ASuite (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

A year ago, ASuite page was deleted because it is non-notable software. Today, I rewrited a new page of this software with some english sources on my userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_salvador/ASuite . If this new article is good, I will ask you to restore old article and I will merge it in new ASuite page Salvadorbs ( talk) 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation. Undelete and merge histories. Judging from the AfD, the article looks to be much better sourced than the deleted version. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Huh? You've read the AFD and the article. The article sources are (a) An automated code analysis report (b) The homepage of the project itself (c) a softpedia review (d) a linux.com article (e) a directory listing. (a), (b) and (e) are useless as far as any notability goes, and really only confirm existance. (d) was mentioned in the original AFD and wasn't accepted as enough. This leaves (c) and that's much better sourced? You'll also note that this has come to WP:DRV before here along much similar lines for sourcing. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Yes, I read the AfD and the article. No, I hadn't noticed the previous DRV, but it doesn't impress me anyway. I am happy to accept (c) and (d) as sufficient. I don't see this as an issue of advertising. It's a suitable entry. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Undelete and allow recreation Agreed, the proposed page looks good and if the user can salvage anything from the deleted version to add to it, it can't do no harm. So Why 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Move to mainspace and restore history There is just enough here for notability as far as I can tell and it is certainly better than the previous one which was deleted at AFD. Davewild ( talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment been here before and doesn't appear to have addressed the sourcing issues, nor the obivous WP:COI issues. Can't say it looks a particularly good article to me, much of the content is non-encyclopedic in nature and needs to be cut. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Deleted Sourcing is still unacceptable. This needs reliable credible sourcing from the real world. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation. I count two non-trivial, independent sources which I think is just enough. This can be taken to AfD again if need be but it seems clearly to have been improved enough to escape G4 which is the real issue at this DRV. Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Deleted as non-notable, the cached version has more than one assertion of notability. Certainly enough to avoid speedy deletion. RMHED ( talk) 21:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Laurence Baxter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) reply

• I agree. Send to AfD. TotientDragooned ( talk) 23:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• I have restored a version of this article for the purpose of AfD that has been edited to remove clearly unverifiable or false information (details of what was removed are on the talk page), and I am amenable to this version being presented to AfD, which I will set up shortly if nobody else does it in the interim. Prior versions of the article remain deleted due to BLP issues. Risker ( talk) 05:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Michael Baxter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Deleted as an A7 (no assertion of notability). A look at the cached version shows numerous assertions of notability. So why was this article really deleted? RMHED ( talk) 19:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Delete The article was a resume. There was no assertion of notability and the references were merky at best.-- Pmedema ( talk) 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

So numerous important civil service positions aren't assertions of notability? RMHED ( talk) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

No. Did he do something other than his job? Corvus cornix _talk 20:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Do any high ranking civil servants do anything other than their job? I believe he had a hobby, though I can't quite remember what it was. RMHED ( talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted An ordinary person doing an ordinary job, possibly quite well, but insufficient independent evidence of importance or secondary sources (newspaper or magazine articles, etc.) Remember wikipedia is a tertiary source and summarizes what other sources have to say about a person. Note, however, that there is another British Statistician of the same name (but different middle initial) who quite possibly meets the professor test, so the title should not be protected or salted. Thatcher 02:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment as deleting administrator - there were no real assertions of notability; it read, as Pmedema says, like a resume of a middle manager. Merely working for the civil service does not make one notable by Wikipedia's standards. Neıl ☄ 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. As per Thatcher. Minkythecat ( talk) 09:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Why doesn't the deleting admin just tell the truth about this matter instead of trying to obfuscate it behind a raft of wikipedia guidelines? Poltair ( talk) 10:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

with regard to glaring elephant in the room... maybe it's because the whole truth hasn't emerged and probably isn't likely to? Given the sophistication of the whole enterprise, it wouldn't surprise me if the "confirmed" identity was in fact a red herring... but anyway, rather than ascribing machevellian motivations, is the article meeting WP criteria? I'd personally say no. Minkythecat ( talk) 10:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Poltair, what benefit to anyone would that produce? Those who are interested in the wider issues surrounding this article are no doubt already aware of them. Those who are not interested do not need to know. One speedy deletion guideline is not a "raft", and applying it correctly, as it would be for any other article, does not amount to obfuscation. Neıl ☄ 12:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Huh? Am I the only one extremely confused by this discussion thread? TotientDragooned ( talk) 23:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted - there are so many Government statistician in the world and most of these are not deemed notable, his brother seems notable enough to keep but google search and other search engines don't provide much info either...-- Comet styles 10:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - unverifiable for many reasons, unnotable for many reasons, massive CoI breaches, etc. You name it, this one probably has it. I suggest locking the deleted page if it hasn't already been locked. We need to salt this like Carthage. Ottava Rima ( talk) 12:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and keep it salted per Ottova Rima. This was simply the right thing to do. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 17:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Apparently I need to clarify this. I'm not talking about A7. I'm talking about the fact that, like him or not, this article presents far more information than we would ever have compiled ourselves about a living person who may soon be the subject of substantial press attention. That rationale has nothing to do with A7. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse delete NN, good CSD process. MBisanz ^talk 19:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• List at AfD To say that a person is head of methodology at the UK Government Statistical Office, has a number of published papers, and had a major role in politically important government statistics releases is about as clear an assertion of importance as I have seen. I'd need to look further to se if it passes AfD, but it certainly does pass speedy. The arguments above are irrelevant. Taking them in turn: 1/ we do not speedy for LIKERESUME. 2/ w don't need newspaper articles for an research professional, the published work per WP:PROF is sufficient even for those not in an academic position 3/ high ranking civil servants merely doing their job, is applicable to almost anyone in wp. so does the Prime Minister. 3/ being notable by Wikipedia standards is not the same as mere indication of possible notability. Only the later is required 4/ "meting WP criteria" is for AfD, not speedy 5/ "so many government statisticians in the world." some of them are at the top of their profession, like him. Saying so is an assertion of notability, If the job is actually not really significant, that's for AfD. There are probably more Olympic athletes than statisticians, in any case. 6/COI is not reason for deletion, let alone speedy, though certainly present in the writing of the article. 7/the publications are verifiable Not verifiable is not in any case a speedy condition. 8/"The right thing to do" that seems to be an expression of factors not relevant to A7. In summary, the merits of his work are for discussion at AFD.  : I am reluctant to say it, but in all honesty I am not sure this can be regarded this as a good faith A7. I am aware of the circumstances, I share fully the general feeling towards the person involved, but I think this speedy deletion is COI, the desire to remove the page on a person who has been reported to have harmed Wikipedia. Such a motivated deletion can harm Wikipedia more than anything he can do. DGG ( talk) 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It's heartening that somebody can see past the silly navel gazing Wiki-drama and give an honest assessment. There is no way this was a valid speedy deletion. RMHED ( talk) 21:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted - drahmaz aside, it's largely another NN/vanity article, no significant sources to back it up. And that's not mentioning the myriad of joyous opportunities for vandalism and BLP issues it provides. No, leave it gone, please! - Alison ^❤ 00:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Restore and send to AfD It's a horrible article as it stands, but it clearly asserts notablity as DGG says. It might even be kept. I'm unclear on the COI issues, but if someone is speeding an article of someone they have issues with, that darn well better be a reason to overturn. Hobit ( talk) 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, I am quite involved in the current drama, but my edit to this article was when I was unaware of this, and truth be told, it was made robotically. That aside, I agree with DGG that this is a borderline case, but there is little external third party coverage of this person, and as a result the AfD is not likely to result in any result other than delete as his research output has not been cited often in journals that I can see, and no evidence to the contrary of that has been provided here. I am willing to change my opinion if someone can point out a highly cited paper, and I would not be surprised if there was one, but given the current drama I think it is necessary to have some upfront evidence of notability before we go through another week long process which will hurt the 'pedia and the subject. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

the way to deal with difficult cases like this, with out-of-article considerations, especially when they involve wikipedia, is to follow the full formal procedure, leaving a ilttle ground as possible for re-visiting the matter. I thought we had learned that from some previous articles. Summary procedure to try to avoid controversy is counter-productive, at least if anyone is looking. If there is truly a need for such procedure, the honest way to go about it is OFFICE DGG ( talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I was looking for sources as a background task throughout an entire day before I opined here. I didnt find anything worth writing about.
I am convinced that best thing to do is to scrub the article, and start again if someone believes it is an appropriate entry in Wikipedia. I'm open to reviewing my opinion now or later, but only if someone provides credible sources. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Library search turns up one mention in "Inflation is lower than figures show official Drop in published rate could cut pension increases and cost of borrowing * New estimates due within months" The Observer (London); Jul 13, 1997; MARK ATKINSON; p. 001: "A recent study in the US suggested that the real rate of American inflation is 1.1 per cent lower than officially estimated. But in the UK, the Government's Office for National Statistics (ONS) insists that the biases which distort the RPI are far smaller. 'It would be unwarranted to assume that the bias in the UK RPI is of the same order as in the US Consumer Prices Index,' said Michael Baxter, head of technical development in the office's RPI division. The ONS is expected to produce an estimate of bias in the next few months. Any changes to the way the RPI is calculated would require approval by Chancellor Gordon Brown." Doesn't really amount to much, I leave it to others what to do. I tend to trust Neil's judgement. Hiding T 21:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD. There is an assertion of notability now. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

FIPS (computer program) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Prodded earlier with the reason "Questionable notability, no sources. Also looks like it is outdated and obsolete, so unlikely to gain notability at this point." The software is unquestionably notable - it was, in its time, the only free way of shrinking Windows partitions to install another OS such as Linux, and so was mentioned in most (probably all, to be honest) guides to installing Linux, as well as being included on most or all Linux install CDs. Just take a look at any Linux distro or installation guide from the Windows 3.1 to 98 eras, or even just Google it. It's been made obsolete by newer, more friendly tools like GNU parted, but it was a very important piece of software in its era. makomk ( talk) 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

XBRL International (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Closed as keep despite an apparent consensus to delete. Recommend overturn and delete. Stifle ( talk) 13:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Agreed. Upgrading my Merge to Delete. WikiScrubber ( talk) 15:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No third party sources. -- Tone 15:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist as it should have been. inadequate discussion. This is not the place to discuss whether or not it's promotional or neutral. The nom, the author, and 1 dletete + 1 merge is not enough for consensus DGG ( talk) 15:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• comment (as closing admin) From my talk page, where Stifle was kind enough to discuss this closing prior to submitting this deletion review request:

The nomination itself lacked any substantive argument for deletion. The opinion that a subject is not fit for an encyclopedia is akin to simply not liking it. I really feel that no articles should exist about Pokemon, regardless of how much coverage there is in reliable sources, but I recognize that wikipedia does not only cover what I like. Your argument, although not discounted, is by no means supported by consensus; have a read over WP:TIND (the 'no deadline' essay)... it is just as convincing as the essay you linked-to in your !vote. I agree that a reasonable close may have been no consensus, but in this case, where the nom was not valid, I felt it leaned over enough to keep to warrant calling it as such. I doubt a keep closure would get overturned at DRV to no consensus, and I am very certain that this one would not find support as delete at DRV. But, if you see it differently, feel free to submit it. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Note that in the conversation, Stifle said it should have been closed as "no consensus", which is a form of keep, which is why I was so sure that DRV would be unlikely to overturn just to recharacterize the type of keep closure. I am surprised to see people here saying overturn the closing as keep, as I can absolutely not see how one can see delete consensus in the discussion. No consensus (and/ or relisting as DGG suggested above) is the only other possibility, which I just discussed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist. If it had to be closed, I would say the current discussion is no consensus. However I agree that forming a firm consensus by relisting is the best solution. TotientDragooned ( talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep I agree with Jerry that the importance of the subject shouldn't be confused with the current state of the article or who likes it. The SEC has mandated the use of XBRL [1] and has chosen XBRL International to write the taxonomies for US GAAP. [2] If I were a US investor who was interested in financial reporting, I would need to know about XBRL as it is used by the SEC and therefore I would need to know something about XBRL International, too. The article needs a rewrite, but should not be deleted. -- Glennfcowan ( talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I change my mind to keep and agree with Glennfcowan. An article on the subject is useful but I still think than in its present state it lacks neutrality. Cheers Lancet ( talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist noconsensus was reached at the time. "noconsensus defaulting to keep" is not the same as an actual "keep" consensus and should not be treated the same way. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist. It may well be notable but no consensus was reached to Keep it. Black Kite 16:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist not enough discussion to show deliberative process. MBisanz ^talk 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Discussion has been relisted. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Mary Boone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Not simply Bio, but an critical dealer at the center of the 1980's balloon New York art market. Established and promoted major figurative expressionists of the era, including Jean-Michel Basquiat, Julian Schnabel, Barbara Kruger, Eric Fischl and others. Dubbed on the cover of New York magazine in 1982,"The New Queen of the Art Scene". Also a controversial socialite form the same period. Multiple sources available. I believe the speedy deletion tag was in error. Knulclunk ( talk) 13:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and AFD. Enough there to defeat a speedy deletion. May or may not survive an AFD. Stifle ( talk) 13:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• I deleted this in the first place. I agree with afd, probably a better idea than speedy. -- Tone 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  In that case could you just undo your deletion an nominate it, save several more days of WP:DRV? -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn With a cover story in New York it will almost certainly survive afd, and I can't see the point of nominating it. DGG ( talk) 15:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Most revent version restored under delrev tag Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Talk page content restored from 15 June forward (c. last deletion) --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 10:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Martin John Callanan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Notably was established in the article. Proper discussion was not engaged at review by editors familiar with the topic area. No attempt was made to edit the article Artlondon ( talk) 08:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Link to Second AFD here. Davewild ( talk) 09:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Hmm Since Artlondon is a SPA I suppose we can let him off his abject failure to engage with me before bringing this to DRV. Consensus is measured against policy not headcount and the´raised issue - notability was only challenged through assertion rather then proper referencing that met WP:RS. As sushc deletion was the only possible outcome to this discussion but I'm very open to reversing the close if some proper referencing is provided. So far they haven't so endorse own deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC) - Just to clarify none of the references provided discussed the subject in any detail and links to places you can buy books and lists of conference attendences don't cut it to establish notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC). Struckthough manifestly untrue comment about SPA. My apologies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Spartaz, what is Artlondon's "special purpose"? -- Hoary ( talk) 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle ( talk) 10:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist when someone closes an afd without any comment whatsoever people may not unreasonably take it as a sign they are not open to discussion. The references provided were adequate in my opinion to support notability, but I'm not advocating a keep on the basis of my own opinion--just further discussion. DGG ( talk) 15:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Respectfully I completely disagree with your argument that a brief closing statement automatically means that I'm not open to discussion of the merits of the close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with Spartaz on this one, DGG. If people are going to make asinine extrapolations to justify bad faith assumptions, we can not be expected to walk on eggshells to accommodate them. A brief closing summary may just mean that the closer does not see the closing as controversial or as requiring any additional remarks, as it may seem obvious to them. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not arguing that it was & I apologize it I gave that impression; I have enough experience here to know you are willing to discuss; merely that the user might reasonably have taken it as such. It was just a response to Stifle's objection to bringing it here directly. We should not set up procedural barriers to review of admin actions. DGG ( talk) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Cheers, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

