Chess.com (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Its larger than several other chess sites that have articles. Wikipedia needs to consistently enforce its policy, either deleting all the other chess website pages, or allowing chess.com equal attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.210.70 (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The policy is WP:GNG, which requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Note that size isn't one of those criteria, so that you believe it to be larger isn't anything to do with consistently applying policy. If there are other articles where the criteria aren't be met, the solution is to fix those, first through looking for the suitable sources and if that fails deleting the articles, this can only be done article by article, we can't fix every ill on the site overnight. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. No notable, independent, reliable, third-party sources have been produced that cover the subject in any more than a passing trivial mention. Also, the nominator's rationale is WP:OTHERSTUFF which is not valid here. OGBranniff (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion while I can't see the article, there were apparently no reliable sources cited nor can I find any. If you have some, please provide them and the deletion will likely be reversed. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times included it here. Am not suggesting this source justifies an article; but the cupboard isn't completely bare, and the fact they decided to include it at all is some amount of prima facie for notability of Chess.com, IMO. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Uh, no. Not according to WP:GNG anyway. Passing mention in just one article isn't a prima facie case for anything. Well, perhaps it is a prima facie case of obscurity. OGBranniff (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh that makes so much sense!: The NY Times writer decided to include Chess.com in his article because of its obscurity. Yes. Got it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I write this, please keep in mind I generally favor keeping material over deleting it. And I'd be happy to keep this, it's just that the topic doesn't currently meet our sourcing guidelines. It's a bit of a mess _why_ we have those guidelines. Basically we've got people (like me) who would prefer to have articles like this. And we have others that only want "super serious" topics covered. The working compromise is that we use the existence of multiple, independent and reliable sources as the bar for what we have articles on. The details can be found at WP:N. It's not a great compromise, but it provides a fairly bright line for article creation. I _hate_ the fact that guideline is called "notability" because it sounds darn insulting to say "Bob X isn't notable" or "your website isn't notable". Notable in this context is really a Term of art that means that there are multiple independent sources that cover the topic in some reasonable depth. And until sources are found that do that, Wikipedia won't have an article on this site. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more about the problems that arise from our use of the word "notability". --j⚛e decker^talk 15:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There's no point restoring it for discussion, because there were no references at all to show notability. The only appropriate course of action is to first find them, and then make an article draft using them either in your user space, or with the WP:Article Wizard, and then come here and ask to permit the article in mainspace. But unless you do actually have 3rd party substantial independent references in hand, there is no point in tryingto rewrite, for we cannot accept the article without them. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... actually, as you pointed out to me, David, there is no particular requirement for a deleted article to pass through DRV. While I think it's an excellent step for an editor who isn't sure if they've addressed an AfD's concerns appropriately, DRV doesn't exist as prior restraint. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'm not seeing WP:GNG being met here with the sources I've found or seen. Found two more passing references via some work at Highbeam, but there's still not enough to write an article from. I take Ihardlythinkso's comments as suggesting a view that WP:GNG is too stringent, and if that's true, I might recommend taking that up with the community at WT:GNG. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Also restore: Old Union School (Coshocton, Ohio), also deleted by Nyttend, also a valid topic. --doncram 12:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been subject to several inappropriate administrator actions, by editors involved in contention that is somewhat being addressed in a current Arbitration. (The restoration of this article is not to be determined in the arbitration; it is a content decision for editors here, i believe.) Comments about the previous contention are not particularly needed, but the article needs to be restored. It was deleted by administrator Nyttend 2 or 3 times (by moves to userspace or outright deletions, though history has been rev-deleted and history no longer shows full actual history). The validity of the original article has been discussed at Deletion Review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 4. It has since again deleted by administrator SarekOfVulcan.

Background: Original reason for Nyttend to delete was invalid (article did not contain copyvio, it contained a 10-word quote as to why the property was NRHP-listed, which never could reasonably be considered as a copyvio). Original article did have an error (the quote applied to a different property, the one just before it in the source, due to garbled google results I received and/or call it an editing mistake on my part) but the article simply should have been edited to remove that. The article never should have been deleted.

Nyttend closed the DRV favorably for themself. IMO, it was wrong for Nyttend to perform the close, as the original deleter and an involved party, unless the decision would have been to fully restore the article. Instead, Nyttend was petty in merely restoring the article to Userspace, and also in not fully restoring it. That was not the consensus of discussion. The prevailing consensus, by my interpretation, was that the deletions were wrong and that the article should be restored, and that Nyttend could bring it to AFD if Nyttend wished (though an AFD for an obviously valid topic would fail of course). I think that Nyttend meant simply to be petty by moving it to userspace, and did not mean to imply the topic was not valid, and expected me to restore the article to mainspace (which i later did).

