Kyle Kumaran – Relisted. There's some appetite to just overturn without relisting, but the consensus seems to be to just relist now without faulting the closer, rather than letting a renomination happen (or not).
* Pppery *it has begun... 00:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
relist The discussion was poor and the sources seem decent and not discussed. I've no idea if those sources were in the deleted article, but the topic at first blush appears to meet
WP:N. We should have a guideline-based discussion. I don't know the area well, and I know Indian sources can sometimes be questionable, but these seem reasonable and good.
Hobit (
talk) 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
This seems to be a case of "good closure, bad discussion". There's only so much a closer can do with three unanimous delete !votes, but an AfD that doesn't even examine the cited sources (much less any others) is pretty clearly deficient. Usually in this situation we'd just restore or allow recreation, but given how recent the discussion is, I guess there's no harm in a relist for the sources to actually be looked at.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 20:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relist noting that the close was correct based on the information available in the AFD. There were two delete votes plus the nom, which is barely more than a
soft delete. A good faith effort to restore the article should be considered. Since this was recently closed, a relist makes the most sense. FrankAnchor 02:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Relist due to additional information not discussed at AfD, while noting like others that the close based on the discussion was good. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Overturn per
WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. No need for another round of AfD which will obviously result in keeping. No fault of the closer.—
Alalch E. 17:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Restore. I don't really see the point in relisting either, but no prejudice against renominating for anyone who does.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 06:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse was there any effort to engage with the closer? (I cannot see any, but happy to be corrected). I agree with Frank Anchor, the discussion itself was essentially only minimal endorsements of the nomination, so a soft delete would have been a reasonable. Nevertheless, absent of any engagement with the closer, I feel a need to respect the decision which was within reasonable discretion. No prejudice against recreation. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 07:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Relist. No closure error, but new evidence has been presented and the three delete votes were all pretty weak IMO.
Clyde[trout needed] 22:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse insofar as the close was correct based on what was in the AfD, and the closer did not err. However factoring in the new information, undelete. I'd say no relist is needed automatically as part of the DRV, but it can just be nominated by any editor at their own discretion moving forward.
Daniel (
talk) 23:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
OggConvert – That's probably enough
WP:PILEON. If anyone wishes to pursue this (with policy-based arguments) the correct venue is
WP:AfD. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me) 17:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This program has been untouched for 15 years. It is impossible to compile since 2019 because it was never converted from Python 2, which is unsupported and removed from all but a couple of really outdated Enterprise Linux distributions until their EOL. OggConvert was dropped from Fedora 32, and at some point by Debian and Ubuntu as well. It's extremely unlikely that this will ever be made to work again given that Python 3 is incompatible with version 2, and that it also relies on Glade from GTK 2, and possibly other unmaintained software. As such, this program is no longer notable enough to have a Wikipedia page since it would need a major rewrite. (At least two-thirds of the code). The last proposed deletion was in 2009, and should be overturned as the program has rotted away.
Daemonfc (
talk) 04:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
DRV hardly ever overturns an afd to delete, and it's certainly not going to do so with one from 13 years ago. You can
renominate it for a new deletion discussion, but if it is deleted there, it won't be because of your arguments above - if something is notable, it's generally always notable. (Be aware that "notable" has
a specific meaning in Wikipedia jargon; software quality or maintainability has nothing to do with it, except to the extent it influences the subject's
coverage in
reliable sources.) It may be that the article's sourcing doesn't meet our current standards, though. —
Cryptic 04:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse. Original AFD over 13 years old. If you want to nominate it for deletion again, that would be done at
WP:AFD.
Stifle (
talk) 09:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy close per above. The AFD was closed as keep almost 14 years ago. I also would not recommend taking this to AFD with the mentioned rationale because software becoming obsolete does not make it not notable. The nominator claims that this program is no longer notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, however notability is
WP:NOTTEMPORARY. FrankAnchor 14:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Frank is right. (I had typed virtually the same comment but Frank beat me to the punch, GMTA) Notability is not temporary. No comment on whether it ever passed the bar for notability to begin with. The discussion in the AfD concluded there's at least one good source. A new AfD could be opened but would certainly fail if the only argument is that the software is obsolete. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me) 14:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
speedy close an AfD this old doesn't belong here. In addition, the reasons for deletion given by the nom are not policy or guideline based. If the nom wishes to see this deleted, they should go to AfD and make an argument for deletion based on WP:N.
Hobit (
talk) 16:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Kyle Kumaran – Relisted. There's some appetite to just overturn without relisting, but the consensus seems to be to just relist now without faulting the closer, rather than letting a renomination happen (or not).
* Pppery *it has begun... 00:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
relist The discussion was poor and the sources seem decent and not discussed. I've no idea if those sources were in the deleted article, but the topic at first blush appears to meet
WP:N. We should have a guideline-based discussion. I don't know the area well, and I know Indian sources can sometimes be questionable, but these seem reasonable and good.
Hobit (
talk) 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
This seems to be a case of "good closure, bad discussion". There's only so much a closer can do with three unanimous delete !votes, but an AfD that doesn't even examine the cited sources (much less any others) is pretty clearly deficient. Usually in this situation we'd just restore or allow recreation, but given how recent the discussion is, I guess there's no harm in a relist for the sources to actually be looked at.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 20:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relist noting that the close was correct based on the information available in the AFD. There were two delete votes plus the nom, which is barely more than a
soft delete. A good faith effort to restore the article should be considered. Since this was recently closed, a relist makes the most sense. FrankAnchor 02:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Relist due to additional information not discussed at AfD, while noting like others that the close based on the discussion was good. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Overturn per
WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. No need for another round of AfD which will obviously result in keeping. No fault of the closer.—
Alalch E. 17:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Restore. I don't really see the point in relisting either, but no prejudice against renominating for anyone who does.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 06:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse was there any effort to engage with the closer? (I cannot see any, but happy to be corrected). I agree with Frank Anchor, the discussion itself was essentially only minimal endorsements of the nomination, so a soft delete would have been a reasonable. Nevertheless, absent of any engagement with the closer, I feel a need to respect the decision which was within reasonable discretion. No prejudice against recreation. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 07:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Relist. No closure error, but new evidence has been presented and the three delete votes were all pretty weak IMO.
Clyde[trout needed] 22:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse insofar as the close was correct based on what was in the AfD, and the closer did not err. However factoring in the new information, undelete. I'd say no relist is needed automatically as part of the DRV, but it can just be nominated by any editor at their own discretion moving forward.
Daniel (
talk) 23:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
OggConvert – That's probably enough
WP:PILEON. If anyone wishes to pursue this (with policy-based arguments) the correct venue is
WP:AfD. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me) 17:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This program has been untouched for 15 years. It is impossible to compile since 2019 because it was never converted from Python 2, which is unsupported and removed from all but a couple of really outdated Enterprise Linux distributions until their EOL. OggConvert was dropped from Fedora 32, and at some point by Debian and Ubuntu as well. It's extremely unlikely that this will ever be made to work again given that Python 3 is incompatible with version 2, and that it also relies on Glade from GTK 2, and possibly other unmaintained software. As such, this program is no longer notable enough to have a Wikipedia page since it would need a major rewrite. (At least two-thirds of the code). The last proposed deletion was in 2009, and should be overturned as the program has rotted away.
Daemonfc (
talk) 04:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
DRV hardly ever overturns an afd to delete, and it's certainly not going to do so with one from 13 years ago. You can
renominate it for a new deletion discussion, but if it is deleted there, it won't be because of your arguments above - if something is notable, it's generally always notable. (Be aware that "notable" has
a specific meaning in Wikipedia jargon; software quality or maintainability has nothing to do with it, except to the extent it influences the subject's
coverage in
reliable sources.) It may be that the article's sourcing doesn't meet our current standards, though. —
Cryptic 04:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse. Original AFD over 13 years old. If you want to nominate it for deletion again, that would be done at
WP:AFD.
Stifle (
talk) 09:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy close per above. The AFD was closed as keep almost 14 years ago. I also would not recommend taking this to AFD with the mentioned rationale because software becoming obsolete does not make it not notable. The nominator claims that this program is no longer notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, however notability is
WP:NOTTEMPORARY. FrankAnchor 14:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Frank is right. (I had typed virtually the same comment but Frank beat me to the punch, GMTA) Notability is not temporary. No comment on whether it ever passed the bar for notability to begin with. The discussion in the AfD concluded there's at least one good source. A new AfD could be opened but would certainly fail if the only argument is that the software is obsolete. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me) 14:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
speedy close an AfD this old doesn't belong here. In addition, the reasons for deletion given by the nom are not policy or guideline based. If the nom wishes to see this deleted, they should go to AfD and make an argument for deletion based on WP:N.
Hobit (
talk) 16:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.