User talk:Left guide

Hei! Some of us active in the Perl community learned of the deletion notification only recently, and were looking for ways to improve the page.

Perl Mongers are a completely volunteer-driven open source network of independent communities, and while we're not as big as before we've literally been around for a quarter century. We still exist, even if "secondary sources" don't actively write about us! AND being a purely volunteer-driven effort, we need more time than a few measly weeks in the middle of December to search for articles!

The same goes for the PerlMonks and Yet Another Perl Conference pages. PerlMonks is still actively in use, and is operated in a similar shoestring volunteer manner. The YAPC conferences are still happening, and often organized on a volunteer basis by Perl Monger groups.

Please note that visibility on Wikipedia is very important for open source communities like these. Being removed from Wikipedia is almost like a death sentence, as this will affect the discoverability and therefore the ability to find new contributors for these communities.

Could you please restore these pages and give us some time to improve them?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjoshuan (talk • contribs) 10:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjoshuan: Hi, since you have a conflict of interest, you may start a draft on the deleted pages and then submit for approval using the WP:AFC process when you have secondary sources discussing the topic attached. You have as much time as you need in draftspace to research for sources, there is no deadline. Good luck. Left guide (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't these pages just be "undeleted"? They were reasonable as they were. Sjoshuan (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjoshuan: They cannot be restored directly back as articles because there was community consensus to delete them, and my duty as an administrator is to simply follow that consensus and not override it. However, as a compromise, I can restore the pages to draftspace for you to work on. Would that be ok with you? Left guide (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What community consensus was that? Those pages existed since decades, containing artifacts of a shared culture. They suddenly got put to deletion candidates status with a short notice, without letting us any time to provide improvement work. Smonff (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

Hi @Smonff

The community consensus was a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perl Mongers

As @Left guide mentioned to @Sjoshuan above, you're welcome to work on these in draft space and submit them through AfC to see if the revisions address participants' concerns. Standards for notability are very different now then they were when the article was created in 2008. Let me know if that's helpful? Star Mississippi 20:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the definition of 'consensus' may also have changed in the interim since 2008. The original internet detective work was carried out by someone with a conflict of interest about the name of our Perl Community's "White Camel Award". The other two individuals are not known/recognized by me. Mind you, I have only been active in the Perl community since 2008 when I started working as a data wrangler at the modENCODE Consortium's Data Coordination Center, a project which relied extensively on both the BioPerl project and CPAN. So three people with some kind of elevated Wikipedia status makes it a Consensus Discussion, is that what you are defending? Mdperry (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus can only be assessed based on the participants in the AfD discussion, which is the community's dedicated deletion venue. If you believe there was an error in the deletion, you may file an appeal at deletion review (WP:DRV) to seek community input. Left guide (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument around "community consensus" is rather weak here I'm afraid:

• One person who nominated it for deletion who themselves have a conflict of interest that I have noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Perl_Foundation#c-Leejebay-20251222135800-Wcquidditch-20251215043500
• One person who is a former member of the group being discussed, so no longer active in it (?)
• One person who did a cursory search and decided it wasn't notable.
• One person who ultimately clicked "delete".

That's community consensus? I think you need to take a long hard look at your policies around deletion of articles on Wikipedia if this is how easy it is to erase decades of history, culture, and reference material at short notice. Leejebay (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only question is if there is no deadline, as that page also specifies for deletions, why is the deletion of these pages within a week not questionable as well? Grinnz (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As previously mentioned earlier in this thread, the deletion of the pages can be questioned by anyone at deletion review. Left guide (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you expect to happen as a result of your ever-so-insightful comment, Grinnz? Will the entire Wikipedia community go, "Oh my goodness, it never occurred to us that deletion discussions are limited to seven days, contrary to our 'no deadline' mantra!"?

You already got your answer here. Canvassing on Reddit for people to petition here is a violation of our code of conduct. I will now close this thread. If you wish to appeal the deletion, please take the matter to WP:DRV. Further comments here will be seen as bullying, and treated accordingly. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it charming that a bunch of users who have almost zero experience here are questioning the foundation of Wikipedia as a crowdsourced project based on community consensus because--Oh no!--the page about their little club was deleted.

Yes, that is how consensus works on Wikipedia, whether you like it or not. The page was correctly deleted, and the deleting admin offered to restore the page to a draft for you to continue working on, an offer that you have ignored. Wikipedia has a low tolerance for single-purpose accounts, which is what the swarm I see here is. You are entitled to turn down Left guide's compromise offer, but the page will not be restored to mainspace without sufficient sourcing no matter how persistently you badger us. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My experience of Wikipedia is limited to that of a consumer, for sure, but running back to its early days. You know - those early days when that "little club" was the language and community that literally helped build Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia#Hardware_and_software

I stand by my comments and would like the original user's conflict of interest investigated because I feel it's deeply concerning that this kind of approach is acceptable. Anything else is a failure.

Last I'm going to say on this, wading back out for good. Leejebay (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been an admin here for 20 years, and am very familiar with the "early days". I appreciate the work of Perl programmers on this project, but I'm sure you realize that doesn't give the topic any special rights when it comes to retaining a page in the encyclopedia about Perl fan clubs. A conflict of interest bars a user from editing an article in mainspace. It does not bar them from voicing their opinion about it in an AfD discussion, especially if that opinion is supported by policy. I'm sorry you wasted time coming up with arguments that are irrelevant for disputing the result of a deletion discussion. If you were genuinely interested in restoring that article, you would have jumped on Left guide's offer of restoration to draft, instead of trying to vacate the AfD based on discrediting its participants. Owen× ☎ 15:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one last comment before I go home for the holidays and forget this entire thing.

> If you were genuinely interested in restoring that article

Here's the kicker: I'm not, I've made no comment to suggest I want the articles restored. Maybe that's inferred from what I wrote, but it's not what concerns me.

I'm more interested in the policies that shape Wikipedia as a reference source and an important container of cultural and historical information. I'm interested in what happens when link rot means sources disappear - if archive.org vanished overnight then how much of Wikipedia's sources would be now gone? Would that warrant the deletion of all articles that rely only on them for sourcing?

I'm interested when the burden of proof of sources is shifted to those who may no longer be around to provide it (the Perl community is getting older, we are losing people). I'm interested in how the fractured nature of the web these days, walled gardens, and now LLMs, reconcile with requiring open, accessible, repeatable sourcing?

These are important issues, more important than some random page about a "little club". But all of these little things add up. Leejebay (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started my software career writing Fortran IV, because Fortran 77 was still a few years away. At a mere 38 years old, Perl is young, especially compared to other topics covered by this encyclopedia. Notable topics generally don't have their sources succumb to link rot. I still have my Fortran, PL/1, and System/360 Assembly textbooks sitting on my shelf (but seem to have misplaced my Cobol manual). If you're interested in debating Wikipedia policy, WP:VPP is a good place to start, although it would behoove you to familiarize yourself with existing policy before suggesting improvements. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]