Then, in the deletion review, I edited to unclose the closure, as I have observed other editors doing when a close is not satisfactory. For one thing, the Talk page needed to be restored. Second, the proper decision was restore not move to userspace. And, the restoration to the userspace was inappropriate in reflecting inappropriate use of REVDEL to delete perfectly okay-by-policy material and edit history (the original quote and later corrections, not ever a copyvio). My edits were reverted by editor SarekOfVulcan, party to arbitration and long-involved in contention, with edit summary "discussion is closed, reverting later additions". Well the discussion was not closed adequately, and deleting others' discussion, especially by a highly involved party, should not be tolerated. SarekOfVulcan has repeatedly followed me and refactored in ANI incidents and other noticeboards in ways that change the visible record.

Anyhow, the article was restored to userspace, and, being a valid topic, I moved it to mainspace. SarekOfVulcan then moved it back to userspace, asserting in edit summary that the DRV decision was to restore to userspace. And in next edit SarekOfVulcan move-protected it. These were 2 administrative actions that SarekOfVulcan, as an involved long-term contender should not engage in, and these were mis-interpretations of the DRV and the role of DRV in general.

Thus, this new request to restore the article, to reverse the previous deletions. I don't care terribly about restoring the incorrect quote, but technically a full restoration including the quote in the edit history would be proper. Per the previous discussion, please note the topic is valid and there is no acceptable reason to ever have deleted it, much less keep it deleted. doncram 19:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is the copyvio text the only issue with the article? Based on the current userspace article, it looks really really non-notable, but there could of course be notability that isn't reflected in that version of the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have generally held NHRP listing to be sufficient evidence of notability. Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? There's well over a million NHRP buildings, and thousands more each year, some of which are certainly notable but quite a lot of them are literally just someone's old house. You may be thinking of World Heritage Sites, which are quite different. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There never was any copyvio. The property is individually listed on the NRHP (it is not just a contributing property in an NRHP-listed historic district). There are about 87,000 individual listings on the NRHP, and about half of them have Wikipedia articles. For each individually listed one, there exists a multiple-page NRHP nomination document that explains historic significance that has gone through multiple rounds of local, state, national review exceeeding the Wikipedia notability standard. Such documents contain bibliographies of other documents. Whether the NRHP nom doc has been obtained or not (here, not, as not available online), it exists and Wikipedia-notability is clear from the NRHP listing itself. For this article there is picture and some context already, which is a start and is of interest to some readers already, providing something rather than nothing. --doncram 12:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't deleted; it's in userspace. I've reviewed my comment in the previous DRV, and I believe portions of it bear repeating, so I will do so: The deleted article was a piece of s**t, containing very little meaningful content (other than the copyvio sentence) and some bad excuses for reference citations (e.g., "another book preview snippet available in Google search results"). Converting it into a halfway-decent policy-compliant stub (using non-copyvio words and citing actual references) should have taken the article creator no more than 5 minutes. --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly suspect that the right outcome is to merge this into some other article. But it's not DRV's role to make that call. As such what we've got is a highly contested set of speedy deletions and moves and all sorts of crazy things that never made it to AfD. I don't see how, at the moment, this thing meets any speedy criteria, so move to article space is the only possible outcome here. That said, I think an AfD is likely appropriate this move should be with no prejudice against a future AfD. Hobit (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DRV expanded. I amend the DRV to also restore Old Union School (Coshocton, Ohio), also deleted by Nyttend, also NRHP-listed. The two articles were created by me to resolve disambiguation page issues at combo dab Union School, which I created because I came across some mistakes in treatment of a Union School in Pennsylvania (duplicate articles about one school, and page incorrectly usurping the primary topic role). I properly addressed the disambiguation need with a Requested Move because admin tools were needed to fix the situation (see Talk:Union School (Fort Washington, Pennsylvania)#Requested move). Then in the combo dab page, my creating the two articles was one perfectly valid way of fixing the otherwise-incorrect redlinking of the two items. On the Coshocton article, Nyttend made 3 inappropriate administrative actions: moving it to userspace twice with deletion of the mainspace item, and move-protecting it. "Page not ready for mainspace" is not a Speedy Deletion criteria. --doncram 12:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related discussion. I gave notice of this DRV at the ongoing arbitration, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop‎#DRV regarding 8-9 inappropriate admin actions by Nyttend and SarekOfVulcan. SarekOfVulcan asserts there, entirely erroneously, that DRV is not relevant as if a deletion by userfication is not a deletion subject to DRV. IMO that demonstrates incompetence in DRV interpretation, and is one more reason why SarekOfVulcan should not be taking administrative actions to implement S's interpretations of DRV. --doncram 14:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that WP:DRVPURPOSE states Deletion Review should not be used....to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek makes a point that I should have. I strongly recommend you withdraw this DRV and try again without casting blame. There may or may not be plenty of blame to throw around, but DRV isn't the place for it and your request _will_ be closed solely because of the aspirations and claims of bias. That's just how DRV has always worked. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]