From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 September 24
2009 September 26 >

25 September 2009

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Discworld_stamps ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Deletion was made based on non-notability and lack of references, before these references (and so evidence of notability) could be provided. Evidence has been provided to the deleting admin via his talk page ( here) where he requested that the matter be raised here as it was deleted via AfD so he couldn't unilaterally undelete it. Also note that in the same posting the user who originally cited the article for deletion (DJ Clayworth) has stated that given the provided evidence he would not be opposed to reinstatment, and that had they been available originally he probably would not have made the nomination. DarrenHill ( talk) 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  • comment The references added at the end were (1) Andrew M. Butler: An Unofficial Companion to the Novels of Terry Pratchett. Greenwood World Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84645-001-3 ; (2) Terry Pratchett Biography http://www.lspace.org/about-terry/biography.html ; (3) " Stanley Gibbons' stamp and stamp memorabilia magazine,Gibbons Stamps Special 2005. 150th Anniversary Collectors Edition. Published by Stanley Gibbons Ltd. 2005 pp 99-104" with the external link, http://www.youforum.co.uk/cinderellastamps Cinderella Stamp collectors forum
    It would seem to be that the 1st and 3rd of these might be acceptable. And if you could find another article in a stamp collectors magazine, or documentation of the claim in the AfD that they were "now housed within the British library Philatelic collection" I think it could be restored, with an an optional AfD. ` DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not sure if you saw this in the other links on Juliancolton's talk page (link above), but here is a link to an article in the current issue of Stamp Magazine relating to DW stamps, in the form of a commemorative issue for their 75th Birthday. Beyond Gibbons (the worldwide Philatelic magazine authority) and Stamp Magazine, I must admit I'm struggling to come up with another magazine which would fit the bill. And also there are two Gibbons articles, see the references I cited on the talk page. DarrenHill ( talk) 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

One additional citation/reference that I forgot before was the joint venture between Discworld Stamps, stamp designer Mark Valentine, The Register and the Rockall Ho! crew to temporarily re-open the most northerly post office in the UK on Rockall. A special DW stamp and one from Mark were produced especially for the event on special covers, the sale of which raised well over £2000 for charity. See the coverage in The Register here plus the links within the article for other coverage of the actual landing and work itself.

