Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 May 18
2009 May 20 >

19 May 2009

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

This is one of many redirects improperly deleted by Maury Markowitz for being unused or "polluting Google". I know that, in this case, I could simply create the redirect (it presumably pointed to Clay Belt), but there are way too many to do this manually. I would like consensus that this deletion in particular, and more generally his reasons for deleting this and others, was improper so that some sort of mass undeletion can take place. NE2 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  • RestoreOverturn: that's a perfectly plausible redirect. In fact, it looks like the article was originally at Great Clay Belt and was moved to Clay Belt where Lesser Clay Belt and Great Clay Belt details were combined. I would think part of a name would be a logical redirect to keep. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • RestoreOverturn: Seems like an essential redirect; certainly not implausible. decltype ( talk) 08:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, no valid reason for deletion provided. Stifle ( talk) 09:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn According to the deleted history, Maury combined the two articles into one. Combining two closely related topics into one article seem like a good reason to keep the names of the individual entities as a redirect. They're certainly not implausible. As for polluting google, I don't think redirects are actually spidered... - Mgm| (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, and for other reasons at Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting. -- NE2 12:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Google actually does spider redirects, not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Maury seems to be worried about performance issues caused by people clicking on a redirect rather than a direct link. -- NE2 12:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore' Deleted contrary to WP policy. There is no basis in deletion policy for uswing such a reason via speedy, and I doubt it would even get consensus to delete at RfD. There is some dispute about the degree to which admins can use their judgment to invoke IAR to go outside the stated reasons, but IAR requires the knowledge that any reasonable person here would agree. That is far from the case--in fact, it seems to be the exact opposite. Cause for RfC if it continues. DGG ( talk) 17:35, 23 May 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.
Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Complete abuse of administrator power by Ricky81682. How could we let a featured article or a featured list quality work like this be destroyed? First, instead of actual discussion with Kasaalan over the work he created, the admin abuses his power to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie, with only minimal participation and it gets deleted. Then the powers that be ignore the views of Alansohn and Ceedjee at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 16. Then, after Kasaalan rewrites the article to follow the AFD, he goes and lists it again for AFD without discussion. THEN, whining about Kasaalan's simple attempts to get more intelligent discussion, the admin goes to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Possible_convassing_concern and threatens yet again. What's wrong with asking people who know the issue to comment? What's wrong with notifying the Palestinian noticeboard about an article that affects them? It's not an Israeli issue. Finally, to further abuse his power, the great admin whines again that he's losing to his buddies, so that his friend can close the AFD in three days without discussion. We cannot allow people to be abused this way. A simple glance at the discussion among the people who truly understand Rachel and truly understand the need for this article all support it, it's clear that it should have been kept. Kasaalan listed everything at Talk:Rachel Corrie and instead of letting whoever just managed to wander by and give their ignorant views decide this issue, we should wait until the people who know and understand Rachel and what she means the best have thought about it and decided. Why make rash decisions within a few days when there's so much to lose? Suggest immediate restoration and listing as a featured article or a featured list following Ceedjee's discussion. In fact, this should be put on the front of Wikipedia immediately. Biasprotector ( talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse close, largely because of the numerous bad faith accusations against this one, that one and the other one made here, that has nothing to do with the merits of the case. This appears to have been filed by a brand new user with a suspiciously high degree of proficiency in the ways of wikipedia. I find the special pleading that editors should defer to the judgement of "the people who truly understand rachel" because, well, obviously the people who argued for a merge clearly don't understand anything unworthy of adult conversation. Bali ultimate ( talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral and yes, I know it's strange coming from me, but I'm a policy wonk for the most part. Ignoring the clear bad faith allegations, the last point (not the very last one obviously) about it being closed early is concerning. I didn't think it was a clear G4, otherwise, I would have left the redirect I put in place. And it clearly wasn't a SNOW situation. I think it deserved the full time, but I also understand WP:IARing it away. A warning to stay away from the fun of the I-P universe. And Bali, as I noted, read the entire AFD, this user's complaints about who's judgment isn't alone, for what that's worth. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I'll just add that having reviewed the AFD more thoroughly, i think it was a good close reflecting both the policy arguments (needless content fork) and appears to have been the recreation of an article that failed AFD recently without going through the DRV process, so appears a good close on the process side. Bali ultimate ( talk) 21:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: I was the one who asked for it to be kept here. Probably a dumb idea, but I had some concerns procedurally and given the number of users who were disgruntled with the close, I figured we could all ignore the attacks. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Endorse due to lack of actual arguments: a) nomination contains lots of bad faith accusations, those are usually speedy closed to cut drama b) nominator appears to be a sock created to avoid this discussion being linked to his main account, that's not good (AGF and all, but it seems that there is strong WP:DUCK evidence of who this person really is) c) nominator makes no mention of the arguments in the AfD d) the only real argument is that the comments of two editors were ignored in the DRV of a similar article, not in the AfD e) sending an article to AfD is not "admin abuse" since any non-administrator can do it.
A nomination without all these problems can probably be done, and it should explain why it wouldn't be a POV fork, and show some good sources that show that this is really an encyclopedic topic, and not just an indiscriminate list of any source mentioning her. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 21:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Query: What was the policy basis for that close? I'm not seeing it, which makes me lean towards overturn at the moment.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

    (later) I should probably elaborate on that. The closer's justification seems to be that a similarly-titled article was merged a month ago, and the consensus of that previous AfD was to merge. But when I read the actual debate attached to that AfD, what I see is a fairly apparent "no consensus".

