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

Thanks for Sandstein and Casliber‘s review and talk. When the editor received the deletion warning, it is for the reason: G6. Technical deletions

Editors are under editing to add more convincing links from different websites and from different time. While the page deleted before the work completed. Here are part of our reference links we want to revise to add in the page.

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Melodyzou ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Who is "our" and "we"? — Cryptic 10:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• People who edit the page deepin. (users of deepin and employees of deepin) — Melodyzou 10:27, 19 August 2016 (GMT+8)
  • Which of those categories are you, and how do you know what the others want to do? — Cryptic 03:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ Cryptic:Most of the people who commented on the AfD are COI or SPA. User:Melodyzou appears to be a COI creating promotional material ( [1] [2] [3]). Regards, - Champion ( talk) ( contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I'm capable of reading the afd and using Google myself, thanks. I was giving "them" a chance to come clean. — Cryptic 00:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Note that the name "melodyzou" appears twice in the References for the Italian Wikipedia Deepin article, as an author for material cited to deepin.org.  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Vacate close and relist existing debate. There are certainly serious WP:COI issues. But, I find the closing statement , Nobody actually advocates anything other than deletion, a little disingenuous. Sure, nobody put the word keep in bold with a bullet in front of it, but there were clearly people who were making arguments why we should keep the article. Some of them had obvious COI and should be discounted, but some were established editors making reasonable arguments. I know it's already run for two relists, so maybe just close it at NC. I wouldn't even mind somebody else reclosing this now and ending up with a delete decision, as long as their closing statement explained how they considered and weighed all the comments in their entirely, and not just counting keywords. To be fair, having read many closes by Sandstein, I'm pretty sure he did give careful consideration to all the comments, but the actual wording of the closing statement doesn't make it sound that way. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Given Mackensen's comment below, I'll withdraw my suggestion to vacate the close, but would still suggest that the closing statement be updated to go into a bit more detail about how the decision was reached. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• I was perhaps a bit brief, but my thinking went like this: AlickDeepin is obviously a COI account and has to be discounted, Mackensen has been around long enough to write "keep" when they mean "keep", and Wcam has likewise contributed to and even started AfDs. So, yes, there are zero "keep" opinions to be taken into account because all non-COI editors did not want to express one.  Sandstein  16:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• That I have (knew this looked familiar). I'd declined the G4 and noted a possible source but I didn't have an opinion on the merits. Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• The close doesn't "discount" the spa, it characterizes the viewpoint as "Nobody".  I see no rationale to "discount" the Italian Wikipedia.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment  WP:BEFORE B6 reveals 23 Wikipedias with articles on this topic.  The nomination, a WP:DEL7 (WP:V) argument, attempted to repeat a two-year old argument from the earlier AfD, but the argument was refuted within two hours of being posted.  WP:DEL8 is not valid given the WP:ATD. 

  Where is the responsibility of relisters to see that the discussion has been closed?  AfD discussions left open without an argument for deletion are violations of the policy WP:AGF.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close I actually did a pretty thorough search before !voting delete. I'm familiar with tech and it is very easy to create "news" about Linux distros - there are literally hundred of them and almost every single one of them will be reviewed. What needs to be proven is that it stands out of the crowd. The coverage, of a linux distro must be considered relative to the coverage of other linux distros to understand if the distro is notable (otherwise we are continuing our WP:SYSTEMICBIAS as tech related topics attract more news). I tend to look for multiple factors: diversity of sources, if mainstream media has noticed it, frequency of discussions on forums (to find out if people are actually using it). I looked at everything and I found it was a case of WP:TOOSOON. Now looking at this deletion review as well as other posts by the editors, I am beginning to realise that the company is trying to lead a coordinated effort to somehow "get the article up" on Wikipedia. I have never heard of anyone writing on the Afd "we have initiated a plan to encourage international deepin users to help us editting this article". Oh, and they tried to argue that it is mentioned in the distrowatch rankings - heck, anyone familiar would know how easy to game the distrowatch rankings. Bottomline, I don't see notability and now I see a blatant violation of WP:PROMO. That's an additional reason for deletion now. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 05:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• It is one thing what our WP:NOT policy says in the section WP:PROMO.  It is another when editors are influenced by promotional activities to fail to support our policies and guidelines.  In the description you've given above, your viewpoint is being influenced by the promotional activity toward under-representation of the topic on Wikipedia.  Note that WP:NPOV is a core content policy.  Unscintillating ( talk) 18:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment  Here is a new reliable source, [4].  This interview claims 10,000,000 downloads before the major 2014 release.  The AboutUs page claims the number is now 40,000,000.  Puffery?  I haven't verified one way or the other, but there are a billion people in China.  The AboutUs page states, "Its operating system product has been on the central centralized procurement catalog of National Government Offices Administration with the safe operating system certification of the Ministry of Public Security and domestic operating system adaption certification of the Ministry of Industry and information Technology; and widely used in the party, government, military, finance, operators and education."  [5] is an in-depth reliable source.  [6] states in an article written in 2016 that the latest release has more than 30 languages.  One of the points that these sources make is that the US is at the end of the distribution chain as far as this software distribution has been concerned.  We know from several sources that while the company was founded in 2011, the Open Source project began in 2004.  While perhaps not a topic that the US has noticed, the world at large has noticed over a period of time.  Unscintillating ( talk) 20:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Honestly, I'm normally on board with User:Sandstein's reading of consensus, but I think I've got to disagree here. Bolding isn't a requirement of a contributor at AfD. Wcam indicated that the topic met the GNG, which is _the_ argument for keeping an article. Plus we've got sources that look to meet WP:N and no one has explained why they don't. Overturn to NC or relist. Hobit ( talk) 19:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Yes, bolding is not required in AfDs, but it is a convention. Therefore, if reasonably experienced editors choose not to submit an opinion with a bolded keyword, I interpret that as them not wanting to express a clear preference about what to do with the article, as Mackensen has confirmed above. As to the sources, I am not interested in them in this forum, because this is deletion review, not AfD round 2, and the place to examine sources is (or would have been) at AfD. If an article about this topic can be written that addresses the sourcing concerns expressed in the AfD, anybody is free to do so.  Sandstein  20:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Wcam supplied a source and said the topic met the GNG, that's a keep !vote with or without the word "keep". And yes, the AfD was the right place to question the source provided. No one directly did. Which makes their !vote stronger, not weaker. If you continue to have doubts about their intent, you could ask. Hobit ( talk) 22:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Return discussion to closing-administrator's talk page  The OP states that there has been some kind of "review and talk" involving Sandstein, but the only thing I've found on the closing administrator's talk page is, this diff.  IMO, this diff is deeply relevant, as it expresses exact issues I have independently noted here with leaving open an AfD whose argument for deletion has been resolved.  Yet the post was quickly removed, for reasons that are unclear. 

  There are many issues in this deletion review and directions to take, but further analysis might not be as helpful as returning the discussion to the closing administrator's talk page.  Naturally, there is no guarantee that @ Melodyzou: will respond, but that also is a path that leads forward from here.  Meanwhile, melodyzou is advised of WP:DELREVD point 1, which reads, "Discuss the matter with the closing-administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first."  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply