Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 28

< 2021 June 27
2021 June 29 >

28 June 2021

  • P2P_Foundation – Deletion endorsed, but recreation allowed; draftified. Draft:P2P Foundation is now up (see also WP:DRAFT). I'm closing this early because, coupled with the canvassing (to whom I say: no one here is trying to cancel anyone), it seems rather straight-forward. My own sense is that this foundation likely meets the notability threshold, but that additional reliable sources (new participants: click and closely review, please) are still needed. Work toward this end can now proceed immediately. HTH! El_C 13:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
P2P_Foundation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is an organization with quite long tradition and very active in the P2P space. Its https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/ wiki is an important source of information with 38k wiki pages. Even a reviewer of the deletion request noted that "I do wonder why so much of their work (from their websites) is on Google Scholar." No shit, Sherlock. Mitar (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is terrible. An organisation which has done so much work and for so long? See [1] There should be some justice in the Wikipedia's decision over deletion of articles into which so much work has gone! Fredericknoronha (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't know what the original article looked like, but I believe it passes WP:JOURNALCRIT, being a widely recognized source by various academic journals that reference it. ~

Shushugah (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and allow recreation Given the consensus of deletes and based on reasonable policy arguments, the close was right. I do think this should be an article, but recreating it, either with 2 or more notable articles per WP:GNG or recognizing its status as a publisher per WP:JOURNALCRIT. The focus on the motivations of the authors is a distraction, and I have no opinion on that. Shushugah (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The AfD did not mention the organisation winning a Golden Nica, a prize from Ars Electronica.[2] Fences&Windows 21:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that source in the article? It halfway demonstrates notability on one read through. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; allow recreation. The closure was obviously correct: the participants clearly reached a consensus that the topic wasn't notable, so overturning that close would be inappropriate. It does seem that the Foundation is conceivably notable, so I certainly have no objection to allowing the article's recreation. (Using the articles for creation process would be highly recommended.) If you do this, make sure to provide significant coverage in reliable and independent sources: otherwise, you may end up right back at AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as closer. How else could I have possibly closed this? Four well-reasoned delete !votes and nothing to the contrary. I personally don't have an issue with the article being recreated provided it demonstrates more significant notability than the deleted article, and as per Extraordinary Writ, the articles for creation process may be a good way to quality-control any potential recreation. Daniel (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. For justifying re-creation, I urge following advice at WP:THREE. Note that you need independent commentary published in reliable sources, not facts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; allow recreation. The deleted article was quite poor. it only developed two details (Satoshi's announcement and the Chokepoint project) that did not reflect the extent and variety of the foundation's research and actions. It is not difficult to find good quality secondary sources (quotation in many books, academic articles and press articles). The difficulty is rather to select them, there are so many of them.--OlivierAuber (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The organisation received extensive coverage from Ars Electronics,which is a prominent tech news website [3]. I believe this meets General Notability. SFB 09:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s the same good source mentioned above. The GNG requires two. Have you seen the second? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: this discussion has been canvassed for people looking to overturn, on social media: https://www.facebook.com/groups/p2p.open/posts/4342490219128457/ Daniel (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, rather more dimly, at https://www.facebook.com/olivier.auber.7/posts/3882360588541267 people have started to 'investigate' the individuals who !voted delete at the original discussion, and myself as the closer. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes because Michel Bauwens has recently suffered very violent personal attacks by people linked to the cancel culture. It is natural to seek to understand whether the two facts are related or not. --OlivierAuber (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh God, we've got conspiracy theorists and opposition research on Facebook and a reference to "cancel culture". I'm half-expecting the next new account to talk about the "MSM". Daniel had to close the discussion in front of him and it was unanimous, so it only allowed the one result. Look, Wikipedia is about sources. They have to be independent, reliable sources. If there's a decent article to be written, write a draft of a decent article with the sources in and bring it back here.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_June_28&oldid=1031237022"