- List of vaporware (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Vote was 8 to delete and 7 to keep, which is 'no consensus', so should have defaulted to keep. Unreferenced were removed prior to deletion which satisfied the nominator's criticism. Category exists for same topic, but now the references that were used for appearing on list and in category, no longer exist, since they were contained in the list. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but you know that. Further, I'm not sure what you are or are not counting among the !votes in the AfD, as I'm seeing very different numbers but most importantly, much better motivations on the deletion side. The key arguement is that the inclusion of something into this list is inherently subjective as an arguement could (and most likely would) arise if you started a discussion with a developer about whether his software was vaporware. The only way to make a list like this objective would be to call it "list of software which has been referred to as vaporware by the media" - and that's just a version of WP:WEASEL. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unless the topic is 100% objective where 10 out of 10 people will always give the same answer, most lists are subjective. That is why we rely on reliable sources to tell us what to include for subjective lists such as List of child prodigies or Films considered the greatest ever or List of highest-grossing films. We don't call it List of highest-grossing films as reported by Box Office Mojo and other reliable media. By removing the reliably sourced list and keeping the unsourced category we are taking a step backward. The same references are good enough that they are included in the article space for each article in the category, then they should be good enough for the list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. That wasn't an unambiguous delete. I'm not convinced by the argument that the inclusion criteria are subjective, and even if they are subjective, I'm not at all convinced that subjective inclusion criteria for a list make the case for deletion. As with all no consensus closes, no prejudice against early renomination. There's an interesting possible tangent here about how much weight a closer should give to !votes that come from an IP address in an AfD, by the way.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The discussion was more imbalanced than suggested in the faulty 8-7 count given above, and some of the "keep" comments were based on the notability of the concept of vaporware, which is fine as a defense of the Vaporware article, but not an adequate defense for this list. I wouldn't say the consensus in the discussion was overwhelming, but it does appear to exist and favor deletion, as the closing admin found. --RL0919 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The delete arguments were based on no RS being present or even possible--but there were at least a few good ones, e.g. BYTE and pcmag.com. The deletes were also some of them relying on the argument that some of the items in the list were not well sourced, which is not a valid argument for keeping or not keeping the article as a whole. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I was not involved in the AFD discussion. But with the greatest of respects to the closer, even a redirect to Vaporware where notable examples of vaporware could be (have been) listed might have been a more appropriate close... and such an outcome was even hinted at by the nominator Sebquantic when he wrote that he was tweaking the Vaporware article to include some of the more notable. But more, and as DGG notes above, there are indeed references available that could have been used to exapand and source the article. Their not be included would have been a reason to encourage improvement to meet concerns,[1][2][3], rather than deletion being seen as the only possible outcome. Overturned to a non-consensus close to keep, it might be revisited in a few months to see if it were actually improved. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- The "overturn" opinions thus far amount to the mistaken beliefs that AfD is a snout-counting exercise and that DrV is AfD round 2. Having read through the original AfD I can see no reason to suppose the closing admin misread consensus or acted improperly. Reyk YO! 03:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This is a good example of an AfD that could have been validly closed in more than one way. In these cases, the admin's exercise of discretion should not be disturbed. In my view, a run of late !votes going one way or the other can be a good indication of consensus based on strength of arguments: here there was a clear late run to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse; the close is valid and well within admin discretion (even if the headcount reported by the nominator had been correct). — Coren (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the instructions on the deletion review page, which the nominator should be very familiar with, indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Not a vote; perfectly within discretion. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per User:Usrnme h8er. In a nutshell: WP:NPOV is not negotiable. Editorial opinion, even in media that is otherwise WP:RS for facts, should not constitute a basis for categories or lists. List of people that have been called curmudgeon in reliable media? Oh, wait, we had that at curmudgeon (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curmudgeon). Pcap ping 15:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete There was no consensus to delete the page. Immunize (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Vaporware. There were not good reasons to delete with the availability of a suitable redirect target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Please restore so I can merge the list to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure! It has been done. Take good care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) merged the list. Please be mindful of attribution requirements for copied content. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There was no consensus. Admins do not have casting votes - if there's no consensus then just leave it at that, please. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close - CLosing admin correctly weighs the merits of the arguments, not count heads. People here should know this by now rather than waste tine rearguing an AfD. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse AfD is not a vote. I see the keep arguments as weak. The point is moot anyway, per AfD closers above comments to merge instead (which I also endorse). Outback the koala (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The first few votes, both keep and delete, were quite weak. But I find that the delete side won out at the end. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I won't comment on whether the deletion should be overturned, but I want to comment on the recent merge. Putting the deleted list back in the main article unchanged and slapping a {{{multiple issues}}} tag on it is not productive. I think it creates a mess with the wrong assumption that somebody will eventually[when?] come along and clean it up. If you're going to merge it, please take a few minutes and fix the content as you see fit instead of tagging. —Sebquantic (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, by my reading the delete arguments were stronger and generally unrefuted, and a close as delete seems like a decent interpretation. I agree that this is the kind of discussion that could have benefitted from a closing statement elaborating on the admin's conclusion... and the ultimate decision to restore and merge is probably the best outcome once cleaned up. ~ mazca talk 09:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The DRV was essentially usurped by the simplistic dumping of the old list article into Vaporware#Examples. I cannot fathom how this was done with anything resembling good faith. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Wasn't blaming you, no. Upon a request like that, I'd assume that the requester would take the material and then begin a discussion on the article talk page about how best to include it. Tarc (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Any "simplistic dumping" need not even be brought up. Just fix it. Move the list to the talk page. Formal community discussions are a really bad way to handle these routine editorial actions. The page should have never been listed at AfD, just boldly redirected to the target, and if someone disagreed (no one has to date), discuss on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep or no consensus at least Did anyone look at all the references in the article? [4] Many reliable sources do confirm the things mentioned as being notable vaporware, thus it a valid entry on the list. Wired magazine actually gives a yearly award for all the notable vaporware that came out that year! Byte even has an article titled "Famous Vaporware Products". Did the closing administrator take a moment to look at the article itself, before coming to a decision? Dream Focus 01:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per OutbackTheKoala. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 09:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