lets keep it simple: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." [3] Artlondon ( talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Artlondon, the accepted standard for article inclusion is discussed in our notability guideline at WP:N and specific advice on the notability of individuals is at WP:BIO. Basicially there are a lot of tangential references but nothing has been produced that specifically addresses this individual in detail. If such sources exist it would be simplest to simply cite them because that is all that is required to trigger undeletion by me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC) (note that sources need to meet our reliable sources guidelines WP:RS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The article had an awful lot of references, which gives me pause, but consensus was clear. Artlondon, this version of the page was much better than the first, perhaps you should request userfication, and continue improving the quality of the sourcing? TotientDragooned ( talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I was concentrating on the article to make it the best I could do. If some points are too much or not good enough for you, they should be edited out; but this does not justify deletion of the whole article. A published author is notable, as is a person which two high profile artistic residences and a teaching position at UCL when only 26 year old. Artlondon ( talk) 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Artlondon, this is notability by assertion. That's not what we work on. If the individal is that notable then someone somewhere will have written about them. The art world is well endowed with literture and documentation. Please help us to help by finding the sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• 2nd AfD The link at the top goes to the first AfD. It should go to the second. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin John Callanan (2nd nomination). Ty 21:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Update: Spartaz provisionally "restored" the article, but one minute later blanked it with a notice inviting people to edit it and telling them not to blank it. Uh? Anyway, I've provisionally restored its substantive content, of course leaving the DRV notice on it. -- Hoary ( talk) 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It is customary to restore an article at drv upon request if it is not in the google cache so that non-admins can see the history, and then blank it, so google will not catalog it. The notice should have said not to edit it, not don't blank it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment Artlondon is not an SPA. He's been here for over two years with 1,130 edits to 367 unique pages. [4]. Ty 02:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and userfy This is an unusual situation, as the subject has an international presence, which would not normally merit deletion, yet three of the most experienced art editors on wiki !voted that way, so I can't fault the closing admin. The sources do provide information e.g.: "In addition, "Martin has recently worked with: The Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, The Mayor of London, Transport for London, Network Rail, and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Currently Honorary Research Assistant at The Slade Centre for Electronic Media in Fine Art, University College London and Artist in Residence at RIXC, Latvia." [5] I suggest the best solution is to userfy and work with editors at WP:WPVA to gain consensus for an improved version. Ty 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Process followed, if an admin wants to userfy, that is their choice. MBisanz ^talk 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion I disagree with Artlondon's premise of reopening this debate: the article did not suitably establish notability, the discussion was engaged by editors familiar with the topic area, and sufficient time had passed for correcting edits to be made the article. TheMindsEye ( talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep article. even if it is substainly reduced to leave minimal info, there is no reason for absolution deletion. The lack of explanation and real discussion in this process makes the whole thing appear malicious. Artlondon ( talk) 09:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  As an aside, here are some other articles I started which undoubtedly warrant deletion: NaoKo TakaHashi (artist), SCEMFA, Susan Alexis Collins, Bookworks

  Er didn't you already vote to undelete when you nominated the article for deletion review? Please provide better sources and I can review the close. Happy to do so. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  You don't get a second "vote" — by listing here, it's implicit that you want the article undeleted. Stifle ( talk) 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse good close, no problems that I can find. Sources were weak, but better than anything I can find. Hobit ( talk) 13:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Unenthusiastic "endorse". [Can I adjective a verb?] We're not discussing the article, we're discussing the process by which its deletion was decided on. The latter seems fair enough to me. ¶ Now for the article: I see inklings of notability about Callanan, and I recognize that you've put a lot of work into the article. If Callanan goes on to get unarguable recognition, then he deserves an article and much of the article that already exists becomes usable. So I suggest that you "userfy" the article (being sure to comment out its categories), and tinker with it until the day when Callanan gets a couple of substantive write-ups in newspapers, art magazines, or whatever. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  (No, you should use an adverb, like "unenthusiastically", if you are modifying a verb.) Stifle ( talk) 13:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• this process is not transparent just because users comment on a public page there is little reasoning. Artlondon ( talk) 08:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Tryad ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Not unnotable GeShane ( talk) 02:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

One deletion reason was that people suspected it was a nonexistent band, but http://tryad.org/ here is its website. Another request might have had to do with it not being a "noteworthy" band according to Wikipedia standards; however, the standards listed for bands are all geared towards traditional label bands and not for the type of internet-distributed open liscenced music that Tryad produces. Further if you go to jamendo.com you will see that Tryad indeed has a good fanbase there, and so by CC licensed internet band standards it is quite notable.

Note: second AFD nom is here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - there's nothing in the article that comes close to meeting our notability guidelines. We're not a primary source; unless secondary sources have covered a band, we really can't verify anything that's in the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Process followed, close within discretion. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AFD although lightly attended found no evidence of meeting the WP:MUSIC and nothing has been produced here to change that. Davewild ( talk) 07:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment general notability guidelines certainly cover "internet-distributed open liscenced music", had this band received significant coverage in multiple independant reliable sources? The nature of distribution or licensing should have zero impact on that, indeed you'd think if the broader world thought these to be notable the open distribution and licensing would make them more likely to be being covered in said sources. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 11:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  newcomers may reasonably be reluctant to confront someone directly, especially when they closed without comment. DGG ( talk) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  They may also be reasonably reminded about the instructions which suggest that they try to discuss it first. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle ( talk) 10:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

    the above comment seems about the acme of all the wikilawering or wikibureaucratic reasoning I have yet to hear at Deletion Review. There is no policy that we decline a deletion review because the requester doesnt ask the admin,or because the requester doesn't respond to a qy, or, most especially, because the requester doesn't respond to a qy about why they didn't first ask the admin. This is not RfA, where such !votes are sometimes appropriate. DGG ( talk) 00:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

    I can only say that I don't share your opinion on that matter, which is a well-publicized fact (-: Stifle ( talk) 08:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist as the close was on the basis of it being a hoax, which it isnt. It seems irrational, though, to close something thought to be a hoax as a redirect. I can';t really see a different conclusion than delete, but the place for that discussion is afd, not here. It's time we stopped debating notabiiity at deletion review. The reason is not in my view primarily procedural, but because the participants here are relatively few and non-representative, unlike teh much wider group who come to afds when they see something in field they are interested in. DGG ( talk) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Look again, the deletion in question here is this Afd as noted by the deleting admin in the deletion log. Nothing to do with being a hoax, items such as notability get mentioned here a lot for several reasons, one being that a change to the status re-notability can be enough to overturn a deletion based on a lack of notablity (The "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light.." part of the purpose of drv), and also to give pointers to newer editors who may not understand the issue, in some cases reiterating it may in fact enable them to produce sufficient sourcing etc. In this case since the nomination here is based around an issue of if the notability guidelines applied are appropriate a response not talking about notabilty seems unlikely. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 16:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Weak Endorse. I would have preferred the AFD stay open a little longer - two participants is awfully flimsy for forming consensus - but I don't think the article has any hope of surviving a relist. TotientDragooned ( talk) 18:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, it was deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tryad and the recreation did nothing to address the concerns of that VfD. -- Stormie ( talk) 03:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Article speedied as "blatant advertisement," when it wasn't of an advertisement nature. As one can see from SunSpider's page, here, it is not a commercial product, merely a browser benchmark page. I would like the article undeleted so that content can be salvaged for possible recreation of the article itself or to be merged into a section of another article. I fear that if the undeletion doesn't happen, prior uploaded fair use image(s) for the article may be deleted by bots. Tokek ( talk) 00:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: We can always undelete the images; that's the least of our worries. It's got a mention in WebKit, that seems sufficient. Stifle ( talk) 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Though a very sparse article, it was not in the last promotional. DGG ( talk) 15:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn You're joking, right? This is one of the main JavaScript benchmarks - WebKit uses it, Mozilla use it, most of the reviews comparing JavaScript performance between Web browsers use it. - makomk ( talk) 18:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. What's in the cache looks like a perfectly good stub. "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." TotientDragooned ( talk) 19:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply