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

Unfortunately I didn't watch this page so I didn't notice the AFD discussion before now, and hence couldn't object. Firstly, many, many of the listings under Category:Open source content management systems are as weak as the Pivot(log) article. I find this deletion random and think if we want to delete it we should review the complete category. Just some examples: BBlog is worse than Pivotlog was and PmWiki (whose AFD discussion ended on a keep) isn't much better. Anyway, I understand that comparing to other articles isn't sufficient. And pointing to (size of) user base, maturity and such is also not good enough. However, some external source could help I guess - some reviews, Pivot at opensourcecms.com, Ohloh Metrics Report for Pivot and reported vulnerabilities (which isn't something we like). Disclaimer1: I don't remember the exact content of the page but I'm 110% that we can make something better than PmWiki. Disclaimer2: I'm one of the project's developers. PS! I did not notify the admin Kurykh since he is taking a break until December. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansfn ( talk • contribs) -- Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - New source for this article at Linux.com Vadder 14:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Here is one. Gilmour, Kim. (September 1, 2003) Internet Magazine Free web treasure! The Internet is full of gratis goodies. We pick out the best--many of which you'll never have to pay a penny for--and to save you time searching for them we've included more than 150 on your CD! Issue 107. (writing "Pivotlog. Create weblogs and dynamic websites with this great PHP-based tool. Freeware. www.pivotlog.net.") -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 17:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• This post talks about "PHP Development – Best Practices and Pivotal Skills for PHP Development". But that probably does not refer to the Pivot website. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 18:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. Comment. Please prepare a draft article in your user space at User:Vadder/Pivotlog (draft) and return to WP:DRV to see whether it is sufficient to use to recreate the Pivotlog article. Also, consider hiring a PR firm to issue press releases to MarketWire.Com or issue your own press releases to MarketWire.Com. Also, alternative weekly newspapers love to write up offbeat stories and usually one good story by them provides more than enough material for a Wikipedia article. Consider contacting the alternative weekly newspaper near where Pivotlog is based and have them do a story on Pivotlog and/or those involved in Pivotlog. The "Pivoteers" who help the website might be a good news angle. You also should create a "Povotlog in the news" section on your website to link to news articles written by others about Povotlog. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 17:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment I have emailed you a copy of the deleted article. At the very least, it needs some references to show its notability--there are none at all. Jreferee's suggestions are exactly what's needed. By the way, don't let the PR firm write the article for WP--they rarely do a good job of it--see Wikipedia:Corporate FAQ . I suggest you ask us to withdraw this Deletion review, and come back when the article is ready. DGG ( talk) 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• NOTE TO User:Jreferee AND EVERYBODY ELSE: I am not the requester of this undeletion. User:Hansfn is. (Check the history.) I've removed the signature added by Jreferee that made it look like I was. Jreferee, please check before you attribute somebody else's words to me. Vadder 18:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Too harsh. I can see why you thought I was the author of this request, but please check and you will see that I was not. Vadder 18:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure - the AfD was correctly closed. As discussed above, the way forward is to produce a new article in user space, with sources that show something notable about the s/w, and then returning here. TerriersFan 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'm very sorry I forgot to sign my initial request which caused all this confusion. Could someone please send me a copy of the deleted article and I'll make a draft for a new article in my user space. PS! Vadder, the Linux.com article you mentioned, was included in the reviews I pointed to in my initial request, but thx. Hansfn 12:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

[1] This was a page about an open-source documentary entitled Zeitgeist. This page has been deleted due to alleged insufficient notability. I think the response after its removal warrants the undeleting alone. There are clearly a large amount of people who would like to see that information and who would like to add more. There is a lot of hostility towards the film for its subject matter, which is fair enough; however, there's no limit, providing that there's evidence, of what could be contested in a "criticism" section. The film has gained notoriety in the past couple of months, and its popularity is growing. Besides, it's of interesting note in a Wikipedia article that the film was released with absolutely no profit intended, but solely to make a statement. If the article was perhaps non-neutral, this can be remedied. As for its notability - it certainly has substantial fame.