    What I want to understand is how the closer got from the debate to the result, because I'm not seeing the links at all.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, in the original AFD (for Artistic Tributes), the decision was merge. It was never actually merged since the article was instead moved to "Public reactions" with some additional text. I myself changed it to a redirect after month (since I originally thought none of the content was worth saving in the first place as did some others), and was told by the author that it was a "new" article, so it would be an abuse to use the original AFD as justification. I'm guessing the closing admin thought this wasn't a new article but a pretext to save the last one. Expand the first extended content section to get a better idea of the history, including a discussion of which editors have the proper experience, assuming anyone supports that argument. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes, I see that, but was it a consensus? I don't think so.

I want to understand the policy reasons why the closer didn't judge that debate as "no consensus". Because it seems to me that the close has little to do with the debate.

I think the closer might have decided the debate was defective, disregarded it and instead, acted as decided in an entirely different debate. Which is an automatic "overturn" from me as a bad close. But maybe the closer can cite some policy that supports their actions.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 07:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Without getting involved in faith discussions of deletion nomination, review or any other outcome, we should somehow discuss the content. :Yet a lack of getting involved to the main article, and without knowing the case fully, it is hard for others to appreciate why the separate title is important and necessary. The voting and admin decisions were based on somewhat without reading the case fully.
However creating the Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie is somewhat a broad article, and without help of other editors a quality article is not possible in short term. The Rachel Corrie article should somehow deal with her life, especially her early life actions more deeply and with her death. While a public reactions title should be separated to represent the case in more detail. Yet somehow we couldn't create a successful Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie title, because we couldn't have much time to develop it, before it got deleted.
We first created the page as Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie but it nominated for deletion claiming it is POV Fork, deletion voters suggested a more broad Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie would be more suitable, I tried to create it, yet they again liked to delete it for it is fork.
Ricky shouldn't nominated the article, without first tagging first and discussing with other main article editors, if you ask me. Most of Our most active editors of last 6 months from the main article taking wiki breaks currently, and it is no good time for deletion nominations or reviews. But I can tell the last admin that closes the title in 3 days with some arguments, he did not seemed to investigate the case fully, and even not bothered to read Ricky possibly. Because the original deletion admin advised another deletion review would be good, so Ricky nominated the article himself to discuss this further. Ricky later stated I could even ask another deletion review since admin closed too early but I didn't bother to get another review, because people not reading the case before they vote, also the time wasted during reviews could be spent on improving the article itself.
'Main Question I already implemented the Documentaries on Rachel Corrie to the main page. Actually we may also implement, political reactions to the main article somehow. Yet, there are more than 30 songs devoted to Rachel Corrie from 30 different professional artists (while half of them highly notable and famous, some others not much famous) all around the world, and we have a good table representing the songs. Yet without creating a separate title, it is not much possible to implement the table, and artist comments into the main article, since we have length and reference number limitations according to the guidelines. Only the song table is based on near 30 references itself. So my question is, is it advisable to create a List of Songs Dedicated to Rachel Corrie or List of Songs (and maybe Poems) Written for Rachel Corrie for dedicated song tables, and artist comments on why they wrote a song on Rachel Corrie. Kasaalan ( talk) 13:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I put a copy of the content to be merged in main page discussion page Songs and Poems Dedicated to Rachel Corrie. I have other things to do, so I may not be around for a while. Kasaalan ( talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Just because you created a table of those songs and poems (I still debate whether the sources are appropriate) doesn't mean that we must find a place for it to be. As I noted before, the talk page hadn't been edited in days and none of "main article editors" you've wanted commented on the first AFD, the first DRV, the actual article afterwards, the main article afterwards, the second AFD, and now here, excluding the ones you specifically notified. At some point, we cannot keep on waiting for the people you think are qualified, even if the nominator thinks so as well. Do you care at all about the views of those who actually took the time to make an opinion? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The sources has verifiability, yet it is not about sources. You are determined to object any page titled List of Songs Dedicated to Rachel Corrie or Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie because you claim it is against guidelines or claim it is a (POV) FORK. You argue guidelines, but quoting or applying them just the partially. Yet the full wiki guidelines clearly refer it is neither POV, nor FORK, also there are numerous articles in the wikipedia, that have been reviewed by numerous other editors and approved, so it is not other examples exist case in any way, since the wiki guidelines are still same and applied likewise to any article. But in none of the deletion discussions we could discuss the policies fully, instead we wasted more time on faith of the parties, which is why the discussions were not productive.
You claim the same arguments, yet you still lack proper ones. In the last 1 year, the article has been improved greatly, by hard work of other editors from conflicting parties after month long debates. None of the editors I refer is my friends by the way, and I have serious conflicts with some of them. As you haven't replied to my previous questions, here I am asking again, did you even read the article from start to end even once before nomination, or yet. It is not that I don't care about others opinions, but they state their opinions without fully investigating the case, and without knowing the issue stating an opionion on the issue not helps much. That is what you have been doing the whole time. Without reading the article fully, or contributing it (excluding your 1 minor edit at the time of your nomination), tagging the article for improvement or without even taking other main page editors' opinions, you nominated the article for deletion, I cannot call that a constructive approach. We could have improved the article, instead these long debates over deletion of it. Kasaalan ( talk) 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm arguing against it because pulling together every single song that mentions her is a mix of trivia or a synthesis of sources, not an encyclopedia article. A discussion about how she's received in the artistic community, by secondary sources, I could possibly live with (and probably won't be worth more than a paragraph), but tables of songs based on nonsense like a iTunes search for her name is just a mess. Not every piece of content is work keeping, and sometimes people just say delete it and move on. And it seems clear that discussing it with others doesn't matter, since practically nobody you want has bothered to comment. I know, I know, again, we should wait for them to be back from the wikibreaks, which sounds a lot like the nominator's argument. I have read the articles in question, I have commented since then at Talk:Rachel Corrie, a review of the various versions of this article showed me it couldn't ever be anything remotely useful without a complete overhaul and as I noted in the AFD, your constant reverting any attempt to summarize or remove any detail at all make it impossible to actually work on. Even the closing admin from the AFD gave up after a month and made it into a redirect. I refuse to wait around arguing with you until you feel like the discussion is complete. Frankly, I think the nominator would be easier to deal with than you. At least he put it up at DRV instead of just complaining. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Strike all that. I'm not getting into another argument with you about how I don't need your approval to edit these things or list them for deletion. The last part is accurate though. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I asked you if you have read the article fully at the time of nomination, you didn't answer, you still haven't answered if you read them fully at that time or yet. Because you have been coming up with some clearly wrong arguments, and you still do, so I am not sure you have read the articles fully or checked references correctly. The itunes site used as a reference for song lengths, not more than that. I explained that to you already, but you keep coming with same wrong argument. If the references are the issue, I can come up with better references. But you object the page totally, not only to references. Kasaalan ( talk) 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
There are numerous articles in the same manner of Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie in wikipedia, and you haven't showed any guideline that restricts creating it in the first place yet. When you do so, then the discussion is over, but you coming with vague arguments. Tell me what is the difference between Cultural depictions of George Washington and Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie articles. Kasaalan ( talk) 22:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
It stresses the parts I like to point out most. Especially the questions I ask and my replies to others arguments. I write long, not everyone reads every part, so I use bold for main sentences. Kasaalan ( talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
All of your points are wrong. No this is not an othercasesexist argument, because wikipedia is full of same content articles not only a few. Throwing guidelines here and there, but not refferring the main idea behind the guideline not useful. The Wikipedia:Other stuff exists guideline clearly explains that, for consistency other articles that established and continued to exist in the same nature is a good insight for notability of the concept.
"... such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same.
In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."
I don't know if you have any insight on Gandhi's life, thoughts and actions, but if you read his life, you can easily tell the similarities between Gandhi and Rachel Corrie's approach to peace. The same guidelines cannot be applied to the apples and oranges differently within Wikipedia. So if you claim the cases are different, you should first prove why they are different and why the same guidelines should be applied differently. Kasaalan ( talk) 03:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Ok, you created Artistic Tributes, it was rejected, it went to DRV, that decision was accepted. You moved the article and changed it to Public reactions, that was somewhat rejected (disputable), and now we are here. Now if this DRV or another AFD or whatever is again a merge or a straight-out delete, will you again create another title and repeat these arguments again for another round? It's not going on the main article as Talk:Rachel Corrie indicates. Is there a point where consensus and finality actually mean anything? Otherwise, what is your goal here, other than arguing that Rachel Corrie is on the same field in terms of notability as Elvis, Gandhi, and George Washington? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I created the page, you nominated it for deletion before you contributed to the main article or artistic tributes pages, or without tagging or bothering to discuss this issue with other editors first. The majority of votes, including 2 main page editor's vote was in favor of keeping the article, or merging into a more broader public reactions page. However the admin closed the page, though he admitted he doesn't even know who Rachel Corrie is, so he didn't read sub article fully too. Yet some delete voters including you and closing admin advised a more broad public reaction page would be better, Therefore I tried to create a title accordingly. But again it is nominated, but this time it is perceived as a "workaround" for deletion so it rejected by majority of votes, yet 2 overturn votes by editors after they read the article. Kasaalan ( talk) 06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Your argument was textbook other stuff exists. That's why that page is there. It addresses arguments like yours. "Allow me to make this because there's 'x tribute to x' elsewhere, so that proves that it should stay." No, it doesn't. Especially when it is apples to oranges. You cannot argue that Rachel Corrie is anywhere near as notable as those people. Rachel Corrie became notable with her death. All those people you referred to were extremely notable while living. That's a fairly significant distinction. Enigma msg 05:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
You just partially take some guideline sentences to reach a synthesis, guideline clearly says "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts" against your allegations. No they don't have the same level of notability, but they all have notability. Also Gandhi has at least 10 times more long coverage in wikipedia, and more than 10 titles dedicated under him. Gandhi template proves it. They have coverage by sources, not your allegations. The same guidelines apply likewise to every article. Also your other argument clearly false, she is not only notable for her death, if that would be the case any westerner that IDF killed would have same notability. But no, she is notable because her activism works in Evergreen, she is notable because her actions, she is notable because her writings, which were published and become an international theatre play and even part of a cantata, she has over 30 songs devoted to her name depicting her actions even if she died in 23 years old. Did you even read the article fully yet or are you still just speculating. Kasaalan ( talk) 06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
So you are honestly going to argue that Rachel Corrie was at famous as Gandhi? You can't honestly be arguing that Corrie deserves the same amount of coverage as Gandhi? From a basic results perspective, I'd say Gandhi accomplished more but it's clear from your user page what your perspective is. And it looks like you still argue that the mere existence of things (the play, her writings) indicates her notability, not independent third-party analysis of them, which is what [[WP:RS}] asks for. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Being famous and being notable are not directly related. No Gandhi is at least 10 times more famous than Rachel Corrie, at Gandhi is cumulatively more than 10 times more coverage than Rachel Corrie in wikipedia. As I stated before, Gandhi has more notability, but they both have notability. And there is no he is more famous therefore his article should be longer, she is less famous trim her article policy exists. Also if you know about Gandhi at all you can easily tell the similarities between their actions. Arun Gandhi speaking at The Rachel Corrie Foundation’s 2006 Peace Works Conference All Rachel Corrie articles, build upon references, though you try to claim separate "famousness" for every single piece under a title, for a song, written by a notable party like Patti Smith for another notable party like Rachel Corrie and being covered by a verifiable source is enough to mention it in the relevant article. Kasaalan ( talk) 06:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
" Rachel Corrie was 23 years old, from Olympia; a sane, articulate, and dedicated American who had studied with care the methods of Gandhi and Martin Luther King." David Bromwich Professor of Literature at Yale The Huffington Post Thoughts on the Death of Rachel Corrie May 22, 2009 Kasaalan ( talk) 06:42, 23 May 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.
DataObjects.Net ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deletion was unreasonable. Alexyakunin ( talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Request for undeletion and relist of DataObjects.Net. Article is updated and represents a neutral position, it has some credible references and is notable. The original decision from the previous deletion debate is no longer the case because all the article has been rewriteen.

