing without synthesis would result in a textbook "howto guide" article. It is possible that such documentation might be appropriate for a Wikibook on the use of IRC. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think all of those sources are trivial. There is enough to establish that this is a common and important tool (academic paper that spends a fair bit of time on it is a really good start) and so should have an article. After that, we can use primary sources. I would want to see what those books have to say though. Hobit (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the book references are pretty good (but not in that article?) and some of the other ones look okay (academic paper in particular). I'd !vote to keep if those book references were in the article, but I have to endorse the AfD as a reasonable close. I'd suggest adding those sources and moving back into namespace after the DrV is done. Hobit (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus I do not know whether this software is notable or not. It seems clear though that those who did join in the discussion, both here and at the AfD , do not agree at all--that there is no consensus whatsoever for the applicable guideline. People have said what standards they consider should be applicable, but this is merely what they say--there is no agreement whether the GNG or special guidelines should be relevant, or if any what any special standards should be, or whether IAR applies. (I suggest it might be simplest just to apply IAR, on the basis this can supersede all guidelines. It was for just such situations that IAR is established as a basic policy. ) There is one policy which is relevant: if there is no consensus to delete the item is not deleted. I certainly don;t see any. The closing admin did. However, the closing admin also took the extraordinary step of refusing to userify--which nobody here can justify. He was notified on Nov 23, but has not yet commented. Given that, I am not sure he judged the state of the consensus properly. I do not mean this as a general reflection on his closes, which I consider generally superlative in accuracy and reasoning. very few of which have been overturned. I've learned a lot from them. This time, he wasn't right. It has happened to me as well. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absent any specific guideline, the default is GNG. Sandstein clearly said the evaluation established it did not meet GNG. Miami33139 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin: I note that I was not contacted prior to this DRV, as far as I recall. I found a consensus for delete because most "keep" opinions were poorly reasoned hand-waving ("clearly notable, no reason at all to delete", "Keep per WP:IAR"), and did not address the doubts raised by the "delete" opinions about the sourcing quality. I declined userfication because userfication is not an entitlement, I had doubts that the requesting user would do anything useful with the userspace copy given the "IAR" tone of his request, he could have made a userspace copy for himself at the time of his request, and improvement in user space is not required to prepare the article for inclusion (submitting a set of references to substantial coverage of the subject is enough). But of course any other admin can userfy the article if they believe it worth the effort. Sandstein 06:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, you WERE contacted before this DRV [15][16]. It seems you found a consensus by counting "delete" opinions, AfD is not a vote. If users requesting keep didn't give enough reason, why not just ask them for further details? Does common sense not apply here? Clearly not for you, hence the denied userification. Saying the user wouldn't do anything useful with it is not assuming good faith is it? Taking a look at the AfD, 3 users requested Userfy or made a copy, myself included. I might add that making a copy does not keep the revision history which is against Wikipedia's copyright license. Suggesting to make a copy is a bad idea. This whole thing stinks and I think it's becoming clear that it was obviously wrongly deleted. --Hm2k (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
