Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13

Ch interpreter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The usefulness of this article for all C and C++ programmers From the discussion we've been having, it seems fairly obvious that the nominator has a conflict of interest in deleting Ch article. Is this a common practice in the Wikipedia community?

Some research turns out that the nominator was related to Hamilton C shell and his article was deleted by an administrator.

Having checked the website about Hamilton C shell, it seems that this shell is mostly a C shell that works in Windows only for $350, while the standard ch edition with its C compatible shell features is free for commercial use.

The Ch review article from Byte Magazine talks about Hamilton C shell and Ch.

Why would anyone be hurt by having a Wikipedia article about the ch interpreter?

There are multiple, reliable, independent, and different sources as I noticed in the page you created. There are seven.

The argumentation in the discussion to deny some of them as reliable doesn't look quite right.

If the software review article written by a professor in a peer reviewed journal (IEEE) cannot be counted as a reliable source material and be treated as "just anyone with an opinion in print", what kind of reliable source are we looking for and from where?

Notability doesn't equal popularity nor does it equal "expert-only" source. Otherwise, most newspaper and media references in Wikipedia will fall short of the notability standard since the authors are not domain experts. Who is authorized to issue expert certificate to the authors when judging them?

In addition, to declare another two articles written not on their own without proof is a baseless accusation. I don't know if there is an interaction for the author(s) when writing an article. But arguing the article cannot be used as a second source because there is an interaction is weak. don't you think such an article might contain more accurate information when knowing more about the software?

Does it matter for the interaction with subject when writing an article? Doesn't news reporter need to interact with the subject directly and get influenced when writing an article related to the subject for the media?

However, it is acceptable that we assume the articles are biased when they conflict with others. WK:NPOV requires that "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective."

Garykline (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep. The Byte article by Huber is good evidence of notability; it was added before the end of the AfD and mentioned in the AfD. The closer should not have ignored it. There is no real need to discuss other allegations here. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've notified the closer for you, Garykline.

  The questions you ask are fair and relevant and it seems right that we try to answer them here. You ask: it seems fairly obvious that the nominator has a conflict of interest in deleting Ch article. Is this a common practice in the Wikipedia community? and I think the answer is that while it's not "common practice", it does happen that a user will nominate their competitors' products' articles for deletion for business reasons. In theory, this should not be a problem because our AfD process is supposed to be objective, in that for most matters that go to AfD, there are relatively simple tests that can be applied. You ask: Why would anyone be hurt by having a Wikipedia article about the ch interpreter? and the answer is, of course, that nobody is hurt by that kind of article. But from our point of view, the problem is that Wikipedia is very tempting and convenient for marketers. Wikipedia articles achieve high search engine rankings and we accept user-submitted content, so we need a way to filter out marketing spam, because if we didn't, our users wouldn't be able to find the content they actually want to read in among the advertisements. So there are minimum thresholds that articles need to achieve, particularly in terms of having more than one reliable source that's independent of the subject. (The exact definition of "reliable source" has generated enough discussion to fill whole bookshelves, but you can see the principles here.)

  You ask: Does it matter for the interaction with subject when writing an article? and the answer is that the sources must be independent. They can (and should) have investigated the subject, but the author and publisher of the source must be editorially and financially independent of it.

  I agree with DGG when he says the Byte article is an independent, reliable source, and I would add that the other sources in the article in your userspace back this up. I think the outcome of the AfD was wrong.

  I would like to be clear that I think that Sandstein interpreted the consensus correctly, but that consensus made a basic error of fact: it decided that there were no reliable sources when in fact the reliable sources were plainly evident. Overturn to keep.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there another reliable source giving significant coverage besides the Byte article?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, the sources are in the draft article that Garykline links above. For example, this or this, but there are others.—S Marshall T/C 06:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those seem to have been written by someone who, at least from looking at the AfD discussion, is the creator of the subject and therefore not independent.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're asserting that those journals are self-published rather than peer-reviewed, that distinction isn't relevant. That they were mentioned non-trivially in RS is far more important, and "COI" authorship of the article does not impeach a peer-reviewed RS. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jclemens, even though Yaksar is disagreeing with me, I do think he makes a fair point. An article by the software author is of a different quality, in notability terms, to an article by an independent person. Your counterargument that the publisher is independent is, of course, well taken. Other sources by different people are linked in the draft article so it's not necessary to scrutinise the sources I linked too closely.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do find it relevant. The GNG generally multiple independent sources of coverage. Even if the journals are peer reviewed, there's no possible way those specific sources can be interpreted as independent; quite the opposite.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think that articles written in peer-reviewed journals can be viewed as being independently vetted and therefore meeting the definition of independent. Given that others feel the same way, it's pretty plain that there is a possible way. In any case, there are also sources that are clearly independent, one which was found right before the AfD closed... Hobit (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states that sources offered to establish notability shall be independent of the subject. Nowhere does it state an exception to the expectation of independence just so long as the source appeared in a peer-reviewed (or other especially impressive) journal. That's for good reason: As noted in the article on peer review, the process of peer review is inconsistently applied and may be directed only at enforcing editorial policy, not at making decisions about notability. The test of notability is not what the subject said about himself or his own work, even if 100% true and published in a learned journal. The test is what do other people say. Msnicki (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Keep based on the existence of multiple, high-quality RS appropriate to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Nothing has changed. The BYTE article is a minor single mention and none of the rest of the sources is independent. Furthermore, policy states, "Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed." I am anonymous and wish to remain so. Msnicki (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Keep The above claim that the BYTE article is a minor mention appears to be factually incorrect.[1] Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. per Msnicki's reasoning below. Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There's lots of ways to interpret what "independent sources" can entail, but by no stretch of the imagination can something written by the subjects creator be considered independent. The very basic standards of the GNG require multiple reliable and independent sources providing significant coverage, and with this article this has not been proven to be the case, and certainly not to the extent that should overturn an AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that there's lots of ways the word "source" can be read, and I think we can't get to the bottom of this point without examining them closely. To quote WP:V: The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

  In this case, you've correctly pointed out that the connection between the writer and the source weakens its case for notability. But what JClemens said earlier is that because an independent and reputable source published it, this strengthens its case for notability again. Or to put the same thing another way, this is not a self-published source.

  When you say, "this has not been proven to be the case"—an argument that is also repeated below—the links are in the userfied page for anyone to read. And when you say, "certainly not to the extent that should overturn an AfD", overturning AfDs is normal practice for DRV and well within our remit: this page is "the highest court" for such matters.

  Another thing I said above is that there are multiple sources, and I said the userfied page contains them. It does. This page, for example, is not by Harry Cheng. Neither is this one. So even if we were to accept that sources written by Cheng are unacceptable, there are other sources that must be inspected and dismissed before a deletion would be appropriate. I don't see a thorough interrogation of those sources in the AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So having looked further into the draft and the AfD discussion, it does seem that there are other potential sources existing. That being said, however, it does look like the existence of these was raised in the discussion, and various objections were given. I certainly don't feel comfortable with an AfD being overturned just because a different group of editors view the sources in a different way, so I still have to endorse this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The page's author should not waste time and editor's patience by attacking the neutrality of other editors, but should focus on finding WP:RS which are not associated with the product. TEDickey (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I see the Heller article in BYTE as a medium-length software review that doesn't confer much notability. Even with weight added by Byte (magazine), it's definitely not a great source that would justify a closing admin overruling the apparent consensus to delete. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree there. The closer doesn't have the authority to overrule the consensus on the basis of that source and I hope no blame attaches to him. DRV, on the other hand, does have that authority if it finds the AfD consensus was wrong on a point of fact.—S Marshall T/C 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion regardingm disagreement of the scope of DRV has moved to talk page --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just found another article here from an independent source published by IEEE. Here is the quote from the abstract about this article. "The renovated course emphasizes development of algorithmic problem solving skills and familiarity with the C programming language, Excel, and Matlab. Extensive use is made of Ch, a C interpreter, for learning the C language."

From the previous discussions with Msnicki and TEDickey in the AFD, they were consistent from the beginning till the end that no article exists as RS (reliable source) for the Ch article no matter what references were presented. I am not sure how consensus about RS works. By the number of voting or the facts? By just questioning one or two references, then the rest of references will be dropped automatically as non-RS?

The previous 7 articles are listed below for your convenience. They are all published in peer-reviewed publications in the field. I would like to make a note that among these authors, Glassborow, Francis, is an active member of the ISO C and C++ Standard Committees and was Chair of the Association of C & C++ Users. Wilson, Matthew is a columnist and contributing editor for C/C++ Users Journal and Dr. Dobb's Journal, and author of two books on C++. Here is his wiki link. They are definitely experts on the subject. If somebody complains about Glassborow's article again, can you follow AfD "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, please make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist"? Thanks. I saw Gary have made an argument about why they should be used as RS at the beginning. Most people here are senior editors. is it supposed to be easy to make a judgment if his points make sense?

Heller, Martin (2001). Language Environment Byte Magazine.

Glassborow, Francis (2001). The Ch Language Environment Version 2.0 C Vu Magazine. pp. 36-37.

Wang, Gary (2002). Ch Solves Portability Headaches IEEE Spectrum.

Campbell, Matt (2003). A C/C++ Interpreter -- New possibilities for people who like C and Unix MACTECH, the journal of Apple technology.

Wilson, Matthew (2004). Open-RJ and Ch Dr. Dobb's Journal.

Huber, Tom (2010). An Introduction to C and Ch: Your One-Stop Shop for Scientific Computing IEEE Computing in Science and Engineering.

Liu, Li; Wang, Zhaoqing; Jiang, Xusheng (2010). Anchor-based programming teaching embedded with Ch platform Mechatronicsand Embedded Systems and Applications (MESA), 2010 IEEE/ASME International Conference. pp. 49-52.

Chuser (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist When new sources that a reasonable person could find enough for WP:N appear at the tail end of a discussion it is generally a good idea to relist in order to see if the source is actually found to be enough. Discussion of sources in this DRV also leads me to believe that WP:N is pretty clearly met, but as I tend to lean toward keep in most discussions and others object, I think it would be productive to see if others agree in an AfD rather than just overturn to keep... Hobit (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment the two Wang's were already discussed and discarded due to their apparent close association with Cheng. The Huber source was discarded since it fails the knowlegable/authoritative guideline in WP:RS. Re-introduction of those sources only adds to the confusion TEDickey (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "close association" thing, with respect to a peer-reviewed paper, is really a strange reason to discard a source about a tool/research idea. I realize that's the direction the discussion went and at DrV we should defer to the discussion unless it's really irrational, but darn it, that's pretty out there. The fact it got published in a reasonable place generates the needed independence IMO. Hobit (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gary Wang has no association. I think you meant Matt Campbell and Wang, Zhaoqing. Regarding Professor Tom Hubber's article in the IEEE Computing in Science and Engineering, I am not here argue if he is knowledgeable or not. It is IEEE editors's job to determine if he is knowledgeable about the subject to publish his article. WP:RS states: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." It is "or", not "and". In other words, RS can be established if one of the above two conditions is met. Also from WP:RS, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". The IEEE Computing in Science and Engineering is one of the most authoritative academic and peer-reviewed publications. Chuser (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Both nom and Chuser have charged bias in the AfD. I've been named twice, Tedickey once. I find this remarkable coming from two obvious SPAs, as seen here and here. Anyone who doubts whether the AfD had time to consider all the sources offered (and also, the spamming here and on Amazon) need only look at the history. The article got considered, it was debated right to the end and the consensus was to delete. Also, part of what is missing from the review here is prior discussion on the article's talk page, where a series of editors had expressed doubts, not all of them just about the sources. If S Marshall had been there in the original AfD, maybe he'd have voted to keep, but the consensus would still have gone against him. Msnicki (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed some editor's concern which was posted years ago that the original interpreter article needs references and it looked like advertisement. There were none of references previously. But the article has been some changes and I have added the references. Everybody can make a judgment by the link restored by the editor here. The question is whether the article should or should not be listed because of the lacking of references. wiki is not about winning. If the original consensus and reasoning supporting the consensus are correct,just keep it. If wrong, what can the DRV do? Chuser (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did miss that, since the edits from "GaryKline" are using the same "voice" as "Chuser". Perhaps someone could verify (or not) their possible association here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. TEDickey (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not gary. Chuser (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How interesting. I notice he spells his name all lower case, too, e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4. Msnicki (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse If new sources have come to light, editors are free to create a new article but it is no business of DRV to make an assessment of such sources. Also, the canvassing going on here is a little unsavoury. SpinningSpark 10:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is one thing here for argument. Are the references provided enough for WP:N to justify a Ch Interpreter article? If yes, then it comes to the next question. Can the original article here be used for improvement or it needs to have a complete new article? If the original article can not be used for improvement, then it needs to create a new article. What you observed is correct. I don't understand why so many arguments about the so obvious WP:N materials and really not want to post any more till I see your message. Chuser (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I find the notion that peer review confers independence on a work written by an interested party deeply suspect. All peer review means is that the reviewers found the argument credible, not that they found the topic significant; that could only be determined by an independent person. Thus, the only source at issue here is the Byte article, which is a review and doesn't amount to much. If this gets more extensive coverage in future, it can obviously be reconsidered. Chick Bowen 01:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewers are independent people. Certain when I'm asked to review an article I'm selected because I know something about the topic, but I, like other peer reviewers (I assume) am looking to see if the research is credible and significant. If it isn't, I reject. I'm pretty sure that's how it works in most, if not all, fields. Hobit (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You're confusing reliability with notability. The test of notability isn't whether a (possibly impressive) statement is true. The test is whether anyone independent said it. Msnicki (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we disagreeing that the reviewers aren't independent or that they didn't say anything? I claim that A) they are independent and B) they largely endorse the research methodology and relevance of the work. Are you disagreeing with either of those statements? Hobit (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There's another point of confusion which was injected a while back: not all content in a journal is "peer-reviewed", nor are all journals "peer-reviewed". Neither aspect has been established for the sources in discussion. Good to remember that before digressing TEDickey (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The reviewers may be independent and may be fact-checking or otherwise verifying compliance with editorial policy but they are not making any statements in their own voice. That's why they don't add their own names as authors. (And of course, if they did, they would no longer be independent.) If afterward, they go out and write their own articles (while still independent), you can use that. But the fact it was "reviewed" (even assuming, as Tedickey points out, that you can prove that) is not enough. It's still the subject talking about himself and his own work. Msnicki (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The "Independence of sources" discussion at WP:CORPDEPTH provides additional useful guidance. Msnicki (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I made my statement based on a lifetime of experience with academic peer review, and I stand by it. Think of it this way: if George Smith writes an article on a brand-new topic and I review it favorably, I'm saying it deserves the attention of other scholars in the field; but there's no way that endorsement carries the same weight as if I wrote my own article backing up George Smith's claims. So sure, peer review is better than no peer review, but I cannot imagine Hobit means to suggest that it's equivalent to a genuinely independent view. Chick Bowen 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't imagine Hobit thinks they're equivalent, either, but he does seem to be arguing peer review is good enough and that's where we disagree. I think the guidelines are quite clear that peer or other kinds of review are not a substitute for independence in determining notability. Not even a patent (and think about the standard of review for that!) is considered independent. Msnicki (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we now discussing the articles below written by "an interested party"? I think S Marshall has already made a good coverage for both sides. Maybe wiki policy maker here can make it more clear how those articles published in the journals should be different from those self-published or paid source.

• Cheng, Harry (1993). "Handling of Complex Numbers in the Ch Programming Language". Scientific Programming: 76–106.
• Cheng, Harry (1993). "Scientific Computing in the Ch Programming Language". Scientific Programming: 49–75. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Cheng, Harry (1995). "Extending C and FORTRAN for Design Automation". ASME Trans., Journal of Mechanical Design: 390–395. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Cheng, Harry (1995). "Extending C with arrays of variable length". Computer Standards & Interfaces: 375–406. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Cheng, Harry (2002). "C99 & Numeric Computing". Dr. Dobb's Journal. pp. 28–34.
• Cheng, Harry (2006). "Ch: A C/C++ Interpreter for Script Computing". Dr. Dobb's Journal. pp. 6–12.
• Cheng, Harry (2009). "Speeding-Up Software Development Using Embedded Scripting". Dr. Dobb's Journal. pp. 8–8.
• Cheng, Harry (2009). "C for the Course". ASME Mechanical Engineering Magazine: 50–52. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Cheng, Harry (2009). C For Engineers & Scientists, An Interpretive Approach. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0077290467.

In addition to the above articles, there are multiple articles written by independent experts and got published in the most relevant and top engineering and science journals on the subject as I mentioned earlier. For example, Gary Wang's article "Ch Solves Portability Headaches", was published in the IEEE Spectrum -- one of top engineering and science journals. wiki link here states: "IEEE Spectrum Magazine, the flagship publication of the IEEE, explores the development, applications and implications of new technologies. ...IEEE Spectrum has a circulation of over 380,000 engineers worldwide, making it one of the leading science and engineering magazines." It should be no doubt that IEEE Spectrum is one of the top peer reviewed publications on the subject. Chuser (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no - as you have noticed, we're discussing whether sources by close associates of Harry Cheng can in some way be contorted into a third-party source. Harry Cheng's papers are not under consideration at this point TEDickey (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Thanks. I thought Hobit has already made some clarification in the previous thread about the close association thing. Good to know about it. However, the concern about the close associates is not a big issue here since there are only two articles involved. I don't see any evidence that the rest of authors have any association with Harry Cheng. To make the discussion easier, I just re-organized those references. The list of publications by independent authors (non-associates) are listed below.

• Heller, Martin (2001)The Ch Language Environment Byte Magazine.
• Glassborow, Francis (2001). The Ch Language Environment Version 2.0 C Vu Magazine. pp. 36-37.
• Wang, Gary (2002). Ch Solves Portability Headaches IEEE Spectrum.
• Wilson, Matthew (2004). Open-RJ and Ch Dr. Dobb's Journal.
• Huber, Tom (2010). An Introduction to C and Ch: Your One-Stop Shop for Scientific Computing IEEE Computing in Science and Engineering.
• Furman, B.; Wertz, E. (2010). A first course in computer programming for mechanical engineers Mechatronics and Embedded Systems and Applications (MESA), IEEE/ASME International Conference. pp. 70-75

The list of publications authorized or co-authorized by the close associates of Harry Cheng are listed below.

• Campbell, Matt (2003). A C/C++ Interpreter -- New possibilities for people who like C and Unix MACTECH, the journal of Apple technology.
• Liu, Li; Wang, Zhaoqing; Jiang, Xusheng (2010). Anchor-based programming teaching embedded with Ch platform Mechatronicsand Embedded Systems and Applications (MESA), 2010 IEEE/ASME International Conference. pp. 49-52. Chuser (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Contrary to TEDickey, Harry Cheng's papers certainly are still under consideration. TEDickey (and several other users) are caught up on the ambiguity of the word "source". Per WP:V, the reliability of a source is affected by both the author and the publisher. In this case the author has a conflict of interest but the publisher is independent and peer-reviewed.

  By analogy, if Harry Cheng were a physicist who claimed to have discovered some new principle in physics, then his claims would not be reliable if they were made on his blog. But if they were accepted for publication in the Physics Review Letters, then they would be considered reliable—albeit not quite as reliable than an analysis of his paper by an independent physicist.

  In other words, the Cheng sources can't be dismissed as a conflict of interest if they appear in a reliable publication.—S Marshall T/C 12:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me, S Marshall. They can't be "dismissed", but neither can they be used to establish notability, which is all we care about here. Cheng's papers are not under consideration unless we're also questioning the content, not just the notability. Quoting WP:CORPDEPTH, "Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms ... except for any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it ... Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." Msnicki (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  (Why am I arguing this with someone who spent most of his early argument on the possibility that those of us who were there for the AfD didn't know what we were doing?) Msnicki (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Then WP:CORPDEPTH contradicts the WP:GNG, which in its second limb talks about the independence of the publisher, not the author; but that's a red herring regardless, because even if you contort the rules into a decision that nothing connected with Cheng can possibly amount to notability, what about the other six sources?

  Still, WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be brought back into accordance with the GNG.—S Marshall T/C 23:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When your arguments consist of speculation that everyone in the AfD was wrong or certainty that the guidelines are wrong, don't you suppose it's time to consider the alternate possibility that maybe you're wrong? There's no inconsistency between WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH; both require reliable independent sources to establish notability. You're just very mixed up and way overconfident that if it's your opinion, it must be right. Msnicki (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The point of DRV is to conduct a thorough and vigorous review of a contested deletion. We aren't just supposed to accept that the AfD got it right; we're supposed to bottom out all the points of contention, so that the admin who closes this gets to see the fullest and strongest arguments that each side can present, and judge whether the AfD took adequate account of them. And that's what I'm doing: arguing the side I think is right, and arguing it as hard as I can. And ad hominem is not okay at DRV, Msnicki. Challenge the evidence and the arguments, not the people making them.—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  (Later) Oh, and I forgot to respond to your point about CORPDEPTH. I think that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are written by a self-selecting committee and they tend towards a compromise wording that's least objectionable to several different groups of editors. My position is that they are confused, confusing, badly-written and, in many places, mutually contradictory. My position is also that the GNG trumps all specific notability guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Then respond to my argument. Explain why anyone should believe that you know better than the editors came together on the consensus texts of WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Or better still, take it to the CORPDEPTH talk page, right into the lions' den where it might be relevant, and challenge them to explain how they could have made such an obvious error. I think you'll get your head handed to you.

  Personally, I think you should check your work. The only mistakes people remember are the ones you refuse to admit. You need to reread WP:GNG; I don't think you have a clear understanding of notability and, especially, that all the conditions must satisfied, especially independence, and that independence has nothing to do with reliability. Finally, it's not ad hominem to remind you of the same point 82.7.44.178 spent nearly the entire talk page trying to explain, that "calling on DRV to be in general a place to decide that "your" opinion is superior to that of the AFD participants seems supremely arrogant", to which I would add, especially when you seem confused on the basic guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CORPDEPTH specifically excludes any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it. On that same point, the GNG says "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." The difference is that CORPDEPTH is talking about who wrote the material and the GNG is talking about who produced it. And this is the hole in the guidelines that Harry Cheng's article falls into: it was written by someone connected with the subject but produced by someone editorially independent. Thus, it passes the GNG but fails CORPDEPTH.

This means that CORPDEPTH is taking it upon itself to rule out something that the GNG would permit, so there's a conflict between CORPDEPTH and the GNG. See now?

But none of that matters to the outcome of this deletion review anyway, because as I've mentioned several times now, Chuser has pointed out six sources that are independent of Harry Cheng and thus pass both CORPDEPTH and the GNG. So even if you do use CORPDEPTH to kill off a source that the GNG would permit, this article passes notability anyway.

The AfD was wrong because it didn't make that finding.

I also wish you and 82.7.44.178 would stop calling me "arrogant" or "confused", because from my point of view, it's you two who're arrogant and confused. The matter we're considering is perfectly simple, and the mistake made at the AfD is no less of a mistake because several people made it. "Correct" is not the plural of "error".—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Produce is a verb with a number of meanings that surely must encompass an author producing a manuscript by the obvious means of writing it. Honestly, you don't need to win, just to win. A lot of what we learn is from our mistakes. You're a strong (and contentious) debater so maybe this is the first time anyone ever took you on to explain that your understanding of notability is mistaken. Msnicki (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Before I answer that, you seem to have disregarded those other six sources again in your reply. Shall I take it that you concede there are six independent sources, or would you like to dispute them?—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no new sources. All of the sources were investigated at the AfD. Tedickey and I both chased down the connections on the various authors. We made a good faith effort and it wasn't hard to discover that the various authors are not independent. Did you actually read the AfD or is this just another example of your assumption that nobody else has any idea what they're doing? Msnicki (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say they were new sources. I said they were independent sources. About these alleged "connections"—do I understand correctly that your position is that because some of the authors had previously co-authored papers on different subjects with Harry Cheng, this disqualifies them as independent of this subject? If so, I'm refreshed and intrigued by this unique line of reasoning.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, they're colleagues who've worked together. They're not independent. The essence of notability is not what anyone associated with the subject has to say about it, it's what people who have no connection have to say about it. Msnicki (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No it isn't. The essence of notability is that it's a tool for detecting and removing marketing spam that we had to invent when Wikipedia articles started ranking highly on google searches. It was never meant as a bludgeon to stop good faith editors adding verifiable content to the encyclopaedia, although there are certainly people who try to use it in that way nowadays.

  Anyway, your notion of "independence" is overly harsh and only to be found in certain creepy specific notability guidelines. It throws out the baby with the bathwater, as in this case. If you're going to discuss the reliability of sources then the rule that should prevail is the basic one: WP:SOURCES. Note well that this is policy, not a guideline, and it says specifically that it prevails over any and all guidelines about sourcing. It makes no allowance for the provision you wish to raise about people who've worked together.

  And such a provision makes no sense. It suggests that we couldn't allow an analysis of one of Stephen Hawking's theories by Roger Penrose, for goodness' sake. The fact is that people at the bleeding edge of academic research (or other intellectual fields of endeavour such as computer programming) often have to collaborate with each other to make any progress at all, so this notion would rule out a lot of the primary experts on many subjects.

  The fact is that Wikipedia's labyrinthine maze of policies and guidelines is very complicated and mutually contradictory. It's like scripture—by picking and choosing the bits you want to quote, you can find support for any position, including bizarre extremes such as preventing experts who've ever collaborated from commenting on each other's projects. But that's not the intent or purpose of notability. Notability is a tool for detecting and removing marketing spam.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, you demonstrate in a single remark that you don't understand the concept of notability here on WP and that you're convinced everyone else is screwed up. You're welcome to your opinion that WP's policies are a complicated and contradictory maze. But the editors who wrote it apparently thought it made sense and when I read it, it made sense to me, too. So maybe the problem is you.

  Let's take your example, because it demonstrates your confusion so clearly. There is little doubt that both Hawking and Penrose can be established to be notable based on any number of completely independent works. It's not hard to find entire books devoted to Hawking and Penrose. Once you've established notability, then of course you can use primary source materials written by the subjects themselves to talk about their theories. Again from WP:CORPDEPTH, "Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." Msnicki (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you're going to insist on personalising this, I don't see why I shouldn't respond in kind.

  I certainly don't understand your concept of notability, Msnicki. I mean, I'm prepared to believe that when you read specific notability guideline #523, it made sense to you. But the fact that it makes sense to you doesn't mean it makes sense for the encyclopaedia. To be completely frank, what I think it means is that you haven't had enough experience writing content to see the problem with it.

  I don't blame you for that; everyone has to start somewhere. Start a few more pages of your own, maybe try to develop a GA or two, participate in a few more AfDs and maybe you'll start to see notability for what it is and grok how it's used (and widely misused) in practice.

  I do accept that you care a lot about software-related articles, and you seem to have a clear vision for them including what we "ought" to allow and what we "ought" not to. I don't, and I've never paid any attention to them really. I'm just applying the general standards we have for all articles, on the basis that I think we ought to be reasonably consistent across different subject areas.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think the notability guidelines don't make sense, then you should take that up on the talk pages for the policy guidelines you question. That debate doesn't belong here, where you'd leave the rest of us defending an empty chair (i.e., the decisions of those who wrote the guidelines but are not here now to defend their work.) Here, the job is to decide the DRV based on the guidelines as they exist, not as you wish they did. Msnicki (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll be the judge of what I should do, Msnicki. The job is to review the deletion, consider whether the AfD was closed correctly and came to the right conclusion. You've selectively quoted guidelines that support your position and I've selectively quoted policies that support mine.—S Marshall T/C 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• @Msnicki, you claimed "they're colleagues who've worked together." this is far from the truth. As far as I know, they are all not related. You seems to fall into two rules when coming to judge the references with your bias. "rule number one: there should not and could not exist any independent sources; rule number two: if there is such a source, follow the rule number one." I have summarized what we discussed in the AFR: the author of six references I listed are independent and has no association in the past. Most authors are either professors or significant domain experts in the industry. And they are just either Ch users or reviewers. They write the articles based on their own research result. I don't believe you can find any evidence to back up your claim. If you think you do, please post it here. But I don't think you can because there is none. Chuser (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If they were co-authors on an article, they must have worked together. I don't know how else it could be done. And if they worked together, they are not independent. Msnicki (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you that "if they were co-authors on an article, they must have worked together". That is why I have moved out those articles and keep the separate six references to stress that they are independent and there is no evidence that the authors of six references have worked together before. I have no comments regarding your next claim "if they worked together, they are not independent". It is wiki policy's call. Chuser (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just read wiki Consensus, it states: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions." It looks to me that it acknowledges that the result of concensus can be wrong and can be overturned for a good reason. I don't mean that the previous consensus should be overturned just because of it though. Chuser (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What that means is that if the DRV endorses the AfD decision to delete the Ch article but new sources are discovered later, you can reopen the matter. It does not mean you can keep relitigating endlessly with only the same arguments and the same evidence until you get the outcome you like. Msnicki (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This DRV has now gone for over 2 weeks, well past the 7 days a DRV is usually open. Positions seem fixed, so unless we attract some new blood to the debate, I think this is it.

• 5 in favor of overturning: Garykline, Chuser, DGG and Jclemens, and S Marshall. (But two of those are SPAs, two of them made only a single comment when the DRV first opened and then disappeared, and one of them argues the guidelines are wrong.)
• 1 in favor of relisting: Hobit
• 6 in favor of endorsing: Msnicki (me), Guy Macon, Yaksar, Tedickey, SpinningSpark, ChickBowen

Comments, please? Msnicki (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'll comment. Don't expect the closer to count noses, don't expect them to disregard DGG and Jclemens because they only made one comment, and don't expect them to disregard me because of the AfD nominator's one-sentence characterisation of my position. They would be well within their rights to disregard comments made after the DRV should have been closed, though.—S Marshall T/C 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I expect the closer to realize that you're the only holdout still fighting to overturn and that your argument is weak. Msnicki (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FASTSIGNS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Recently, the Fastsigns company page met the criteria for speedy deletion for improper capitalization and trademarking according to The manual of style. I was also encouraged to add some additional independent references.I have addressed both issues, and the updated article is sitting in my sandbox. I would love for you to reconsider and reinstate the article if possible. Thank you!

User:Kilgoretrout89/sandbox

• Overturn and send to AfD I do not exactly understand how improper capitalization and use of a TM symbol was a reason for speedy in the first place; I suppose you meant that it added to the generally promotional tone. I do not consider it a valid G11, being mainly informative. (the deleted article is except for the typography identical or almost identical to the one in user space.) However, I am not at all sure the references provided show notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC) .[reply]
• Overturn as per DGG. The article was not unsalvageably promotional, even if it did include some easily pruneable promotional elements. Notability issues do clearly remain, though. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AFD, but remove the trademark signs and use mixed case (Fastsigns) as opposed to all caps, per WP:MOSTM. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. I notice that the permissions discussion for the Fastsigns logo image is clearly less robust than, e.g., for the IBM logo image. Can someone kindly advise on policy? Msnicki (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The image is probably tagged incorrectly. Either the image is copyrightable, in which case it's unlikely the uploader can grant the license listed, or it's not copyrightable in which case the correct tagging would be something else. I would suspect it's the latter and comes under PD text in the same way the IBM one does. That however isn't really a discussion for here. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. In its present form, the article (with the possible exception of the image) appears to meet guidelines. There are multiple sources and little reason to doubt that more could be found if anyone needed convincing of notability. This is, after all, a very well-known franchise. Msnicki (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]