  • Without reading every word, this sounds like a clear Restore. It would be proper to restore a deleted article on request if additional sources are found that would have negated the delete !votes. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Others should feel free to renominate at AfD. Was there some hint of a WP:COI issue here? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • endorse admin's action as I can't see any other outcome from that discussion. That said, per DGG's comments above this might actually be notable. Not sure what the next step should be. Hobit ( talk) 20:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse original close; in light of new sources, permit recreation without prejudice to a second AfD at editorial discretion. Tim Song ( talk) 21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn because the admin did not take account of refs added during the discussion. They were enough that the discussion should have been continued. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As far as I can tell, no reliable sources were presented during the initial discussion. – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
* The article was initially cited for deletion due to "lack of notability" if I remember correctly. The issue of sources/citations only came up just before the page was actually deleted, giving only a couple of days to find and produce them. This has now been done, unfortunately due to small matters like work, family and life commitments this was not possible before the article was actually removed. Hence why I requested this reversal of the deletion, as I would hope the fairly long list of citations and references now produced are more than enough to counter both the original "non-notability" and the later "lack of sources/citations/references" (as indeed the original requestor DJ Clayworth has stated here, had the page had the new references in it the whole process probably would not have been begun). Therefore my simple suggestion would be to restore the article given the current overview of all the facts and evidence, and then we can integrate the provided materials and linkages into the article and after that if everyone is happy with it life can continue, you can all focus your attention on truly deserving miscreants and the article can be then further updated, expanded and improved and so make Wikipedia a slightly better place. DarrenHill ( talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • References noted; deletion endorsed as proper reading of consensus. As ever, deletion is not permanent, and anyone wishing to create a better article with reliable sources can feel free to do so. I would userfy the article if requested. Stifle ( talk) 09:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse (without prejudice to the creation of a proper article) the action of the deleting administrator. I will point out that if you examine the AfD discussion you will find mostly involvement by the seller of this product and an entire string of s.p.a. accounts. I'm a philatelist and a Pratchett fan, but this was a solid closure. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not sock puppets, Discworld fans and collectors who were upset to see the article deleted. Mostly just occasional users of Wikipedia, and never having the urge or need to get an account to post anything until this event. We do know how to think and act independently ;) DarrenHill ( talk) 20:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I said s.p.a. accounts; I did not say "sock puppets"! -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC) (Diskworld fan himself) reply
The joy of abbreviations, your meaning of "s.p.a." being single post accounts rather than sock puppet accounts? Not everyone speaks fluent Wikibreviations ;) But the general comment is valid, most people made the accounts because it's the first time they've needed to comment on anything - where's the problem with that? DarrenHill ( talk) 05:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
An s.p.a. is a single-purpose account: one used not for the general betterment of the Wikipedia project as a whole, but solely for a narrow purpose such as editing a single topic or participating in a single discussion. It is up to each participant in this discussion, particularly the closing administrator, to decide what weight to put on comments by accounts which have no record of contributing to Wikipedia as a gestalt. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse; in light of new sources, permit recreation per Tim Song.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
CyanogenMod ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There is a lot of new coverage regarding Google's cease and desist letter. I came here looking for information and was disappointed to find the article had been deleted. The software apparently has a dedicated following. Is there somewhere I can find the old deleted article just to read? - kslays ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Found the old version with the "DRV links" cache. - kslays ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Question from the closing admin - Is this merely a request to view the deleted content, or an attempt to contest the outcome of the discussion? – Juliancolton |  Talk 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Originally, I was just interested in viewing the deleted content, but now that it has been covered by Slashdot, Gizmodo, Engadget, the Register, MobileCrunch, and Lifehacker, I think the deletion discussion should be re-opened. - kslays ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Those aren't reliable sources though, and they hardly demonstrate notability. – Juliancolton |  Talk 23:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Austria's second-largest broadsheet covered Cyanogenmod in two articles on their website: http://derstandard.at/fs/1253807758369/Google-geht-gegen-alternative-Android-Firmware-vor and http://derstandard.at/fs/1253807933759/Android-Externer-Firmware-Entwickler-will-Google-austricksen 80.122.142.138 ( talk) 11:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
More presumably acceptably notable coverage in PC World, The Register, The Inquirer, Ars Technica, The H and ZDNet.— 66.68.113.5 ( talk • contribs) keeps shooting himself in the foot by admitting that he has made few edits outside this topic. 66.68.113.5 ( talk) 15:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Please explain your rationale for requesting undeletion of the article. – Juliancolton |  Talk 19:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
It's in many Newspapers [1]. Some people want to replace the operation system of their mobile phone. To do that, it is important to have information about cyanogenmod. The page is deleted and I don't know if the information at the page was usefull, but there must be a page for this operating system. -- 212.186.64.225 ( talk) 23:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply


  • I do think those sources probably are reliable. So I'll go with "nominate for restoration based upon notability established after the last AfD." [2] would seem to count. [3] might also. And there there is Slashdot, Gizmodo, Engadget, the Register, MobileCrunch, and Lifehacker. I'd say we're in pretty good shape. permit restoration Hobit ( talk) 20:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • permit restoration/allow recreation per Hobit. Situation is substantially different than when deletion occurred. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The closure was reasonable, but recreation should begin in userspace to establish notability in light of the recent events. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 09:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the close. Given recent developments, permit recreation in principle, without prejudice to a subsequent AfD at editorial discretion. However, given the repeated canvassing in the two AfDs and the recent recreation attempt at Cyanogenmod, I suggest that we salt the article until we have a reasonably acceptable userspace draft. Tim Song ( talk) 17:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Apologies if I'm reading the logs wrong, but I thought the recent recreation was only done for the purpose of userification. If the topic has become sufficiently notable, what benefit is there in salting it? If a newly created article is a stub, isn't it enough to flag it as such? How would the AfD canvassing be relevant? — 66.68.113.5 ( talk • contribs) has probably been suspected of being a canvasser due to him making few edits outside this topic. 66.68.113.5 ( talk) 15:41, 29 September 2009 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_September_25&oldid=1068400862"