Moreover, for ~ 3 last months there was accepted DataObjects.Net v4.0 page. The text of DataObjects.Net page is based on its content, but we added "Features", "Example" and "Architecture" sections. Probably I should delete DataObjects.Net, rename DataObjects.Net v4.0 to DataObjects.Net (because now v4.0 is the most current version), and update its content, but I simply re-created DataObjects.Net and put a redirect from DataObjects.Net v4.0 to it.

From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DataObjects.Net:

  • "This 'development framework' was initially released 85 days ago" - incorrect, v1.0 was released in 2003, and there were lots of subsequent releases.
  • "The article does not demonstrate that the development framework is notable" - hopefully now it is. There are links in the end proving this, that can be removed, if you consider they advertise the product:
  • "and does not give sources for its assertion that the product is different from its competition." - that's because v4.0 is really new. In fact, its final version is just releasing this month. So we're (authors) are the only ones able to show the differences. Some features listed in the article are unique, e.g. built-in database (Google easily proves this). And... Actually I don't understand why are you requiring to show and prove the presence of differences. They obviously exist (this can be said about any two software products). But on the other hand, it is always possible to find a person claiming there are no noticeable differences between a particular product and all its competitors, especially if there are many of them: the "cumulative" set of features offered by competitors is usually wider than the features offered by a particular product, and the small set of features left can be considered as negligible by a particular reviewer.
  • "The framework is at least partly a profit-making enterprise, meaning that this article functions partly as an advertisement" - we removed any (super)relative comparison degrees from the content to make it closer to the article format. Btw, the same can be said about many other open source products with GPL\LGPL license having the articles here - their copyright owners quite frequently get indirect profits (visibility, services around, etc.).

The latest version of article can be viewed from User:Alexyakunin/DataObjects.Net

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page 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? Also, this article was deleted over five months ago; can you please advise why you have waited until now to make this request? Stifle ( talk) 08:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Yes - I've contacted both persons responsible for deletion of both articles ( User:MBisanz, User:ESkog). User:ESkog has asked me to follow this procedure.
    • "About five months ago": it was mainly because of lack of time. Actually I never though writing an article for Wikipedia can be rather complex. So I delayed this, and finally asked another person to do this. He has published DataObjects.Net v4.0 article - probably, because he has not understood what exactly should be done to review the deletion. DataObjects.Net v4.0 article has been approved. Alexyakunin ( talk) 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Closing admin AFD opened the required period of time, unanimous support for deletion, I'm still not seeing anything above that would overcome the comments made at the AFD IMO. MBisanz talk 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Question: why does the latest version not actually use any of the sources you've listed? Just throwing them into the External links section and leaving a detailed unsourced listing of the version changes doesn't seem like too much of a change. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • To be fixed. Alexyakunin ( talk) 08:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Just a bit of advice but personally, doing things like this tends to annoy people more than encourage them. If you are the one trying to keep this article, saying that google in Russian mentions this isn't going to help that much. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Err... Link to google.ru was really occasional - there should be a link to google.com, if it should be. My intention was to show the product has its own community. Most of discussions related to this product were running on our forum; there ~ 10K messages, 99% - in English. We didn't seriously pay attention to promotion of it outside, that's why it is actually not so easy to find articles related to it, but not related to us - i.e. we've built a community around it in our forums. Reviews made on other web sites (such as the one at ComponentSource) are, most likely, made by our customers, and some of them were finally published on our web site. So I'm not sure if you consider them as "independent view on the subj.". That's why I provided the link to google search page. Alexyakunin ( talk) 09:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • In any case, I understood it's better to give some links to particular web pages. Alexyakunin ( talk) 09:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I've just updated the page. The most important external reference (reader's choice award) is mentioned in article's text now. I didn't put any references to short responses related to the product on the web sites that aren't related to us at all, since they can't be considered as real articles, and will likely just confuse the visitor. And actually don't want to put references to e.g. our forum to proof the public notability - again, it will just confuse the people. I hope the article itself looks descriptive enough to be published now, and there are some evidences pointing on its notability. And... I looked up the pages of similar products, and found that pages of many of them are providing nearly the same quality and notability of references. Examples are: LLBLGen, DevForce, ObjectMapper .NET, Persistor.NET, Subsonic (software), Habanero.NET, EntitySpaces. I hope current content worth to be published here.
  • Endorse deletion It's been long enough. The AFD was properly done, procedurally fine. The references Alexyakunin has included are only useful for features of the program. The only mention is that it won the 2007 Reader's choice award in dot.net Magazine for O/R mapper, which is based on reader's votes. The forum isn't going to qualify no matter what. Combine that with a clear COI and I just don't see enough for notability. Still nothing to indicate meeting WP:CORP. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:10, 26 May 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_May_19&oldid=1086354945"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 May 18
2009 May 20 >

19 May 2009

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

This is one of many redirects improperly deleted by Maury Markowitz for being unused or "polluting Google". I know that, in this case, I could simply create the redirect (it presumably pointed to Clay Belt), but there are way too many to do this manually. I would like consensus that this deletion in particular, and more generally his reasons for deleting this and others, was improper so that some sort of mass undeletion can take place. NE2 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  • RestoreOverturn: that's a perfectly plausible redirect. In fact, it looks like the article was originally at Great Clay Belt and was moved to Clay Belt where Lesser Clay Belt and Great Clay Belt details were combined. I would think part of a name would be a logical redirect to keep. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • RestoreOverturn: Seems like an essential redirect; certainly not implausible. decltype ( talk) 08:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, no valid reason for deletion provided. Stifle ( talk) 09:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn According to the deleted history, Maury combined the two articles into one. Combining two closely related topics into one article seem like a good reason to keep the names of the individual entities as a redirect. They're certainly not implausible. As for polluting google, I don't think redirects are actually spidered... - Mgm| (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, and for other reasons at Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting. -- NE2 12:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Google actually does spider redirects, not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Maury seems to be worried about performance issues caused by people clicking on a redirect rather than a direct link. -- NE2 12:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore' Deleted contrary to WP policy. There is no basis in deletion policy for uswing such a reason via speedy, and I doubt it would even get consensus to delete at RfD. There is some dispute about the degree to which admins can use their judgment to invoke IAR to go outside the stated reasons, but IAR requires the knowledge that any reasonable person here would agree. That is far from the case--in fact, it seems to be the exact opposite. Cause for RfC if it continues. DGG ( talk) 17:35, 23 May 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.
Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Complete abuse of administrator power by Ricky81682. How could we let a featured article or a featured list quality work like this be destroyed? First, instead of actual discussion with Kasaalan over the work he created, the admin abuses his power to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie, with only minimal participation and it gets deleted. Then the powers that be ignore the views of Alansohn and Ceedjee at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 16. Then, after Kasaalan rewrites the article to follow the AFD, he goes and lists it again for AFD without discussion. THEN, whining about Kasaalan's simple attempts to get more intelligent discussion, the admin goes to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Possible_convassing_concern and threatens yet again. What's wrong with asking people who know the issue to comment? What's wrong with notifying the Palestinian noticeboard about an article that affects them? It's not an Israeli issue. Finally, to further abuse his power, the great admin whines again that he's losing to his buddies, so that his friend can close the AFD in three days without discussion. We cannot allow people to be abused this way. A simple glance at the discussion among the people who truly understand Rachel and truly understand the need for this article all support it, it's clear that it should have been kept. Kasaalan listed everything at Talk:Rachel Corrie and instead of letting whoever just managed to wander by and give their ignorant views decide this issue, we should wait until the people who know and understand Rachel and what she means the best have thought about it and decided. Why make rash decisions within a few days when there's so much to lose? Suggest immediate restoration and listing as a featured article or a featured list following Ceedjee's discussion. In fact, this should be put on the front of Wikipedia immediately. Biasprotector ( talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse close, largely because of the numerous bad faith accusations against this one, that one and the other one made here, that has nothing to do with the merits of the case. This appears to have been filed by a brand new user with a suspiciously high degree of proficiency in the ways of wikipedia. I find the special pleading that editors should defer to the judgement of "the people who truly understand rachel" because, well, obviously the people who argued for a merge clearly don't understand anything unworthy of adult conversation. Bali ultimate ( talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral and yes, I know it's strange coming from me, but I'm a policy wonk for the most part. Ignoring the clear bad faith allegations, the last point (not the very last one obviously) about it being closed early is concerning. I didn't think it was a clear G4, otherwise, I would have left the redirect I put in place. And it clearly wasn't a SNOW situation. I think it deserved the full time, but I also understand WP:IARing it away. A warning to stay away from the fun of the I-P universe. And Bali, as I noted, read the entire AFD, this user's complaints about who's judgment isn't alone, for what that's worth. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I'll just add that having reviewed the AFD more thoroughly, i think it was a good close reflecting both the policy arguments (needless content fork) and appears to have been the recreation of an article that failed AFD recently without going through the DRV process, so appears a good close on the process side. Bali ultimate ( talk) 21:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: I was the one who asked for it to be kept here. Probably a dumb idea, but I had some concerns procedurally and given the number of users who were disgruntled with the close, I figured we could all ignore the attacks. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Endorse due to lack of actual arguments: a) nomination contains lots of bad faith accusations, those are usually speedy closed to cut drama b) nominator appears to be a sock created to avoid this discussion being linked to his main account, that's not good (AGF and all, but it seems that there is strong WP:DUCK evidence of who this person really is) c) nominator makes no mention of the arguments in the AfD d) the only real argument is that the comments of two editors were ignored in the DRV of a similar article, not in the AfD e) sending an article to AfD is not "admin abuse" since any non-administrator can do it.
A nomination without all these problems can probably be done, and it should explain why it wouldn't be a POV fork, and show some good sources that show that this is really an encyclopedic topic, and not just an indiscriminate list of any source mentioning her. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 21:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Query: What was the policy basis for that close? I'm not seeing it, which makes me lean towards overturn at the moment.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

    (later) I should probably elaborate on that. The closer's justification seems to be that a similarly-titled article was merged a month ago, and the consensus of that previous AfD was to merge. But when I read the actual debate attached to that AfD, what I see is a fairly apparent "no consensus".

    What I want to understand is how the closer got from the debate to the result, because I'm not seeing the links at all.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, in the original AFD (for Artistic Tributes), the decision was merge. It was never actually merged since the article was instead moved to "Public reactions" with some additional text. I myself changed it to a redirect after month (since I originally thought none of the content was worth saving in the first place as did some others), and was told by the author that it was a "new" article, so it would be an abuse to use the original AFD as justification. I'm guessing the closing admin thought this wasn't a new article but a pretext to save the last one. Expand the first extended content section to get a better idea of the history, including a discussion of which editors have the proper experience, assuming anyone supports that argument. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes, I see that, but was it a consensus? I don't think so.

I want to understand the policy reasons why the closer didn't judge that debate as "no consensus". Because it seems to me that the close has little to do with the debate.

I think the closer might have decided the debate was defective, disregarded it and instead, acted as decided in an entirely different debate. Which is an automatic "overturn" from me as a bad close. But maybe the closer can cite some policy that supports their actions.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 07:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Without getting involved in faith discussions of deletion nomination, review or any other outcome, we should somehow discuss the content. :Yet a lack of getting involved to the main article, and without knowing the case fully, it is hard for others to appreciate why the separate title is important and necessary. The voting and admin decisions were based on somewhat without reading the case fully.
However creating the Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie is somewhat a broad article, and without help of other editors a quality article is not possible in short term. The Rachel Corrie article should somehow deal with her life, especially her early life actions more deeply and with her death. While a public reactions title should be separated to represent the case in more detail. Yet somehow we couldn't create a successful Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie title, because we couldn't have much time to develop it, before it got deleted.
We first created the page as Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie but it nominated for deletion claiming it is POV Fork, deletion voters suggested a more broad Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie would be more suitable, I tried to create it, yet they again liked to delete it for it is fork.
Ricky shouldn't nominated the article, without first tagging first and discussing with other main article editors, if you ask me. Most of Our most active editors of last 6 months from the main article taking wiki breaks currently, and it is no good time for deletion nominations or reviews. But I can tell the last admin that closes the title in 3 days with some arguments, he did not seemed to investigate the case fully, and even not bothered to read Ricky possibly. Because the original deletion admin advised another deletion review would be good, so Ricky nominated the article himself to discuss this further. Ricky later stated I could even ask another deletion review since admin closed too early but I didn't bother to get another review, because people not reading the case before they vote, also the time wasted during reviews could be spent on improving the article itself.
'Main Question I already implemented the Documentaries on Rachel Corrie to the main page. Actually we may also implement, political reactions to the main article somehow. Yet, there are more than 30 songs devoted to Rachel Corrie from 30 different professional artists (while half of them highly notable and famous, some others not much famous) all around the world, and we have a good table representing the songs. Yet without creating a separate title, it is not much possible to implement the table, and artist comments into the main article, since we have length and reference number limitations according to the guidelines. Only the song table is based on near 30 references itself. So my question is, is it advisable to create a List of Songs Dedicated to Rachel Corrie or List of Songs (and maybe Poems) Written for Rachel Corrie for dedicated song tables, and artist comments on why they wrote a song on Rachel Corrie. Kasaalan ( talk) 13:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I put a copy of the content to be merged in main page discussion page Songs and Poems Dedicated to Rachel Corrie. I have other things to do, so I may not be around for a while. Kasaalan ( talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Just because you created a table of those songs and poems (I still debate whether the sources are appropriate) doesn't mean that we must find a place for it to be. As I noted before, the talk page hadn't been edited in days and none of "main article editors" you've wanted commented on the first AFD, the first DRV, the actual article afterwards, the main article afterwards, the second AFD, and now here, excluding the ones you specifically notified. At some point, we cannot keep on waiting for the people you think are qualified, even if the nominator thinks so as well. Do you care at all about the views of those who actually took the time to make an opinion? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The sources has verifiability, yet it is not about sources. You are determined to object any page titled List of Songs Dedicated to Rachel Corrie or Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie because you claim it is against guidelines or claim it is a (POV) FORK. You argue guidelines, but quoting or applying them just the partially. Yet the full wiki guidelines clearly refer it is neither POV, nor FORK, also there are numerous articles in the wikipedia, that have been reviewed by numerous other editors and approved, so it is not other examples exist case in any way, since the wiki guidelines are still same and applied likewise to any article. But in none of the deletion discussions we could discuss the policies fully, instead we wasted more time on faith of the parties, which is why the discussions were not productive.
You claim the same arguments, yet you still lack proper ones. In the last 1 year, the article has been improved greatly, by hard work of other editors from conflicting parties after month long debates. None of the editors I refer is my friends by the way, and I have serious conflicts with some of them. As you haven't replied to my previous questions, here I am asking again, did you even read the article from start to end even once before nomination, or yet. It is not that I don't care about others opinions, but they state their opinions without fully investigating the case, and without knowing the issue stating an opionion on the issue not helps much. That is what you have been doing the whole time. Without reading the article fully, or contributing it (excluding your 1 minor edit at the time of your nomination), tagging the article for improvement or without even taking other main page editors' opinions, you nominated the article for deletion, I cannot call that a constructive approach. We could have improved the article, instead these long debates over deletion of it. Kasaalan ( talk) 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm arguing against it because pulling together every single song that mentions her is a mix of trivia or a synthesis of sources, not an encyclopedia article. A discussion about how she's received in the artistic community, by secondary sources, I could possibly live with (and probably won't be worth more than a paragraph), but tables of songs based on nonsense like a iTunes search for her name is just a mess. Not every piece of content is work keeping, and sometimes people just say delete it and move on. And it seems clear that discussing it with others doesn't matter, since practically nobody you want has bothered to comment. I know, I know, again, we should wait for them to be back from the wikibreaks, which sounds a lot like the nominator's argument. I have read the articles in question, I have commented since then at Talk:Rachel Corrie, a review of the various versions of this article showed me it couldn't ever be anything remotely useful without a complete overhaul and as I noted in the AFD, your constant reverting any attempt to summarize or remove any detail at all make it impossible to actually work on. Even the closing admin from the AFD gave up after a month and made it into a redirect. I refuse to wait around arguing with you until you feel like the discussion is complete. Frankly, I think the nominator would be easier to deal with than you. At least he put it up at DRV instead of just complaining. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Strike all that. I'm not getting into another argument with you about how I don't need your approval to edit these things or list them for deletion. The last part is accurate though. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I asked you if you have read the article fully at the time of nomination, you didn't answer, you still haven't answered if you read them fully at that time or yet. Because you have been coming up with some clearly wrong arguments, and you still do, so I am not sure you have read the articles fully or checked references correctly. The itunes site used as a reference for song lengths, not more than that. I explained that to you already, but you keep coming with same wrong argument. If the references are the issue, I can come up with better references. But you object the page totally, not only to references. Kasaalan ( talk) 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
There are numerous articles in the same manner of Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie in wikipedia, and you haven't showed any guideline that restricts creating it in the first place yet. When you do so, then the discussion is over, but you coming with vague arguments. Tell me what is the difference between Cultural depictions of George Washington and Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie articles. Kasaalan ( talk) 22:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
It stresses the parts I like to point out most. Especially the questions I ask and my replies to others arguments. I write long, not everyone reads every part, so I use bold for main sentences. Kasaalan ( talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
All of your points are wrong. No this is not an othercasesexist argument, because wikipedia is full of same content articles not only a few. Throwing guidelines here and there, but not refferring the main idea behind the guideline not useful. The Wikipedia:Other stuff exists guideline clearly explains that, for consistency other articles that established and continued to exist in the same nature is a good insight for notability of the concept.
"... such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same.
In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."
I don't know if you have any insight on Gandhi's life, thoughts and actions, but if you read his life, you can easily tell the similarities between Gandhi and Rachel Corrie's approach to peace. The same guidelines cannot be applied to the apples and oranges differently within Wikipedia. So if you claim the cases are different, you should first prove why they are different and why the same guidelines should be applied differently. Kasaalan ( talk) 03:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Ok, you created Artistic Tributes, it was rejected, it went to DRV, that decision was accepted. You moved the article and changed it to Public reactions, that was somewhat rejected (disputable), and now we are here. Now if this DRV or another AFD or whatever is again a merge or a straight-out delete, will you again create another title and repeat these arguments again for another round? It's not going on the main article as Talk:Rachel Corrie indicates. Is there a point where consensus and finality actually mean anything? Otherwise, what is your goal here, other than arguing that Rachel Corrie is on the same field in terms of notability as Elvis, Gandhi, and George Washington? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I created the page, you nominated it for deletion before you contributed to the main article or artistic tributes pages, or without tagging or bothering to discuss this issue with other editors first. The majority of votes, including 2 main page editor's vote was in favor of keeping the article, or merging into a more broader public reactions page. However the admin closed the page, though he admitted he doesn't even know who Rachel Corrie is, so he didn't read sub article fully too. Yet some delete voters including you and closing admin advised a more broad public reaction page would be better, Therefore I tried to create a title accordingly. But again it is nominated, but this time it is perceived as a "workaround" for deletion so it rejected by majority of votes, yet 2 overturn votes by editors after they read the article. Kasaalan ( talk) 06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Your argument was textbook other stuff exists. That's why that page is there. It addresses arguments like yours. "Allow me to make this because there's 'x tribute to x' elsewhere, so that proves that it should stay." No, it doesn't. Especially when it is apples to oranges. You cannot argue that Rachel Corrie is anywhere near as notable as those people. Rachel Corrie became notable with her death. All those people you referred to were extremely notable while living. That's a fairly significant distinction. Enigma msg 05:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
You just partially take some guideline sentences to reach a synthesis, guideline clearly says "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts" against your allegations. No they don't have the same level of notability, but they all have notability. Also Gandhi has at least 10 times more long coverage in wikipedia, and more than 10 titles dedicated under him. Gandhi template proves it. They have coverage by sources, not your allegations. The same guidelines apply likewise to every article. Also your other argument clearly false, she is not only notable for her death, if that would be the case any westerner that IDF killed would have same notability. But no, she is notable because her activism works in Evergreen, she is notable because her actions, she is notable because her writings, which were published and become an international theatre play and even part of a cantata, she has over 30 songs devoted to her name depicting her actions even if she died in 23 years old. Did you even read the article fully yet or are you still just speculating. Kasaalan ( talk) 06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
So you are honestly going to argue that Rachel Corrie was at famous as Gandhi? You can't honestly be arguing that Corrie deserves the same amount of coverage as Gandhi? From a basic results perspective, I'd say Gandhi accomplished more but it's clear from your user page what your perspective is. And it looks like you still argue that the mere existence of things (the play, her writings) indicates her notability, not independent third-party analysis of them, which is what [[WP:RS}] asks for. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Being famous and being notable are not directly related. No Gandhi is at least 10 times more famous than Rachel Corrie, at Gandhi is cumulatively more than 10 times more coverage than Rachel Corrie in wikipedia. As I stated before, Gandhi has more notability, but they both have notability. And there is no he is more famous therefore his article should be longer, she is less famous trim her article policy exists. Also if you know about Gandhi at all you can easily tell the similarities between their actions. Arun Gandhi speaking at The Rachel Corrie Foundation’s 2006 Peace Works Conference All Rachel Corrie articles, build upon references, though you try to claim separate "famousness" for every single piece under a title, for a song, written by a notable party like Patti Smith for another notable party like Rachel Corrie and being covered by a verifiable source is enough to mention it in the relevant article. Kasaalan ( talk) 06:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
" Rachel Corrie was 23 years old, from Olympia; a sane, articulate, and dedicated American who had studied with care the methods of Gandhi and Martin Luther King." David Bromwich Professor of Literature at Yale The Huffington Post Thoughts on the Death of Rachel Corrie May 22, 2009 Kasaalan ( talk) 06:42, 23 May 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.
DataObjects.Net ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deletion was unreasonable. Alexyakunin ( talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Request for undeletion and relist of DataObjects.Net. Article is updated and represents a neutral position, it has some credible references and is notable. The original decision from the previous deletion debate is no longer the case because all the article has been rewriteen.

Moreover, for ~ 3 last months there was accepted DataObjects.Net v4.0 page. The text of DataObjects.Net page is based on its content, but we added "Features", "Example" and "Architecture" sections. Probably I should delete DataObjects.Net, rename DataObjects.Net v4.0 to DataObjects.Net (because now v4.0 is the most current version), and update its content, but I simply re-created DataObjects.Net and put a redirect from DataObjects.Net v4.0 to it.

From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DataObjects.Net:

  • "This 'development framework' was initially released 85 days ago" - incorrect, v1.0 was released in 2003, and there were lots of subsequent releases.
  • "The article does not demonstrate that the development framework is notable" - hopefully now it is. There are links in the end proving this, that can be removed, if you consider they advertise the product:
  • "and does not give sources for its assertion that the product is different from its competition." - that's because v4.0 is really new. In fact, its final version is just releasing this month. So we're (authors) are the only ones able to show the differences. Some features listed in the article are unique, e.g. built-in database (Google easily proves this). And... Actually I don't understand why are you requiring to show and prove the presence of differences. They obviously exist (this can be said about any two software products). But on the other hand, it is always possible to find a person claiming there are no noticeable differences between a particular product and all its competitors, especially if there are many of them: the "cumulative" set of features offered by competitors is usually wider than the features offered by a particular product, and the small set of features left can be considered as negligible by a particular reviewer.
  • "The framework is at least partly a profit-making enterprise, meaning that this article functions partly as an advertisement" - we removed any (super)relative comparison degrees from the content to make it closer to the article format. Btw, the same can be said about many other open source products with GPL\LGPL license having the articles here - their copyright owners quite frequently get indirect profits (visibility, services around, etc.).

The latest version of article can be viewed from User:Alexyakunin/DataObjects.Net

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page 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? Also, this article was deleted over five months ago; can you please advise why you have waited until now to make this request? Stifle ( talk) 08:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Yes - I've contacted both persons responsible for deletion of both articles ( User:MBisanz, User:ESkog). User:ESkog has asked me to follow this procedure.
    • "About five months ago": it was mainly because of lack of time. Actually I never though writing an article for Wikipedia can be rather complex. So I delayed this, and finally asked another person to do this. He has published DataObjects.Net v4.0 article - probably, because he has not understood what exactly should be done to review the deletion. DataObjects.Net v4.0 article has been approved. Alexyakunin ( talk) 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Closing admin AFD opened the required period of time, unanimous support for deletion, I'm still not seeing anything above that would overcome the comments made at the AFD IMO. MBisanz talk 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Question: why does the latest version not actually use any of the sources you've listed? Just throwing them into the External links section and leaving a detailed unsourced listing of the version changes doesn't seem like too much of a change. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • To be fixed. Alexyakunin ( talk) 08:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Just a bit of advice but personally, doing things like this tends to annoy people more than encourage them. If you are the one trying to keep this article, saying that google in Russian mentions this isn't going to help that much. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Err... Link to google.ru was really occasional - there should be a link to google.com, if it should be. My intention was to show the product has its own community. Most of discussions related to this product were running on our forum; there ~ 10K messages, 99% - in English. We didn't seriously pay attention to promotion of it outside, that's why it is actually not so easy to find articles related to it, but not related to us - i.e. we've built a community around it in our forums. Reviews made on other web sites (such as the one at ComponentSource) are, most likely, made by our customers, and some of them were finally published on our web site. So I'm not sure if you consider them as "independent view on the subj.". That's why I provided the link to google search page. Alexyakunin ( talk) 09:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • In any case, I understood it's better to give some links to particular web pages. Alexyakunin ( talk) 09:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I've just updated the page. The most important external reference (reader's choice award) is mentioned in article's text now. I didn't put any references to short responses related to the product on the web sites that aren't related to us at all, since they can't be considered as real articles, and will likely just confuse the visitor. And actually don't want to put references to e.g. our forum to proof the public notability - again, it will just confuse the people. I hope the article itself looks descriptive enough to be published now, and there are some evidences pointing on its notability. And... I looked up the pages of similar products, and found that pages of many of them are providing nearly the same quality and notability of references. Examples are: LLBLGen, DevForce, ObjectMapper .NET, Persistor.NET, Subsonic (software), Habanero.NET, EntitySpaces. I hope current content worth to be published here.
  • Endorse deletion It's been long enough. The AFD was properly done, procedurally fine. The references Alexyakunin has included are only useful for features of the program. The only mention is that it won the 2007 Reader's choice award in dot.net Magazine for O/R mapper, which is based on reader's votes. The forum isn't going to qualify no matter what. Combine that with a clear COI and I just don't see enough for notability. Still nothing to indicate meeting WP:CORP. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:10, 26 May 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_May_19&oldid=1086354945"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE