Tardieu, Michel ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Contest sudden deletion of stub article on Michel Tardieu, Professor at College de France, within 6 hours of it appearing. A source had been added immediately after an objection in the same period of time, and more were to come. Nominated by Clive sweeting ( talk · contribs). Steps one and two fixed by A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD at editorial discretion. Rough consensus is that professorship is a sufficient claim of notability to avoid speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 (see this discussion and Wikipedia:A7M#People). For the record, the article claims that Tardieu is notable for having been a professor at Collège de France since 1991. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Articles don't even have to claim notability to cross A7, they only have to claim significance or importance. WP:PROF notability standards are pretty much irrelevant to the latter test. This article clearly made a credible claim to importance or significance (published works, developed a theory, etc). The rest is a matter for AfD. As an aside, I'm not seeing where the DRV nom discussed this with the deleting admin first. Disputed speedy deletions can often be overcome that way rather than needing to come to DRV. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 00:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Overturn totally unjustified. Clear claim to notability, and, will clearly meet WP:PROF also. I suppose this is simply an error by a usually very reliable admin, and agree that he probably would have reconsidered had he been asked. 00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn - although I really think we should require DRV nominators to ask the admin first, and give them 12 hours min to respond.-- Scott Mac 00:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per nom. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 00:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Bigotgate ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This was speedy-deleted by User:Syrthiss as‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP). This seems an incorrect use of G10 as the item in question was a redirect to a respectable and well-sourced article not an attack page and there are plenty of reliable sources which testify to the prevalence of this usage. Per WP:CSD, G10 should only be used for pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. This is not the case here as there is clearly another purpose - that of navigation using this common search term. Colonel Warden ( talk) 14:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, per my comments at the ANI subsection, reproduced here for ease-of-reference. If this is what the media is generally calling it, the redirect is probably appropriate. It's not a direct attack like "Bigoted woman incident" - which I agree is inappropriate as it begs the question as to whether the woman is, in fact, a bigot. "Bigotgate" seems to be the term being used [1]; it's also the term being searched for by our readers [2]. No matter how many redirects we delete, this genie won't be stuffed back in the bottle. – xeno ^talk 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  See also the quite topical guidance at Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects. – xeno ^talk 19:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance, the widely used but non-neutral expression " Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it.

If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes

• Comment My actions are not out of line with the deletion of Bigotsgate and Bigoted woman incident. If there are blp concerns with the first two, then this similarly needs to be censored. I'd have no objection to 2010 Open mic incident as a redirect, or some such. Obviously, if the deletion of the previous two are overturned upon overwhelming consensus then I'd have no objection to this being overturned. Well, technically I'd object...but it would be internalized objection and not invocation of hyperbole. Syrthiss ( talk) 15:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

For reference, the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Bigoted woman incident. Syrthiss ( talk) 15:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't think Bigotsgate should have been deleted either (perhaps redirected), though I endorse the deletion of "Bigoted woman incident" because it begs the question and is a direct attack. As for your suggestion, I think "Gordon Brown open mic incident" would be a good article title if we were to have separate article on the gaffe; but it doesn't appear to have much traction in the media, so I doubt anyone will be searching for it thusly. Redirects should be created from common terms for incidents, and "Bigotgate" is what the media is using. The claim that deleting the redirect to a neutral treatment of the incident already present in the appropriate article will somehow reduce harm to the woman is dubious - she's already all over the news. – xeno ^talk 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict)Overturn per Xeno and then RfD it after the election when everybody's forgotten about it, otherwise these redirects will keep springing up. I endorse all the other deletions, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, strongly. Channeling the ICP; "Fuckin BLP, how does it work?" How it shuold work is by considering the real harm that things in this project can do to real people. This is a poor old woman who asked an honest questino of a politician, had no intention, desire or idea that said question would embroil her in a shitstorm from the pol's live mic. This person is not a celebrity, was not seeking selebrity, and should not have her name linked in any manner to the characterization of bigotry. Where it is by an article named "bigoted woman controversy" or a "bigotgate" redirect to another article, both of those are bad. As bad? No, but enough that it should make one pause and consider what harm is being done here. This redir was deleted as an attack, and rightly so per BLP policy. Grow up, Wikipedia, for your own sake and for everyone else's. Tarc ( talk) 15:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  Should we delete the section on the incident as well? – xeno ^talk 15:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  The section at least explains the matter and places it in context. What I am against is a pejorative term pointing to it. If the drive-by media had come up with, say, "openmicgate", that would probably fly. It is just unfortunate that people are off and running with this slur. Tarc ( talk) 15:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  We (unfortunately) do not control the mass media, and they have come up with the term "Bigotgate". As a search term, it is worlds better than "Bigoted woman incident" as it simply refers to the fact that Brown used the word "bigot"(ed) but does not have the same connotations that BWI does. I'm not sure that ignoring/suppressing the media-invented term for this does our readers or the harmed woman any favours. I fully agree that "Bigotgate" should be considered entirely unprintworthy (i.e. it should have zero incoming links from articles), but it should be provided as a redirect to the neutral treatment of this incident. – xeno ^talk 15:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Weak overturn...it looks like the term is getting used a fair amount by the press and G10 really shouldn't apply to an unfortunate, but widely-used term. However, the term should only be used as a redirect if the usage of "bigotgate" is properly sourced on the main article (currently United Kingdom general election, 2010#28 April, perhaps a future standalone depending on the ultimate impact of the incident). Additionally, whatever the most common RS term for this particular flap ends up being seems like the logical location for the GFDL (described in the other DRV) issue to be resolved. — Scien tizzle 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • However, the term should only be used as a redirect if the usage of "bigotgate" is properly sourced on the main article (currently United Kingdom general election, 2010#28 April, perhaps a future standalone depending on the ultimate impact of the incident). I think this comment of mine should also apply to the entry found at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, though I'm aware that it's out of the purveiw of this discussion. — Scien tizzle 16:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding attribution, I started a discussion at WT:Deletion review/Bigoted woman incident. Flatscan ( talk) 04:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I strongly respect the desire to suppress the article if its based on BLP concerns, but per my comment over at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Bigoted woman incident, theres actually a case that a neautrally written article will help the woman involved as a fair presentation of the availalbe facts find her blameless. With the close to blanket global coverage were not going to significantly raise her profile with an article focusing on the incident and not the woman, especially with a well chosen title like Bigotgate. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn like it or not, this is a term the press, not us has coined, and is being used as a name for this whole incident. While I agree that the whole issue doesn't (at least at this time) deserve an article (and certainly not the poorly titled one deleted and being appealed below), to NOT have a re-direct on something that people could legitamately search for undermines our ability to properly serve as an encyclopedia. BLP is not at issue here, as it is not a term describing the person, rather the incident. To sum up, the re-direct should, imho, exist as a redirect and ONLY a redirect. That'd probably mean protecting it so someone ( well meaning, I hope doesn't see a redlink and attempt to re-create the article. Instead of salting something that points to nowhere, we should be pointing people to the relevant article. Umbralcorax ( talk) 17:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Well, as we are not dependent on the mainstream media I'm not sure that their pejorative term is useful. To borrow a bit of exaggeration, if they were calling something Lyingrottenwhoregate I'd hope that we as an encyclopedia wouldn't feel the need to have that as a redirect as a service to our readers. Syrthiss ( talk) 17:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

If the term is used in multiple reliable sources, as this one has, why wouldn't we? WP:BLP is a bright line in the sand, something to keep us from recording on the trivial or the inaccurate as if it were true. It is not something to prevent us from recording something that is well documented, merely because its not nice. Umbralcorax ( talk) 18:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and send to RFD. Not at all a speedy candidate. Stifle ( talk) 17:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse-If no internal links are to be allowed and we have an intention to AFD it in a week when the election is over, then what do we need it for. I support open mic incident Off2riorob ( talk) 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  It's needed to redirect the hundreds of readers keying the phrase into the search box: [3]. – xeno ^talk 19:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn it is quite obvious not an uncontroversial deletion, and thus not suitable for speedy. Even if it is viewed as inherently and unfairly negative, still the world uses it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - I think this is a reasonable navigation aid. JohnCD ( talk) 20:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send to RfD. This title is pretty bad, but still much better than the previous ones. It is also actually in use, so it's plausible. It deserves a full discussion at RfD, at least, though it's still prety marginal. — Gavia immer ( talk) 21:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I said take it to RfD when I declined the first CSD, but unfortunately my plea fell on deaf ears. Here's how I would respond on Tarc's comments. Why would "bigoted woman controversy" (the article itself) and "bigotgate" be the same? The former focuses on a BLP-subject in question considering the article's title, while the latter focuses to the action by Gordon Brown that is widely-used by the press. Furthermore, it has been admitted that the election article section the redirect last pointed to would put this phrase properly in context. If it was redirected to Bigoted woman incident, then yes I would have deleted it outright as an application of G10. - Mailer Diablo 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn This is an adequate use of a redirect, since it's used by sources (redirects don't have the same rules as articles, there are many cases where an article is bad but a redirect is ok). Idem for Bigotsgate. Please make sure that it stays as simply a redirect and that it points to the relevant section in the election article and not to the deleted article.

P.D.: Syrthiss, xeno is right about the neutrality of redirect, read the paragraphs of guideline that he quoted. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 22:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and send to WP:RFD per above. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I am seriously tempted to say keep deleted. Wikipedia has made such an almighty balls up of dealing with this incident so far, that it is almost better not to direct people to that pitiful excuse for coverage that has emerged, stillbirth style, from the wreckage of a shotgun Afd closure which has frankly destroyed any hope of this incident ever being written about properly here. The readers who want to learn more about the incident, having heard about it from the many and ongoing mentions of it on tv, radio, and newspapers, of her full name, this term, and any and all conceivable reference inbetween, in everything from serious political coverage to humourous satire and cultural comment, should not have their time wasted by the lie that is Wikipedia's in this new era, where sources like the New York Times is laughingly now considered an irresponsible tabloid apparently. Anyone who has eyes and ears can see Wikipedia has no role to play here in protecting this woman any more, and any editor with any experience knows that proper, FA quality and policy compliant writing about this incident would not remotely resemble a biography about this woman, let alone defame her or otherwise cause damage. Knowledge of this incident is here to stay in the real world, it is part of the political history of the UK already, part of the cultural fabric, an instantly recognisable turning point in Gordon Brown's probable last days in office. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is in denial, or is trying to change Wikipedia into something it is not. So, keep deleted - the quicker readers realise that Wikipedia is pretending nothing happened at all, then the sooner they can go and find a superior information source, and let Wikipedia die the natural death it is well on its way to meeting while it continues to tolerate over-reactions like this, where not even a single plausble search term exists after over 48 hours. Anyone redirected to the election article in its current state, is just going to be confused and bemused, and will most probably just leave, thinking they have just failed to find the main article. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Process wonkery is not needed; see WP:NOTNEWS. Most people still know how to use Google for a term like this, and Wikipedia does not have to use every silly tabloid fashion-of-the-day label. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  Is this just a theory of yours, that Bigotgate is only being used by tabloids? Or are you using the new definition of tabloid being used by some here at Wikipedia now, namely, all media, not helped by the rather misleading creation of the WP:TABLOID shortcut. Everyone can use Google yes, and it quite quickly shows that this term is not exclusive to tabloids, using the real definiton. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  Then I say we trash the WP:TABLOID redirect as well because Wikipedia does not have to use every silly WP:OMG fashion-of-the-day label. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorsegate per unnecessary redirectgate. Who is really going to search using that term? I mean really? "Rochdale incident" or something perhaps. Actually, people are far more likely to search for "Gillian Duffy" than any passing tabloid cliché. Utterly moronic redirect.-- Scott Mac 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  Well, we can debate what kind of people they might be (no doubt morons in your eyes), but 300 more of them are searching for Bigotgate than your suggestion (searches for which stands at zero at this time). You are correct of course that her real name has ten times more attempted views, for obvious reasons, but readers won't get any joy out of that one either will they. 124 people even viewed 'Bigoted woman incident' yesterday, even though its been a vanished and salted term for days now. I for one am certainly lost as to what other plausible alternatives you might be thinking of, but if they are as usefull as 'Rochdale incident', we will clearly need one of the verboten ones restored, although as ever, admins to do repair work after a BLP steamroller are thin the ground. Because the 57,000 extra people who have looked at Gordon Brown over the last three days, have of course, found jack. A spike of 1,750 for plain Rochdale is just depressing, and gives a clear sign of the run around certain admins have given readers searching for this, who as mere readers in their naivety, clearly have no idea of Wikipedia's tendency for ridiculous over-reaction and dismissal before the facts, when anybody even mentions the magic three latter acronym. And the outcome of all this hand-wringing? Judging by the lack of any discernible rise in the actual election page views, normal readers, who neither know or care of Wikipedia's BLP phobia, are giving up well before they figure out just where the ethical editors have decided to file this information. Not that what they would find there resembles the real world coverage and notability of the incident in the slightest, thanks to the chilling effect of the Afd. So, if the idea of BLP is to pretend it never happened and piss our readers around, then clearly, it's a job well done. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Your statistics are irrelevant, since WP:NOTNEWS. We'd expect all sorts of searches in the hight of a news story that will not be repeated a few weeks later. It is highly improbable anyone will be searching for "Bigotgate", or any passing tabloid accolade, next year. As for the hits on 'Bigoted woman incident', most of these will be Wikipedian's rubbernecking the deletion discussion. (One of those hits was me, and (I presume) one was you.) If we took NOTNEWS seriously, we'd not have this problem. We are writing an encyclopaedia. If this episode proves to have lasting significance, we can look again later. In the highly improbable scenario that the moronic designation of "Bigotgate" ends up having traction we can look at that too. For now, no evidence exists - try wikinews.-- Scott Mac 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Paradoxically — I speedily deleted Bigotsgate — I feel this speedy deletion should be overturned. "Bigotgate" has been used in hundreds of news articles and on television hundreds of times, not just in tabloids, and is not in itself an attack on anyone, be it Gordon Brown or Gillian Duffy. It is the recognised short-hand for this incident. It would be a valid redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010#28 April, regardless of whether we should have a full article on this incident or not (which I don't favour). p.s. I was amused by this suggestion that Brown didn't think she said "flocking", but another similar word beginning with "f": [4] Fences& Windows 13:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I guess if most dont want a dedicated article we can at least postpone until a couple of weeks after the election. By then there will be better perspective to see if there are genuine BLP reasons for us not to cover this. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 15:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You are assuming anybody would bother to review the sources and give it a careful and rationale assesment against our policies and guidelines. It didn't happen the last time, and the lack of due process and rational thought the first time around is likely to be sufficient in persuading anybody who might have been minded the first time round, to not touch this with a bargepole in future, even if Gordon Brown gets a pasting and this incident is cited in every credible analysis as the stand out event of the election. Which is of course, what was already being speculated worldwide just days after the event, in the "tabloid" media. You can tell by the pathetic state of its coverage in the election article as to what the effect has already been in this regard, now the steamroller has rolled off somewhere else. That content stopped being updated about three significant developments ago, not that it even expalains what happened either. Nope, that content is like most sub-par content around here, it is merely a placeholder for the references where readers should go to get the real facts, although they are of course also out of date by now. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Just to illustrate the point, this was still being steamrollered at Drv, while thrid party coverage was already stating "It's unfortunate for Gordon Brown that this is what will be remembered when everything else that he has said in the campaign has been forgotten.". Rational discussion of a possible recreation in future, even if someone spends days on it and soothes the panic that this migtht be a horriblly damaging and defaming biography on a poor private woman, rather than an article on a highly notable political gaffe, doesn't stand a chance in this environment of BLP hysteria. Lest anybody forgets as they review this in future, the original Afd was closed after one hour, for "blindingly-obvious" reasons. All that article said was what has happened, much as the rest of the world's media was already doing. Why even bother eh? MickMacNee ( talk) 17:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Timothy A. Wilkinson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

MSgt Wilkinson is a recipient of the Air Force Cross for the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, the way I look at is if you delete his article you must delete every other Air Force Cross, Navy Cross and Distinguised Service Cross recipients' articles. If we are going delete military pages because they are only famous for the action that made them worthy for the decoration, then when do we start deleting Medal of Honor and Victoria Cross Recipients? Feickus ( talk) 12:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I think Feickus's criticism is more properly aimed at the policy behind WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MILPEOPLE rather than this particular deletion. This is not the place for that argument. The deletion review guide notes as much. Novaseminary ( talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per inherent silliness of any nomination based on "If you delete X, you must delete all Y". No, it doesn't work that way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. A clear consensus to delete but people need to stop citing WP:MILPEOPLE as a guideline. It's not. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Mkativerata, and as (s)he put it, WP:MILPEOPLE is a WikiProject page and carries no weight. Stifle ( talk) 08:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There was certainly a clear consensus to delete and none for keeping this article at all. Bettia  (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (redirect, merge subject to target talk page). BIO1E is not a reason for deletion where merge is an option. Contrary to the closer's statement, the redirect !votes were not wikt:refuted at all; they were barely addressed. Expansions on the story are best discussed at that article, not at random spin-out article AfDs, and so the best thing to do with all such articles is to redirect. The delete !voters seem to be weary of these contributions by unencultured new editors, but it is better to direct newcomers to a productive path (redirect to the main article) than to drive newcomers away. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per the clear consensus to delete. The argument to redirect was well-refuted by Novaseminary ( talk · contribs) so deletion (instead of a redirect or merge) is a reasonable result. Cunard ( talk) 05:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Novaseminary commented in reply, but did not refute, and her comments were not sound. Redirects are cheap. It is easily possible to maintain a redirect for every name that is verifiably associated with the battle and for which a Wikipedian has already attempted to write an article. Also, given that at least one person believes this participant is notable, the redirect is a reasonable search term. Wikipedia's internal search function is not very good, and such redirects are helpful. (helpful is a good rationale for a redirect, not an article.) Novaseminary's "searches will bring up the article without the redirects" is not correct unless one assumes that the project is now complete. I daresay that the project is not complete, and if you disagree, fork it now. If the person's name is not in the article, the search function won't bring the contributor to the article. My assumption here is that contributors are here to contribute something that is not already here, and this is why it is reasonable to be directed to an article that may not already have the information. It is true that consensus said "delete", but they were wrong. Their comments were correct, but they were wrong in asserting (without rationale) that their comments (WP:notability-based) were reasons (WP:notability-based) for deletion. Their comments reflect the fact that the article is not a suitable stand-alone article, and that is the limit of the scope of the notability guidelines. It remains a possibility that such material may have a place in the main articles, and the main article talk page is the venue for such discussions, and an existing redirect will encourage these and later contributors to make their points on that main article talk page. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The closer claimed that the argument for merger/redirection had been refuted but it was not addressed by the delete camp whose contributions included feeble stuff like "Can't tell you how many of these I've been in lately.". When such empty votes are discounted there was no clear consensus. Colonel Warden ( talk) 08:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Closer's comments I have to disagree about the lack of consensus. None of commenters, including the 2 who opined merge/redirect, advocated keeping the article as a stand alone, so I don't see how a straight overturn is supported. Of the 2 commenters that were not "delete", only one actually gave a rationale. I thought it was a reasonable rationale, which if supported by consensus could have carried the day. However, Novaseminary's response was reasonable as well, and his position better represented opinions of the other editors who commented in the discussion. Thus, while I had no personal issue with a redirect, I could not say that consensus was reached in this discussion to place one. Having said that, I note that the decision to redirect to that title remains available to any editor so inclined once this discussion is closed. I also userfied the article at the nominator's request at the close of the AfD. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  It was even unanimous that the article should not be kept as a stand-alone article. I think it better to leave a redirect with the history intact than to leave the history in someones userspace, because any hope for including the material anywhere should be directed at the talk page of the target. There is no reasonable prospect of any single editor being able to improve the material to make it stand-alone worthy. I think this is also consistent with the debate if acknowledging that "fails notability" by any flavour of notability-test, does not necessarily mean "delete". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

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

This article was deleted under the premise that the software is insubstantial and not noteworthy enough. The argument was made that only 720 servers running on this platform was insignificant, but such information is not conclusive. There remains substantial evidence that has not been presented yet, and cannot be presented if the article is deleted and unable to be recreated. For example, instead of considering the number of servers utilizing the software, a better determination would be how many websites are served from these servers. Since EHCP allows name based virtual hosting, the number of websites being served is potentially unlimited. Also, noteworthy but not considered is the fact that EHCP has been downloaded over 20,000 times. I find this "significant". Furthermore, the argument was made that insufficient documentation and references exist, even though this is not accurate. This is my first time posting on Wikipedia and so I'm sure I have omitted relevant information here. I ask that you please open the deletion of this article to further review and debate, so that evidence in reference to EHCP's "significance" may be presented. Again, I am not completely familiar with procedure here at Wikipedia, so I ask that you please guide me in this process if I am not presenting this correctly. Thank you.}} WiZZiK ( talk) 15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion; allow new draft version in userspace. Looking at the AfD, the arguments for deletion had merit, and the closing administrator properly judged consensus. Accordingly, the closure of the AfD was proper. If WiZZiK wants to start a new article on the subject, I suggest he start drafting it in userspace ( User:WiZZiK/EHCP). If there are now reliable sources that have covered the subject, then the article can be moved back to the main encyclopedia. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• If you have evidence that the subject meets our inclusion standards then this is the place to present it for review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• The number of servers running the software as 720 is irrelevant, the number of websites being served is irrelevant, the 20,000 downloads is irrelevant. The argument actually made in the deletion discussion was that there was no significant coverage, this is relevant, the standard general notability guideline demands non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. Links to those sources can easily be provided for DRV to see. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 19:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There really do have to be some sources. Has nobody reviewed it in any publication at all? DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, lack of sources. And 750 servers is diddly-squat, I have more than that myself. Guy ( Help!) 07:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. If DGG supports deleting a page, that is good enough for me. Stifle ( talk) 08:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  I am pleased you think of me highly, but that's every bit as absurd as if I voted to keep every article where you said keep. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  It is simply that your standards for including content are so far lower than mine (which is not intended pejoratively; we are both entitled to our opinions and yours is one I value highly) that if you have satisfied yourself that an article is not worth including, I do not consider the matter worth investigating further. Stifle ( talk) 10:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  Let me put it differently, then: I am not free from either error or idiosyncrasy, and I rely on other people, especially sensible people with different standards than mine , like yourself, to correct them. And I do not think we are that far apart.-- we would judge 80 or 90% of the time very similarly. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  It's true. I noticed once DGG tending to be more deletionist than the community on matters associated with libraries. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. WiZZiK, our standards for inclusion are pretty high, especially where there is a potential for promotion, which is always the case for software. See WP:N, and try Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The game in question has several review the first two I came across - http://www.outofeight.info/2010/04/distant-worlds-review.html - http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2010/01/distant-worlds-a-new-real-time-4x-space-strategy-game/ - Both of these existed at the time of the deletion request looking at the dates. On top of this IGN has a page for data-collation on the game (noteable enough yet?) - http://uk.pc.ign.com/objects/057/057464.html p.s. This "deletion review" process is very user-unfriendly so don't be surprised if I've done it all wrong. Moriarty ( talk) 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse although relisting would have been another option, the only keep opinion was the nonsensical statement that "this only the game of this genre (space 4x-strategy) that has been pibliushed this year". No way this possibly could have been closed as keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, and please see WP:RS for guidance on what sources are and are not (hint: blogs fall in the "are not" camp for virtually all purposes). Guy ( Help!) 07:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• 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? Stifle ( talk) 08:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle ( talk) 18:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. My vote was based on the fact that the game had no independent coverage at the time of the discussion. Now, I see two independent reviews, by AG.ru and Eurogamer.dk: [5]( translation), [6]( translation). — Rankiri ( talk) 14:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Relist per the sources found by Rankiri, who supported deletion in the AfD. Because sources, which likely establish notability, have been found, a new AfD should be held to assess whether they are enough to establish notability. Cunard ( talk) 05:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Relist or Recreate since you have coverage found now. Dream Focus 01:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The discussion did not provide a significant consensus for deletion. Finding a good source for this topic seems easy, e.g. Gamasutra. Colonel Warden ( talk) 13:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The deletion of this article was done claiming that it should be merged with Ukrainian Internet Association, although 1) The articles are only vaguely related(Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network was created by Ukrainian Internet Association, but after 10 years of existence it is mostly an independent body. and 2) The information from Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network article wasn't actually added into Ukrainian Internet Association article, it was simply deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkononenko ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 29 April 2010

• Endorse deletion There was a perfectly clear consensus to delete. the only dissent was from Rkononenko (the opener of this review), who said "I don't see any reason for it's deletion", but did not provide any reason for keeping, except an appeal that "other stuff exists". There was a suggestion in the AfD that any material worth keeping could be merged, but no support was given to the suggestion. Finally, if Rkononenko does think that there is any material worth merging then he/she is perfectly free to merge it, instead of recreating the deleted article (which he/she seems to have done) or seeking undeletion. The full and complete text of the recreated article was Ukrainian traffic exchange network - was established in 2000 by Ukrainian Internet Association and since then has become the biggest Internet Exchange Network in Ukraine. With more than 101 participating ISPs, peak bandwidth exceeding 140 Gbps/s and average daily traffic speed of more than 80 Gbit/s UA-IX is 9th biggest Internet exchange network in terms of peak bandwidth per second in the world. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Comparing the text of the most recent creation of Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network against the version of Ukrainian Internet Exchange at the time of its AfD, they are sufficiently comparable that the speedy deletion for recreation of an article deleted by XfD is valid. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No valid policy-based reason given to support any other result. Stifle ( talk) 10:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per the lack of policy-based reasons to retain the article, which failed Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard ( talk) 05:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

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

I have a new accurate version of this article and I would like to publish it, but it is protected and can be only done by administators.

Can any administrator verify my article and guide me if something is not right? I would like to help and be helped to increase the wikipedia. Marj9543( talk) 13:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the article wasn't deleted for being "inaccurate", it was deleted for lack of notability. Unless you can prove that things have changed substantially in the less than a month period since then, rewriting it isn't going to help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Wrong venue for request. Create the new text in userspace (e.g., User:Marj9543/Sironta) and then ask the deleting administrator ( RHaworth ( talk)) if it is sufficiently improved that it can go back. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, thanks! Marj9543( talk) 9:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • C.Fred, surely this is the correct venue for the request?
• Endorse my deletion. Nothing has changed since the AfD closed only three weeks ago. The new draft contains no extra evidence of notability - the three PDFs referenced do not mention the product at all. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 16:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I have added PDFs mentioning Sironta as an European Comission Project, to add notability.— Marj9543 ( talk) 10:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Another references added: University of Surrey book talking about Sironta. Tamperee University link added, DEN4DEK project links added, OPAALS projects PDFs added, all of them referencing Sironta. More external links added. In my opinion, this article ( User:Marj9543/Sironta) has the needed notability and references to be republished. Waiting to some admin to endorse it. -- Marj9543 ( talk) 10:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

New Life Children’s Refuge case ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The page was speedy deleted by John Vandenberg ( talk · contribs) as G5 (i.e. "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others."). I'm not sure who the banned user in question is but I do know that I (and others) invested time in fixing the article, improving references and making sure it didn't get too speculative and confusing. I think my edits (for one) qualify as substantial. In any case, the project isn't served by the deletion of this page. Pichpich ( talk) 01:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• For those looking at the deleted history, Mytwosense ( talk · contribs), 75.37.28.165 ( talk · contribs), 38.127.225.193 ( talk · contribs) and 174.34.167.90 ( talk · contribs) are the same banned user. More context at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_57#Strange_edit_summaries_by_Golumbo.
  This DRV differs slightly from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 29 in that a few editors did contribute to the page afterwards, however IMO this version and the final revision are essentially the same. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

However, you're comparing the wrong versions. My first edits have time stamp 20100316213729. Pichpich ( talk) 02:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I can see your first edit; you definitely improved the article before my first diff, however the vast majority is written by the banned user. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Undelete. If a user in good standing can vouch for the material, it should be allowed notwithstanding actions by a banned editor. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• John Vandenberg, do I understand correctly that you deleted the material in question because you were enforcing an Arbcom decision that was taken in private session? And do I understand correctly that Arbcom have made that decision, within Arbcom's normal remit, on the basis of information that is not available to the public? If my understanding is right, then my position is that DRV has no jurisdiction to overturn Arbcom in this matter. I think that Arbcom is the "highest court in the land" for conduct disputes. To the extent that there's a "highest court in the land" for content disputes, it's DRV, but Arbcom is the higher authority. My position is that DRV could decide to permit recreation of the deleted material by a user in good standing, and that might be the best course here, but I think the user in good standing should use their own words, not the words from the deleted content.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  In other words: the user in good standing who already spent his volunteer time working on the article shall now spend his volunteer time rewriting an article that already exists but shall do so carefully because, hey, CC-BY-SA and everything. How about ArbCom rewrites the article? Pichpich ( talk) 12:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  That's too bitter in tone. Still, if ArbCom or John (or any other admin) is really set on deleting the article because it was started by Satan or some moral equivalent, it seems to me that they should be responsible for rewriting a basic article to take its place. It's a boring hour of work but that should be part of mitigating the effect of a banned user. Pichpich ( talk) 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  Chill. If it comes to that, I'll personally write the stub.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  My deletion of this specific article is not at the direction of Arbcom. However, the underlying decision to enforce the banning policy strictly with regards to this specific banned person has been upheld by successive Arbcoms over the years, and its enforcement has only been patchy at times where it has gone undetected or resources stretched.
  As you will know, I am usually at DRV trying to undelete articles, so I don't enjoy deleting them. My deletion doesn't prohibit someone else recreating the article, and I am happy to rewrite the article from scratch.
  I deleted this article because I consider it to be primarily written by one banned person, however I can understand Qrsdogg ( talk · contribs) or Pichpich ( talk · contribs) believing that their edits to this article would count as "substantial". Given the specifics of this case, I don't think their edits to this article are substantial enough to warrant this article being retained, but that is something the community will need to review. Arbcom or myself can give more details privately. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 08:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  There are a lot of tangential words below. John, please rewrite the article from scratch, and then I think we'll be done here. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Conditional procedral overturn. While I am willing to trust arbcom and the admin involved in the decision as the situation currently stands no accountability is there what so ever. From the evidence above this was clearly not a normal G5 and something more substantial should have been put in the deletion logs. I am also amazed that there appears to be no arbcom motion that describes the very basics so that there can be some accountabaility, even if it's as simple as something like "There is a complex case which we feel unable to make any details publicly avaliable. Deletions and reversions may be done by (insert editors here - presumbly arbcom, ex-arbcom and others in trusted posiitons and privy to the case) because of this and should not be reversed. Such deletions and reversions should reference this motion". To me the issue here is not trusting arbcom to do the job we elected them for but rather accountabality - at the very least editors should be able to know that it's because it of something that can't be made public that actions have been taken. At the moment it looks far too much like a rogue admin. Therefore I'm currently saying procedural overturn as I think it's important that the whole of wikipedia not only acts correctly but is seen to act correctly and that is not currently the case. If a 'paper' trail, even a very minimal one, is put in place then I'd change my vote to endorse. (At the moment I can think if no reason why the minimal trail I discuss above is likely to cause problems. If it is then I'd apprecaite a private message explaining, in very broad term, why). I realise that I've strayed out of the remit of DRV a but here but it explains my reasoning and I'm not quite sure where else to put it. Dpmuk ( talk) 12:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  Having thought about this a bit more I think my biggest concern is this: Wikipedia works on consensus. Actions are either taken after consensus or or open to review (e.g. reversion / talk page discussion in the case of edits, DRV in the case of deletions, the unblock template in the case of blocks). This helps ensure that a rogue editor / admin / bureaucrat can't do too much damage without it coming to people's attention. In this case an admin has deleted a page and there is now discussion over whether this is a DRV issue due to the ArbCom involvement. If it's not a DRV issue where's this review going to take place? There's no arbcom information about allowing such deletions in the first place, let alone details of how to query one (which would presumably be answered by another arbitrator or similar checking the firsts actions). Until such procedures are in place I think DRV has to handle this as there is no other venue (although a speedy close by an arbitrator with an appropiate comment may be the way to go). Dpmuk ( talk) 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  This DRV is a paper trail. ;-) I think that is the crux of your second comment. CSD G5 is part of the banning policy (see Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting). It is more typically seen with recently created pages when the sock is identified easily and early, and it is daft to apply it articles that have been well developed by the community. In between those extremes, .. is lots of room for discussion [11], admin discretion, and community review. As a result, I doubt that Arbcom would step in here. It isn't the end of the world if the deletion is overturned; if that happens, we'll just need to rewrite it from scratch. btw, I have added a few cases of overturned G5 to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Overturned_speedy_deletions#G5_-_Created_by_banned_user. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 08:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  My comments above (certainly the second comment and the 'paper trail' comment) were mainly aimed at explaining why I thought DRV had to have jurisdiction in reply to S Marshall's comments, something with which you seem to agree. If this is to be treated as a normal G5 then those comments are largely moot. However some of my concerns, are I believe, still valid. My understanding of the philosophy behind speedy deletion is that they should only be applied when an article would certainly be deleted at AfD. Obviously an administrator has to make a call as to whether an article meets the criteria but in cases such as this where established editors question an admins judgement on one of the subjective parts of the criteria (in this case "substantial edits") it is my opinion that the article should pretty much automatically be restored. Above you write "Given the specifics of this case, I don't think their edits to this article are substantial enough to warrant this article being retained, but that is something the community will need to review." However this is something we can't do as we don't know the specifics of the case - therefore either the specifics needs to be made publicly available (which seems unliekly) or we need comments from people that do know the specifics (hence my arbitrators comments above even, I wasn't expecting ArbCom action as such but rather comments from arbitrators as some of the few knowledgeable people). Sorry for the length my comments - I really need to get better at writing succinctly. Dpmuk ( talk) 09:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  This specifics arn't related to the content of this article; they are related to this banned user who created. As a result, I don't object to an admin undeleting the article in order for non-admins to better participate in this DRV.
  I wouldn't be deleting articles if the creator was merely banned for "wiki-sins". OTOH, there is no dispute among anyone who is familiar with this banned person that their continued involvement in the project is not wanted. i.e. in this case, I did lean more towards deleting due to which banned user created the article, and would consider an AfD to be a guaranteed delete decision if I was at liberty to provide a detailed justification publicly. This person has been in WP:RBI territory for a long time. I can show you thousands of reverts, performed by many functionaries and arbitrators spanning half a decade (gosh that sounds weird), and anyone reviewing the edits would consider most of the edits to be "good". I cant quickly grab links for the thousands, but here are 500 of mine from the Christmas/New Year period [12] and 130+ over the last few days [13]. In addition, I have done quite a few G5's related to this banned user. [14] You can see a few comments from a current arbitrator, two ex-arbitrators (excluding me) & one functionary at the last discussion.
  However the deleted article did contain contributions from other Wikipedians that went beyond mere new-page-patrol & gnoming, so I can understand this deletion decision being dragged to DRV. -- John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• What I take from John Vandenberg's response is that he is enforcing Arbcom-approved sanctions against a specific person. It follows that DRV has no jurisdiction in this matter and this DRV should be closed without result. However, I do see where Pichpich is coming from and have some sympathy with him. In the interests of FairProcess, I offer to rewrite this article or to collaborate with others in the rewriting of this article, such that Pichpich will not feel that he needs to repeat work he has already done.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  Sensible indeed. How about this. You rewrite a basic short article but keep all the references so that I can eventually rebuild a more thorough account without too much of a headache. Writing all the <ref> gazillion parameters </ref> is an absolute time waster but copy/pasting them from the deleted article shouldn't pose a problem from a copyright standpoint. Pichpich ( talk) 11:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  I've pulled all the refs out and dropped them into User:John Vandenberg/HORM. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• I'd also just like to disagree with Dpmuk about whether it's appropriate for DRV to review Arbcom decisions. I'm quite confident that it is not. DRV is about content and process, not about the conduct matters that occupy Arbcom so much of the time. Maybe there is a need to have a body that reviews Arbcom decisions—I'm agnostic about that—but if so, that body should be one with a mandate to address conduct matters.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• I think you've miss understand my concerns. I'm not saying that DRV (or indeed anywhere) should review ArbCom decisions but there should be somewhere that reviews whether editors / admins etc have followed their decisions correctly when subjective decisions have to be made. Blocks etc made as a reuslt of ArbCom decisions are logged on the relevant page and the editor has a defined 'appeal' process. In the case of a subjectove deletion because of an arbcom decision I know of no way for that to be appealed, and especially in this case where there is not even an arbcom page on the issue, it seems to me that DRV is the only possible place to go. (If Arbcom says that page y should be deleted then I don't think there should be an appeal route. If arbcom were to say for example that "all pages meeting criteria x should be deleted" the I do think there should be some sort of place for a discussion as to whether the pages actually meet criteria x, which is different from challenging abrcom's actual decision). Dpmuk ( talk) 12:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Well, there's some discussion about the relationship between the various places to appeal (particularly DRV, AN, and Arbcom) here. It seems well established that in a matter of content, DRV is the "highest court" and an appeal against DRV would be heard here, except in rare cases where AN would be more appropriate. It also seems to be well established that in matters of conduct, Arbcom is the highest court.

  I think that DRV views itself as a low-drama zone, and a place with no jurisdiction over conduct matters. I also think we don't want jurisdiction over conduct. I think that if DRV is ever seen to overrule admins on enforcement of bans, or on matters of conduct, we'll immediately start to attract interest from people whose cases we aren't equipped, or properly constituted, to examine.

  I suppose I'm saying that where an admin is enforcing a conduct-related sanction, DRV really can't undermine them.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• In principal I probably agree with you. The problem appears to me to be that deleting the contributions of a banned user falls into both the conduct and content arenas (the former due to conduct of a banned user, the latter due to deleting content) and at the moment it seems such deletions might fall through the cracks as it's not clear where they should be appealed to. In the lack of any clear place to appeal at ArbCom there appears to, currently, be no other choice but here, no matter how far from ideal that is. I'm tempted to start an RfC or two on these issues as this isn't really the proper forum but given the comments above and else where I'm wary that would be straying very far from WP:RBI and so may cause problems so at the moment I'm continuing to comment here. Dpmuk ( talk) 23:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• If this is who I think it is, WP:FORGET is the way to go. Guy ( Help!) 07:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Joel Weiner ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Joel Weiner's page was deleted on the grounds of lack of notability and I wish to appeal. I contacted the admin who deleted and they said I should appeal here.

I've collected some links of independent sources on Joel Weiner.

• http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/30556/joel-weiner-my-role-leaders-debate
• http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/30538/griffins-question-time-inquisitor-takes-party-leaders
• http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/21276/griffin-branded-bigot-rabbis-son
• http://www.thejc.com/news/topics/election-2010
• http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6888256.ece
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/6422290/Boy-17-How-I-challenged-BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin-over-the-holocaust.html
• http://www.gradplus.com/graduate-news/joel-weiner-questions-labour-candidate-on-graduate-jobs-19739616.aspx
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/apr/17/this-week-john-crace
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222586/The-BNP-backlash--MPs-accuse-BBC-playing-Nick-Griffins-hands-stage-managing-Question-Time-onslaught.html
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7597886/General-Election-2010-I-wouldnt-vote-Labour-says-leaders-debate-schoolboy-Joel-Weiner.html
• http://www.jewdas.org/2010/04/forget-joe-the-plumber-enter-joel-the-jew/
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1266377/Return-schoolboy-inquisitor-Jewish-youngster-confronted-Nick-Griffin-Question-Time-demands-answers-leaders.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0lHh3UqAj
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/16/television-debate-brown-cameron-clegg

There have also been many printed newspapers featuring articles on him; here is one I found that you can view online (page 2).

• http://www.totallyjewish.com/the_jewish_news/view/c-13883/jewish-news-jn-634-220410/?no_login=1

The above list included six national newspapers.

Rejection of WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E: At the time of the deletion, there were two events, one in October last year and one in April this month. Since the deletion, he has appeared in relation to other events such as http://www.thejc.com/community/community-life/30824/tv-star-joel-weiner-joins-big-bnei-akiva-event and most notably was asked by The Jewish Chronicle to put a question to each of his local MPs which was in print, but I have found to be online at http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/30843/leaders-debate-jewish-boy-puts-more-questions-leaders

WP:BASIC is met by multiple independent sources, as noted above. WP:ENT clause 2 incidentally is also met; he has a fan base on facebook exceeding 15,000 people: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Jewish-Kid-From-The-First-Election-Debate/110963155604635

For these reasons, I believe there should be an article. Thank you. 930913/ A930913( Congratulate/ Complaints) 23:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Endorse, transient notability and trivial coverage only. Stifle ( talk) 08:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, the coverage is more of the event itself rather than on the child. WP:BLP1E is pretty clear that "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" then they do not meet the criteria of being article-worthy. Any lasting coverage of this kid is still going to be tied to this single (asking the same thing a year ago doesn't quite cut it btw, the mention of that is happening only because of the current one). The other aspect of 1E that can justify an article is the "significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" bit. This was one political debate, and hardly one of lasting historical significance. There is no administrator fault that needs to be corrected here (that is what DRV is for, it isn't AfD Chapter Two). Tarc ( talk) 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Black Kite correctly determined the consensus, but, it was a very stupid consensus. Joel Wiener is now a redlink that encourages inexperienced users to write a new article, and we do need to fix that. No blame attaches to Black Kite, but I think we must overturn the consensus itself to a redirect to Question Time British National Party controversy.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  That's what create-protection is for. The subject is non-notable. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Tellers' wands─╢ 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Salting's for pages subject to repeated recreation against consensus. You know as well as I do that it's not an appropriate pre-emptive measure. Redirection's to take people from a search term to the place where they can find information, and has the helpful side-effect of stopping people from creating multiple articles on very similar subjects. It can be used pre-emptively.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• "You know as well as I do that it's not an appropriate pre-emptive measure." I genuinely fail to see any distinction between the use of salting as a pre-emptive measure and the use of redirection as a pre-emptive measure, except that the latter suggests that the subject is slightly notable. (I also have no problem with simply having an unprotected red link, at least until we get enough trouble to "justify" create-protection.) ╟─ Treasury Tag► First Secretary of State─╢ 19:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Really? I don't think a redirect implies notability at all. It all seems quite uncontroversial to me. But I might be out on a limb here, let's see what others think.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion fully—obviously his question got reported on, but as we've said all along, he was never really a notable subject in his own right. This is not a good use of the Deletion Review process, and I would note that A930... is a single-purpose account who most likely has a conflict of interest. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, no need for a redirect. In about six days nobody will even remember the guy existed. Guy ( Help!) 07:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure Compelling reasoning to delete under WP:BLP1E was offered in the debate, and a near-unanimous consensus to delete developed as a result. Black Kite's early closure was valid in my view. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

If 1 kilowarhol doesn't make someone notable, what does? -- 930913/ A930913( Congratulate/ Complaints) 06:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — A930913 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Adherence to our notability policy. ╟─ Treasury Tag► quaestor─╢ 08:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

TeraByte Unlimited ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

TeraByte Unlimited has high notoriety and meets notability requirements. The article is informative and fact based. Even though this company doesn't do much advertising, its products and the company itself has been covered by most major computer publications over the past decade as well as respected online resources by MVP's and others. The company and their products have also been recommended by Dell tech support staff (call up the IT/business division support and ask about resizing the server drives), Microsoft (microsoft link from technet for MSSCT http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=46756), and others. Their products are used by different divisions and test labs (including ibm prefab labs) of the largest computer related manufacturers from Japan to the USA. The company and their products have been mentioned in book publications, some of which can be found via http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22TeraByte+Unlimited%22. The BING trademark issues was nothing but a blip for this company (they barley mention anything about it) and has been resolved ( http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=331907&sc=101). It seems the main person responsible for deletion request either has a motive or only consider company's that issue a large number of advertising press releases as being notable. Dfatwp ( talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Those appear to passing references. I don't see anything in-depth that would support an article about the company, per WP:CORP. Pcap ping 17:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• The company entry supports the products all of which have a high notoriety and the techonolgy overall they created. The question is who is this company that is so highly recommended by so many of the top PC industry leaders and that is the answer.
  • A better question posed by the WP:GNG is, if this company is so important to the world at large, where is that evidenced by the world wanting to write about them in a non-trivial way in mulitple independant reliable sources? -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 19:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • see note added below.
• 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? Stifle ( talk) 20:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • No, I don't really understand how this all works. But in general a company is attached to the products it creates. For most it's the products and not the company that matter and having short concise information on the company of notable products makes logical since and keeps things more organized. There aren't many product related companies that stand on their own without products including publicly traded companies in NDX/OEX/etc..
    • Notability isn't inherited. Having short concise info on the company might make sense if you were trying to create a directory of software and producers, however this is an encyclopedia project. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 18:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure Redirecting was a valid interpetation of the discussion on the closing admin's part. While my commentary in the below DRV entry for BootIt Next Generation applies here as well, in this case I would caution Dfatwp that he has not really demonstrated stand-alone notability under the general notability guideline for TeraByte Unlimited. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

BootIt Next Generation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This product has high notoriety and meets notability requirements. The article is very informative, interesting, and fact based. Even though this company doesn't do much advertising, its products and the company itself has been covered by most major computer publications over the past decade as well as respected online resources by MVP's and others. Here are some references:

• The art of the multiple-boot - CPU Magazine Review Article

- * Partition & Boot Managers - CPU Magazine Review Article - * BootIt NG Recommendation On LangaList - * Jason's ToolBox Review of BootIt NG - * Converting FAT32 to NTFS at Aumha.org The BING trademark issues was nothing but a blip for this company (they barley mention anything about it) and has been resolved ( http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=331907&sc=101). It seems the main person responsible for deletion request either has a motive or only consider company's that issue a large number of advertising press releases as being notable. Dfatwp ( talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• With the exception of Computer Power User, I'm not sure what makes the other sources reliable. I cannot access the CPU article (registration/paywall), so I can't say anything about its coverage of BootIt NG. Pcap ping 17:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn CPU chose BING as their editors choice against several other products listed on Wiki - if you really wanted to find the article google search CPU Magazine bootit and you can find cached links that show it such as http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eu_0g7u28qcJ:www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp%3Farticle%3Darticles%252Farchive%252Fc0607%252F40c07%252F40c07.asp+cpu+magazine+bootit&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us. You don't know who Fred Langa is (suggest a google search) or WindowsSecrets newsletter? Or the guys at aumha.org (for fixing windows problems)? You could also throw in Steve Gibson who continues to recommend BootIt Next Generation and can find transcripts of the Securty Now! pod casts with leo laporte (just google it). These are all some of the most respected publicly available people in the PC industry for obtaining reliable information. You'll also find old BING articles in archive versions PCWorld/PCMag/etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfatwp ( talk • contribs)
    • What's the next step for all these to overturn?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfatwp ( talk • contribs)
    • We already know that you want this deletion overturned because you have listed it for review. Please don't add additional bolded "overturn"s, as it gives a misleading impression of the debate. Stifle ( talk) 09:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Can people please sign their posts? Stifle ( talk) 09:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure Redirecting was a valid interpetation of the discussion on the closing admin's part. However, any editor is capable of undoing the redirection and adding better sourcing to the article. If other editors object to such actions being taken, discussion can occur on the talk page. That's probably the best course for Dfatwp to take in this case. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirection of BING has nothing to do with the notable product BootIt Next Generation. I've already listed several articles and references to computer media resources of substance where the product is recommended over all other products in the same categories from industry experts and leaders (including editors choice at CPU magazine). In addition, the BING article gave a history that shows where technology originated and how it came about. If you can get a court order to get access to Intel and Microsoft emails and communications you can then have your reference of the EFI and GPT concepts coming from the EMBR spec and Intel's going to and working with MS on the GPT with EMBR reference in hand. But review of the EMBR spec will clearly show by applying common sense that the concepts are the same. System level drivers, larger partition table, etc.. Dfatwp ( talk) 02:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, notability is not inherited. Stifle ( talk) 09:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Image for Windows ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This product has notoriety and meets notability requirements. The article is informative and fact based. Even though this company doesn't do much advertising, its products and the company itself has been covered by most major computer publications over the past decade as well as respected online resources by MVP's and others. The product won bronze in the 2008 community choice awards for Windows IT Pro magazine and one of the top three recommended disk imaging packages. (This link no longer works but that's where it should be http://windowsitpro.com/awards/CommunityChoiceWinners2008.html). Here are some additional references:

• PCNet Review of Image for Windows
• ComputerEdge Online Image for Windows Review

Since its release in 2002, the product has always had the ability to image windows systems reliable while in use even before other companies like powerquest or symantec had the technology (or even where MS then copied the technology). It's always important to know who actually creates the technologies. In addtion, that technology was licensed by certain parties to provide the technology in its core products. One of which is LANDesk * LANDesk Support Tools List at Creighton University. In addition, searching google for "Image for Windows" yields a couple hundred thousand references (probably not all there b where 99.99% are related to TeraByte Unlimited and not scion which product name appears to be image and always includes scion and even on the scion website you can't find reference to it as being a product, see http://www.scioncorp.com/pages/product_prices.htm and is no way scion more notable than TeraByte Unlimited. It seems the main person responsible for deletion request either has a motive or only consider company's that issue a large number of advertising press releases as being notable. It should also be noted that the top ten reviews site that is mentioned is nothing more than an affiliate marketing site, typically providing incorrect information on the imaging products, and higher price and percentage of payment makes a difference so using that for any type of references would be bad (half the products there no one even considers to be a player). Dfatwp ( talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn for this one. This was part of a rather confusing group nomination. Practically nobody explicitly supported the deletion of this one in the AfD. This particular product appeared marginally notable to me shortly after my nomination; I added a couple of refs and stuck it from the nom. Here's another review in a comparison article at [15] Computerworld. The dab page should be kept though, and the history moved to a Image for Windows (disk imaging), or similar, to distinguish it from Scion's product with the same name, which has considerably more google books ( [16] vs [17]) and scholar hits [18]. Pcap ping 16:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I'm not sure of the other two, but this one seems to have sufficient sourcing. I think it is inherently confusing to do a goup nomination unless it is immediately obvious that the different articles have the same degree of notability , sourcing, and other relevant characteristics. Otherwise we run too great a risk of keeping some junk, or deleting something that isn't. The AfD guidelines need some revisions to give proper cautions about this. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• 'Overturn as there was little explicit support for deleting this content, and the subject appears to be notable under our guidelines. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Egersund IK ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article was deleted per CSD#A7. I have asked the deleting administrator to reconsider, a request that was declined. The article created by a new editor and included a long history section that clearly showed that the club have been active for more than 90 years in Norway, and have made a not insignificant impact. The article needed work with references and wikification, but it was a great start and it certainly did not meet WP:CSD#A7. For the non-admins here, the article is cached at Google. Rettetast ( talk) 08:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Not speedy material to me. Although it's in the 4th division nowadays, the article indicates that the club was in the 2nd division in the 1940s and 50s. Too many itchy admins lately... Time to instate a speedy desysop procedure for stuff like this. That'll show'em! Pcap ping 09:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Copyvio? if the cached version is the same one it appears to be a more or less straight cut and paste from here -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 10:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and then delete again as a copyvio; 82.7.40.7's hunch is correct. Stifle ( talk) 11:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • LOL. The closing admin would not restore it because it lacked any sources. Why bother with all this? Just speedy close this. Pcap ping 11:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I agree with the above comment, by admin Stifle ( talk · contribs). -- Cirt ( talk) 14:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, delete as copyvio, and permission to create a proper article My experience is that a not insignificant percentage of articles , including blp, proposed for deletion as lacking any sources, do in fact have an obvious copyvio source. Time to require WP:BEFORE, both to get keepable articles kept, and more easily dispose of the others. As a general matter, an admin asked to restore as not meeting A7, who agrees it has a claim to importance, but refuses to restore because of not lacking sources, is essentially doing a speedy on the basis of not having sources --which is not a speedy criterion. I usually respond to such requests like: Yes I will restore it if you insist , but it would be better to improve it first and then just resubmit it, or it will not stand at a regular deletion process. People generally take that advice. . DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion because another speedy deletion criterion - G12 - applies. It therefore doesn't really matter that A7 doesn't. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, delete as copyvio; article included credible enough assertions of significance; may be process wonkery, but leaves clear enough signals for anyone interested in writing a legit article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 01:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Astrotite ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

A7 for a software article. This was raised during the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFA (file format). I've notified the admin who deleted this, but he isn't around. Pcap ping 05:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Yes, it was closer to a G11 really. Any sources, perchance? Guy ( Help!) 10:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Don't ask me. Since I take it had no sources, I've included it in that AfD, just in case. Some editors there think it's necessary to see the article to decide, but I don't. A temporary restoration might appease them. Pcap ping 10:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

A temporary restoration would be necessary if you want to go that route.--we cannot afd an invisible article. Without seeing it, how will people be able to look for sources?. 16:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs)

By searching for its name, which apparently was invented for this software, so not used for anything else? Anyway, since you're an admin, you could do a temp restore instead of asking this rhetorical question. Feel free to restart the 7 day clock on the AfD once you do so, just so shameless self-promoters get the benefit of the doubt in triplicate on Wikipedia. Pcap ping 23:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• As I remember, I was the (non-admin) user that added the speedy tag on this. It strongly appeared to be WP:Autobiography and, if I recall, its only sources were ones that lead back to Matabyte the owner/software author/whatever he is, and his company Fantiusen. As mentioned above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFA (file format) has more about this. -- Closeapple ( talk) 18:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Temporarily undeleted for DRV per request here and on my talk. Tim Song ( talk) 04:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Since I've added the article on the software to its file format AfD, this request can be speedily closed now. The (rather predictable) fate of both articles will be determined in the usual manner. Thanks Pcap ping 05:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Brett Clouser ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

• There has been some recent debate on the AfD for other Survivor contestants; these can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin "Coach" Wade and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol. Clearly, Brett Clouser was written in a much better way than Tyson Apostol (grammar, organization, etc.), and Clouser was also probably more notable than Apostol. Please review the deletion and restore the well-written article. — Untitledmind⁷² ( let's talk + contribs) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- Looking at the arguments at the AfD, I see a lot of detailed and policy-based arguments on the delete side and little more than " I like it" and "I just know he's notable" on the keep side. For the closing admin to not to find a consensus to delete would have been the worst kind of snout-counting. Correct close. Reyk _YO! 08:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Most of the keep arguments revolved around personal opinion of how pivotal he was to show. Not compelling towards showing he met WP:ENT. Pcap ping 08:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per above. And the AFD was nearly three months ago. Stifle ( talk) 14:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I just feel that the AfD for Brett Clouser got less attention—and, thankfully, more policy-following Wikipedians—and therefore the two AfD discussions are not consistent. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Clouser received all of the attention, while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol will unfairly pass the deletion process. — Untitledmind⁷² ( let's talk + contribs) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • So effectively you are trying to "appeal" the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol before its finished, by highlighting it here you hope more will join that discussion? -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Worked for me. Pcap ping 07:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedia == fat tail (or law of the jungle if you prefer a more prosaic but less accurate description). Non-policy compliant shit happens all the time. Pcap ping 07:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Padrino Framework ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A ruby programmer (first paid for computer programming in 1966), who has nothing to do with the Padrino framework, hereby, states that Padrino is an important ruby web framework. That ruby programmer, while doing research, decided to see what Wikipedia had to say about it and was quite surprised to see a large ugly deletion notice and commented that that notice looked like vandalism. That ruby programmer also noted that the fellow who was trying in vain to defend his project from deletion was accused of being biased or not objective or some such thing. That ruby programmer is of the opinion that deleting the Padrino framework is senseless and that the editors should learn the difference between newness and lack of notability. 213.213.139.124 ( talk) 19:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion- No reliable sources were in the article, and none were provided in the AFD, and the consensus was accurately read by the closing admin. While this may seem unfair, I urge you to check out our guidelines on notability and reliable sources for what is and what isn't acceptable for an article. Umbralcorax ( talk) 21:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as there was a clear consensus to delete, and please consider the helpful comments of Nuujinn in the AfD and of Umbralcorax above. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Strong Endorse. No valid, policy based reason given for overturning the decision. This is the reason we have our conflict of interest guideline, to encourage dispassionate objective review of material by persons who have no personal stake in it. With language like ""Padrino" is a ruby web framework built upon the excellent Sinatra Microframework. Sinatra is a DSL for creating simple web applications in Ruby with speed and minimal effort. This framework makes it as fun and easy as possible to code increasingly advanced web applications by expanding upon Sinatra while maintaining the spirit that made it great" I don't think a deletion debate was even warranted, this is blatantly promotional and could have been speedy deleted as such Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as above. No sources, no article. Also, "that ruby programmer" should take note that appeal to authority arguments are unlikely to work on Wikipedia, especially when the authority is anonymous and the claim to authority is as weak as claiming to have been paid for programming 44 years ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There's no other way that debate could have been read, and you've not provided any sources to justify having this article in this review. As to the distinction between newness and notability; you're partially right, there is somewhat of a lag there. New things are discovered/created before they're written about in secondary sources, but until those sources exist, the article can not exist either. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 23:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as AfD nominator. The reason why I nominated the article for deletion was due to a lack of notability and reliable sources. While "Padrino Framework" returns some hits, none of them are reliable sources. Feel free to recreate when enough reliable sources have been found and notability is established. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 08:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Snow endorse. The discussion did not have any other possible reasonable closure. Stifle ( talk) 11:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

John Wemmick ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This discussion involved one editor arguing for deletion—myself as nominator—and two arguing to keep: clearly an inadequate to form a solid consensus (it should at the very least have been closed as "no consensus"), and in my opinion, the debate should have been relisted for further discussion, as other 2-1 !vote situations generally are done. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Regent─╢ 18:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• In many cases a low-traffic AFD would indeed be relisted, but it is not required. In this case the article was changed during the course of the debate. Before: [19] After: [20]. These changes included adding multiple sources and removing original research, fixing the exact problems that led to it being nominated for deletion. This is a good thing, an article was improved thanks to your nominating it for deletion, look at it that way. In short, while I acknowledge that it is a bit unusual, the closure seems valid as the end result is a positive one for Wikipedia. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I think it extremely unlikely that we would delete an article on a significant dickens character, after it has been substantially improved and adequately sourced. appropriate closure. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep Close was within reasonable discretion, and frankly, a delete outcome seems pretty unlikely, given that this was a Dickens character and had survived another relatively recent AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Only the nominator argued for deletion, and in particular, no-one disputed the reliability or sufficiency of the sources added as the AfD progressed. Closing as keep was valid, and preferable to clogging up AfD with another relist. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 22:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse with extreme prejudice It's not about voting, it's not about time, it's about making sure the articles we keep are worth keeping. The sources added during the AfD justify a keep close even if no single editor had cast a "keep" !vote in the AfD discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin – I based my close on strength of argument even though admittedly this was a relatively low-participation AfD. ( AfD #1, which closed in March, drew a little more participation with relisting.) The argument in favour of deletion was that the article was based mostly on original research and was completely unsourced, and there was skepticism as to whether it could be sourced. Ginsengbomb went ahead and removed the OR and added multiple citations. No one argued that the sources added were problematic. The consensus might have been clearer if more editors other than Ginsengbomb and DGG had looked at the sources added and said, "yes these help to support notability", but to me it seemed clear enough. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Soundly reasoned close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Close was entirely correct; relisting this would have been a use of more time to reach the same result in a week's span. After improvements, this article wasn't going to go anywhere, and no one other than the nominator ever advanced that it should. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 23:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• 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? Stifle ( talk) 11:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Snow endorse, with applause to Paul Erik for having the courage to make the obvious call instead of timidly relisting.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 07:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Left Right Think Tank ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was deleted for lack of notability. Those in favour of deletion argued there was an inadequate number of reputable third-party sources. However, I believe the following articles - the overwhelming majority of which were not presented as evidence in the original inquiry - necessitate the alternative conclusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oR4gMIkfs8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-g0q7CuWKU

http://www.leftright.org.au/%27Evenings%20with%20Derek%20Guille%27%20Radio%20Interview%20on%20774ABC%20Melbourne,%2023%20March%202009.mp3

http://www.leftright.org.au/heraldsun170309.pdf

http://www.youthcentral.vic.gov.au/ViewPage.action?repositoryName&siteNodeId=1993&CurrentFolderID=1966&ItemID=12325

http://www.leftright.org.au/hansard041208.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/pdf/Hansard_3.2.10.pdf

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20080723/broader-political-debate.html

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20090408/leftright.html

http://www.leftright.org.au/uwanews280708.pdf

http://www.standard.net.au/news/local/news/general/youths-want-change/1804436.aspx

LETTERS OF SUPPORT

http://www.leftright.org.au/costello221008.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/hollingworth171108.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/pyne101208.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/pdf/gillard290909.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/mirabella220109.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/ellis130309.pdf

Though not exhaustive, I think this list is sufficient to establish notability ( talk).

• 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? Stifle ( talk) 08:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. The "sources" all fail one or more of reliable, independent, secondary or non-trivial. Guy ( Help!) 15:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as closer of original AFD. The deleted version of the article had zero references, and a full week was given to correct the problem. Most of the above links do not qualify as reliable sources. Letters of support and the group's own website are obviously not independent sources. "Youth Central" is user generated content with minimal oversight [21]. The article in "The Standard" contains only a trivial, passing mention of this group. The remaining sources may contain enough on which to base a new article, but I believe the decision to delete the previous version was valid. It would be nice if the tv news coverage was hosted somewhere other than YouTube, preferably the station's own website. I'd be happy to provide a copy of the deleted version as a userpage draft to use as a starting point, but unless and until the content of the article is directly verified by the sources it should not be in article space. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• The original article was nominated for deletion for lack of notability, not lack of references. Though they are linked, all of the above sources are independent of the website. ( talk)

References are how notability is established. References are also how content is verified. Letters of support or other content hosted on the group's own website are not independent reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I don't have must to add to Beeblebrox. There was a clear consensus to delete, and none of the new sources presented appear to be reliable other than the one trivial mention in The Standard. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• endorse the sources are simply not sufficient, especially as the brief ABC interview talks about it as a new project that may of may not be successful. I think that alone, wherever hosted, would not be sufficient to establish notability DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I agree with Guy and Beeblebrox. The sources add up to nothing we can use. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Snowball endorse The "sources" presented are all primary or unreliable. YouTube videos are not a RS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Claudia Lynx ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This person is clearly not a notable individual. Her biggest claim to fame is minor role in one episode of the West Wing many years ago, which is about as notable as any of the million struggling model/actors in Los Angeles can claim. Essentially she is a model of no particular prominence. This page was probably created as a self-marketing piece.

Deletion of this page was an AfD suggestion in 2007. A majority of those commenting essentially agreed with the nomination for deletion, but the result was "no consensus." Kmehrabi ( talk) 05:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You don't have to come here if it was closed as no consensus so long ago; all you need to do is renominate it for another AfD. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Nelson Cubs ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

AfD was closed as consensus keep, but all the keep !votes were of the form "team has played at X level so is inherently notable" whereas delete !votes commented that the article has no reliable independent sources. The sports notability guideline is a guideline only, showing the kind of team that is likely to meet the criteria for inclusion. In order to verify the content and ensure its neutrality (policies), reliable independent sources are required. There is also consensus that Wikipedia is not a directory, though this is clearly in dispute. Google finds around 100 unique hits, among which I did not see anything that amounts to a non-trivial independent reliable source, and Google Books finds no relevant hits at all. Notability is not inherent, it requires sources. This lacks sources therefore should have been deleted. Guy ( Help!) 15:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- Consensus was accurately read by Stifle. In reading the AFD, DJSasso came up with a compelling reason for keeping, based on the GNG (and perhaps a dash of IAR. That the article is lacking in references now is not a dealbreaker, as we're not exactly in a hurry. And since this isn't an unsourced BLP, or a (as far as we know) a copyvio, there's no compelling reason to override consensus and delete the article. Umbralcorax ( talk) 20:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• A lot of votes to keep does not override the consensus that Wikipedia is not a directory and articles must have reliable independent sources. This close endorses the view that there is no need to actually source articles, merely to assert that they could be sourced if we cared enough. Except that my searches indicated to me that this one probably can't. Guy ( Help!) 13:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply

That articles absolute must have reliable sources is a rule, true. However, much like almost all of the rules here, if there is consensus to do so, they may be ignored for what the consensus perceives is the greater good of the encyclopedia. That is what happened here. And while your search for sources online may have not yielded results, the crux of the argument for this ignoring of the rules is that sources for something of this nature are unlikely to be online. Umbralcorax ( talk) 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, reluctantly because it isn't an outcome I'm happy with but it was the right outcome based on the debate. WP:GNG can be put to one side in an AfD as it is only a guideline that creates a presumption of notability, but WP:V can't. In this case, at least a couple of participants pointed to the fact that WP:V means verifiable, not verified, and made arguments that the information in this article satisfied the former test. I reckon this article can be given a few weeks to see if the test of verifiability is met. If no sources are added to the article, which I think entirely likely, renominate it and I'll !vote delete. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• I didn't like closing that as keep but any other closure would have ended up here anyway. Stifle ( talk) 21:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• There's certainly an element of administrative discretion in deciding what the consensus was, but administrative discretion only goes so far. In the absence of any evidence of sockpuppetry (and there was no such evidence here) then such a very clear majority of debate participants !voting in a particular way represents a consensus. The question before us, therefore, is: in what circumstances does a local consensus of this kind get to overrule a global consensus such as those Guy cites?

  In my opinion the answer is that a small local consensus shall always fail in the face of, for example, copyvios or attack pages, where there is a clear and compelling need to protect Wikipedia. It may fail in the face of BLP violations (though the allegation that something's a BLP violation is often made falsely). But the local consensus typically prevails in the face of content guidelines. This is the essence of IAR.

  In this case, we have the right close but the wrong outcome. I shall endorse Stifle's close as being the only option available to him, but I also wish to relist the debate in the hope of a new consensus that takes more account of the relevant guidelines.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 08:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Trains (video game) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

During the Afd discussion no secondary sources or non-trivial mentions had been found. Rainbows and trains, a 1984 InfoWorld article, reviews the software and comes to a positive conclusion: "Trains is quality software with good graphics ..." To me, this establishes notability.Cheers -- Make ( talk) 23:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Addendum: As it turns out, this DRV is more formal than I anticipated. It's the first time I started something like this, so please allow me to add some explanation. --
(1) I think the decision by User:Juliancolton in July 2009 was right. During discussion noone was able to produce a source that established notability. One reason might be, that "trains" as a search term is more than common.
(2) Concerning the reliability of InfoWorld#History: This is not a publication for gamers, but a weekly business/trade publication for information technology specialists. Articles about Games are rare. -- Make ( talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn It indeed seems to have gotten a bit. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 04:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion as the correct decision at the time. I'm wavering on how reliable those sources are, as they appear to be game-media, but I would permit recreation at this stage. Stifle ( talk) 08:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - You don't need a DRV to recreate the Trains article, but an overturn may give you a base to build upon. - hahnch e n 13:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Incubate or userfy. If this would be acceptable to the nom then perhaps we can speedy close this. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 16:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Userfy or incubate indeed. When sources are found for a previously unsourced article (I don't suppose such an old game has any surviving wp:primary sources online), this is the best route. Pcap ping 09:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• I think the best course of action would probably be to create a user space (or incubated) version, then move into article space when enough sources have been found. PhilKnight ( talk) 11:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Incubate or userfy they better work on it and find sources before recreating. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 00:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

File:ZwillingeStampSWA1985.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I would like to request a deletion review of this file.

• I have been unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the deleting adminstrator User:Fastily
• I believe the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly
• I believe significant new information has been added to the article which renders the image's ommision detrimental to readers understanding
• I believe that image's presence would assist in the identification of the stamp

I believe that image was being used to identify (not merely 'illustrate') the stamp. The image's presence, in my view, significantly increased readers' understanding of the topic of the section ' Zwillinge (Locomotives)#The Stamp' and its omission is detrimental to that understanding. So it seems to me it passes WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8.

The proposer of the deletion User:Ww2censor is I think operating a far tighter criteria than is stated in our policy. His suggestion was that "stamp's existence and its purpose are already perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image". I think the key things here are whether the image is being used to aid in the identification of the stamp and the use of "necessity". It seems that a criteria stronger than our polices is being used. I have tried to raisie these issues with the deleting admin and but only got a reply from Ww2censor. His reply seemed to me to just ignore rather than adress my questions and just be a restating of his interpretation of policy. User_talk:Fastily/Archive_3#File:ZwillingeStampSWA1985.jpg

That is it looks to me like in Ww2censor's view one cannot use a stamp to allow the identification of a stamp in a section of an article on a stamp unless the article itself is on the stamp or the stamp itself is worthy of an article.

Only one other editor User:Seresin commented and he asserted that it "Fails NFCC.8 as seeing the stamp is unnecessary for comprehension"

But NFCC.8 is on Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

These seem to me significantly different from User:Seresin's "unnecessary for comprehension".

I have tried but been unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator and I think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly if one is judging against our stated policy rather than a vote.

Also I have added, what I think is, significant new information since deletion to try to improve things. In short I think even more so than previously the omission of the image of the stamp is detrimental to reader's understanding of the topic of the section and the ability to identify the stamp. Anyway Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)) reply

PS: Users Fastily and Ww2censor have had little notes put on their talk pages about this being brought here ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)) reply

• Overturn this is a question of whether the "topic" is intended to mean the topic of the article, or the particular topic or point within the article. Requiring the very narrow interpretation here is like requiring that every person or thing mentioned in an article be notable, which would make it almost impossible to write about any but the broadest topics. If we're interested in communicating information, the information within an article is what needs to be communicated properly. Images cannot be described properly in words. If a stamp is being discussed in an article, and is relevant to the overall subject, it should if possible be illustrated. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Equivocal, and I think we need more information. Stamps are copyrighted, and on Wikipedia NFCC8 is taken very seriously and given great weight. I do accept that the image would significantly readers' understanding of the topic, but the law is the law. Some postage stamps do present unique complexities because it could be convincingly argued that Wikipedia has wide latitude to use images in Crown Copyright. (The image fair use criteria need revising to take proper account of Crown Copyright, by the way.) But would a South African stamp from 1985 be covered by Crown Copyright in any case? SA left the Commonwealth in 1961 and did not rejoin until 1995, and even while in the Commonwealth, I'm not sure if there is a concept of Crown Copyright in South African law. In the absence of clear information on this, I think administrators have a duty to be very rigid in respecting copyright and while I recognise Msrasnw's case has some merit, I am not yet convinced that its merits are strong enough to justify overturning Fastily's decision.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment on copyright - This stamp's copyright is a bit complex I think. It is a South West African stamp produced by the illegal South African colonial authority - "In 1971, acting on a request for advisory opinion from the United Nations Security Council, the ICJ ruled that the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia was illegal and that South Africa was under an obligation to withdraw from Namibia immediately. It also ruled that all member states of the United Nations were under an obligation to recognize the invalidity of any act performed by South Africa on behalf of Namibia" like perhaps the issuing of stamps!

I have asked here for help but nothing yet - Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Copyright_status_of_South_West_African_Stamps_.281985.29.3F( Msrasnw ( talk) 19:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)) reply

You might want to try asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as well. Jafeluv ( talk) 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks - I have now asked there. - By the way have been in email contact with both SA post and Namib post but no joy yet.( Msrasnw ( talk) 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)) reply

• Comment I've deduped the references in the article. The section on the stamp is referenced to two places (1) A blog - see WP:RS and (2) Pictures of the postmark - i.e. it's pretty much unreferenced. The text also seems pretty much contrived to attempt to justify inclusion of the image - "The locomotives there depicted are marked 2A and 2B." seems to have little encyclopedic worth, and certainly isn't "critical commentary", "The name of the Otjimukoka station on the notice-board on stamp, written in German - Gothic script, was changed in 1903 to Johann Albrechtshöhe and again changed later on to Albrechts" - is pretty much nothing to do with the stamp or the locomotive. Remove those two sentences and the stuff about the postmark and the section on the stamp comes down to "A painting by Koos van Ellinckhuijzen of a Zwillinge was used on one of a set of four commemorative locomotive South West African postage stamps issued in 1985." -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 19:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Copyrighted stamps should only be used in the article about the stamp, if there is one, and to discuss the stamp itself. Not something on the stamp. Of course, if it is proven to be PD, then it's all fine. Stifle ( talk) 08:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the debate hinged around interpretation of WP:NFCC#8, and I think the views expressed on both sides were reasonable. Overall, I think the close was well within admin discretion. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus (defaulting to keep). The stamp is discussed in the article: Zwillinge (Locomotives)#The Stamp and Post Mark. There's no requirement in NFCC#8 that a separate article need exist, as posited above. There was no consensus in the original discussion either (2:1 for delete). One of the delete arguments as "unnecessary for comprehension", which is again not a criteria in NFCC; the wording is "detrimental to that understanding". WP:NFCI#3 explicitly allows stamps for indentification purposes, even without commentary. But there's a fair bit of (sourced) commentary about the stamp itself in this case, so meets NFCI#4 as well, and possibly NFCI#8 as well, as historical image. Pcap ping 09:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Songs from the Tainted Cherry Tree ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article discussion was deleted (or i just cant find it, please tell me if you do).
The album article was originally deleted for failing WP:HAMMER. According to that logic it should be recreated since the cover art has been reveled as well as the track listing along with the release date, i now believe it meets with WP:NALBUMS.
Link to cover and tracklisting below : " [22]". Please share your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L-l-CLK-l-l ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Songs_From_The_Tainted_Cherry_Tree. I42 ( talk)
• Endorse close. WP:NALBUMS states "unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" and "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release". Merely having a release date, tracklisting and cover art does not demonstrate significant independent coverage. I would be willing to reconsider if sufficient independent coverage is located - all I could find was primary, retailer info (not sufficiently independent), or a single piece in the Daily Telegraph which was an interview with Vickers so still not really independent. Most coverage appears to be interested in the single. There is no hurry; this article can be restored when the album in released next month - and in the meantime it can be developed in readiness at Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Songs_From_The_Tainted_Cherry_Tree. I42 ( talk) 10:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • For the avoidance of doubt - the references cited by Hobit, below, are not the sufficient independent coverage I was hoping for. The articles are all about the artist and her single, and quote Vickers herself, who obviously has a record to promote. The mentions of the album are in passing, or primary, or both - they do not seem to anything like the "significant independent coverage" that is required. Now, an independent review of the album itself from a major source would be different - and as of today such a thing does seem to exist, at the BBC. It's not a favourable review, but it is a review - and I think it tips the edge towards notability. I42 ( talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but allow recreation [23], [24], [25], [26]m [27], [28] etc. would seem to meet WP:N. _{signed late: Hobit ( talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)} reply

• Yup, I agree with the unsigned post above. There was no error in the close at the time, but there are also no grounds to prevent a new article being created with the new sources.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Opps, sorry about not signing... Hobit ( talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Informatica ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Informatica Corporation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Note: The article in question, originally at Informatica has been speedily deleted by User:JzG as G11: [29]. Pcap ping 04:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Walery ( talk) 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

TO: Wikipedia administrators FROM: Debbie O’Brien, VP Corporate Communications, Informatica Corporation

Informatica Wikipedia Page – request for deletion review

The Wikipedia page about Informatica Corporation was recently deleted due to the inclusion of materials deemed to be promotional. We regret that these materials were posted to the Informatica page and request that you review the following, which we would like to propose as the text for a new Wikipedia page about Informatica.

Moving forward, we will remain alert to any changes made to the content and language of the page, and will be active in reaching out to the appropriate administrators to ensure that all standards are met for Informatica information on Wikipedia.

Proposed text:

Informatica Corporation is a provider of data integration and data quality software and services for a wide range of businesses, industries and government organizations, including financial services, health care, public sector, telecommunications and insurance. The company’s products support various enterprise-wide data integration and data quality solutions including data warehousing, data migration, data consolidation, data synchronization, data governance, master data management, cross-enterprise data integration, complex event processing and cloud data integration.

Informatica comprises numerous business units which include: Enterprise Data Integration, Data Quality, Cloud Data Integration, Application Information Lifecycle Management (ILM), Complex Event Processing (CEP), Master Data Management (MDM), Ultra Messaging and B2B.

History: Informatica (NASDAQ: INFA) was founded in 1993 in Silicon Valley by Indian Entrepreneurs Gaurav Dhillon and Dianz Nesamoney . It was based on the idea that data warehouses should not be "handcoded", but instead can be built more efficiently with graphical tools. Software industry veteran Sohaib Abbasi became chief executive of Informatica in July, 2004 at a time when the data integration software company was struggling financially and with its identity. Abbasi took the helm and refocused the company on a narrower set of products, while evangelizing the broader use of data integration across the enterprise. Under his leadership, Informatica’s revenues have grown from $219 million in fiscal 2004 to over $500 million in fiscal 2009.

Acquisitions:

• Influence Software, an analytics applications company in 1999.
• Zimba Software, a mobile business intelligence company in 2000.
• Striva, maker of standards-based mainframe connectivity software in 2003.
• Similarity Systems, maker of data quality products in 2006.
• Itemfield, maker of data mapping and transformation technology in 2007.
• Identity Systems, an identity resolution technology company in 2008.
• Applimation, an application Information Lifecycle Management (ILM) company in 2009.
• Address Doctor, a pioneer and leader in global address validation technology in 2009.
• Agent Logic, maker of Complex Event Processing software in 2009.
• Siperian, maker of Master Data Management software in Jan 2010.
• 29West, Ultra-Low Latency Messaging company in March 2010.

Outbound Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Integration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Data_Management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_event_processing http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/SummaryQuote.asp?symbol=INFA&selected=INFA http://www.informatica.com/news_events/press_releases/Pages/01282010_q4_earnings.aspx

Inbound Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohaib_Abbasi

• 'Comment It looks like the article just mentioned, Sohaib Abbasi, needs considerable attention. It seems to have been here is about its present state for several years, which is pretty disgraceful. A dozen small technical format changes were made, but that was attention paid to the wrong level of problem. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Proposed text doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article to me. (An encyclopaedia article would begin, "Informatica is a medium-sized Californian company founded in 1993" and then immediately go on to say what's actually notable about it, which I'm at a loss to do. And we can't use text supplied by the organisation, it's a clear conflict of interest.) What we need is information published in third party reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject that we can use to construct a proper article, and I'm not sure that such information exists. I also suspect that the reason Informatica wants a Wikipedia article is essentially to generate sales enquiries; a Wikipedia article enhances its image.

  On balance I think that if Informatica is noteworthy, some independent editor will write an article about it.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 21:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Informatica is clearly a notable company, given that it has a market capitalisation of $2.4 billion. Some independent editor probably won't write an article about it though, because it is not an anime character. - hahnch e n 13:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• The article was self-promotion and virtually all non-trivial edits were by single-purpose accounts. The requester also has a conflict of interest. Informatica Corporation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a redirect, Informatica (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently a disambiguation page (as it should be). I suggest we point the company to WP:AFC and stop wasting our time with this. Guy ( Help!) 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • And you have an (unacknowledged) conflict of interest because you've speedily deleted this article as G11. Pcap ping 05:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Can you explain how taking administrative actions regarding the article creates a conflict of interest? -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 08:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Closing admins usually self-identify as such in DRVs. Not in this case. Given the non-obvious way in which this was deleted (to me anyway), I thought I'd mention who did it. Pcap ping 10:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Maybe they do (though it doesn't seem to be mandated, and It certainly isn't 100%) but that's quite different from a conflict of interest. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 11:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
          • I did not link to any guidelines. I've used the expression in the plain English sense. Most people would vote for themselves in an election the partake in, or to reaffirm their prior choices. I won't link to our mainspace article on the topic because it's mostly unsourced. Based on other recent interaction with him, JzG seems to see G11's a lot these day. Perhaps it's just cognitive bias. Pcap ping 11:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - I've taken a look at the article, which is mirrored here. Whereas it does read like a press release, it would be a lot more efficient to just restore and then clean up and cull rather than the rigmarole of starting over; it'd also preserve the contribution history as required by our licensing. This is a clearly notable company, it should have an article. - hahnch e n 01:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Our licensing requires attribution for the material, a new article not using the material in the original doesn't have any requirement to preserve contribution history. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 10:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I know. I'm suggesting it'd be more efficient to take what was previously there, and cut it down. As opposed to starting over. - hahnch e n 10:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • OK, that's now how I read your original wording - "It'd also..." sounds like it's an additional benefit, rather than just being a requirement of your proposed course of action. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 08:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn: delete the dab and restore the original article that was under Informatica before April 7. The only plausible dabbing is from Acta Informatica (an article I created), and that can be done by a hatnote if at all. Someone added two ridiculously obscure Easter European CS journals to the dab, but I've nuked those. Try creating articles for them first—they are far more likely to qualify for a CSD than this corporation ever was. Never mind a russian word added to the dab: what happened to WP:NOTDICT? None of the two dozen incoming links [30] are about any of this "disambiguation" stuff. Informatica is indeed a notable corporation. The deleted article doesn't read like over the top spam to me. The company even meets the much stricter German Wikipedia standards for corporations: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatica. I'm sure less drastic measures that deleting the entire article can be found. Independent sources are easily found. There's a 150 page chapter about their products in this book for instance. More book coverage [31]. The Sohaib Abbasi bio (he's the company's CEO) has more Forbes coverage in the last section, etc. A narrow search for "informatica 9", the latest version of their main product, returns 191 gnews hits. (Article history: The article was originally at Informatica, and was speedily deleted by User:JzG as G11 [32], and a new article dab was written over [33]. Rather ridiculous. The Informatica Corporation was a redirect deleted by a bot [34].) Pcap ping 04:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn-The article was originally deleted under G11 which states:

  Unambiguous advertising or promotion
  Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.

  — G11- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

While the deleted article wasn't of high quality, it should not have been speedied. Informatica has a quarterly revenue of $135m [35]. It is indeed a notable company that should have an article. (A google news search shows that there are a sufficient number of articles on the company). Smallman12q ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletions of obvious COI PR puffery like this. The requester, Walery, has precisely one contribution to Wikipedia and the request is headed "VP Corporate Communications, Informatica Corporation" - so, blatant promotion hits it smack on the head. If anyone provably not connected with the company wants to create a real article some time then let them, but this was not such an article. Does that sound like I hate spammers abusing Wikipedia to promote their own commercial gain? If so, I said it right. Guy ( Help!) 20:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'm unsurprised you're endorsing your own deletion. Wikipedia has a massive hole when it comes to our corporate coverage, especially if they're business2business, and offer nothing visible to the general public. The PR "puffery" that you describe is not unique, take a look at Convergys and Sykes Enterprises, you'd be hard pressed to find a corporate article a paragon of quality. But this hole isn't going to be filled by speedying anything that smacks of an ill defined puffery. Wikipedia should be working with corporations, and encourage them to identify themselves and write articles following Wikipedia guidelines. That User:Walery has identified themselves is a positive. Sure, there are COI issues, but it's not like any political/middle east/climate change article doesn't have them. Maybe we should let third parties write corporate articles for payment following Wikipedia guidelines, but the last time that sensible idea was tried out, we dicked on the user involved, and administrators complained over "subtle biases" that are so subtle that we're not aware of, yet are influenced by anyway. We should have engaged with the corporation, and asked them to use a single role account, but apparently - that's not allowed either. This could have been dealt with a lot easier by stubbing, or by sending it over to WP:COI/N. This should be restored so that we can do that. I mean, Wikipedia's rate of growth is decreasing across the board, and yet we still have redlinks on NASDAQ-100?! Business as usual, has not been good enough. - hahnch e n 23:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Don't worry, we have an article on PRQ. It's all that matters. Pcap ping 00:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I find it absurd that a sysop could honestly believe that a company which has a quarterly revenue of US$134,000,000 could possibly be here on Wikipedia for commercial gain. The company is notable enough to have its own article, and the fact that the VP of Corporate Communications has come here goes to show that they'd like to work with us in writing an article. Whatever happened to collaboration? Smallman12q ( talk) 10:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Did they donate any of that money to Wikimedia? I suspect not, otherwise some magic OTRS/office would have happened by now. Clue bat, Mr. VP if you're reading this!
• Endorse deletion: I believe the correct way to proceed is to create a minimal stub and the company to post ideas on the talk page. What we are particularly looking for is independent third party coverage, which should be easy to achieve for such a notable company. I can offer to work on a new article from the ground up. I think the company should also commit not to edit the article directly, and to post on the article talk page and contact an administrator if there are temporary inaccuracies which are damaging to the company. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 16:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Give that both products of your company, Clesh and FORscene, have been mainly edited by a single purpose account, [36], and they look how they look, I conclude that's a pretty funny offer. Pcap ping 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Yes - you clearly have a good sense of humour. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - The deleted article was puffery, sourced only to Informatica and some Informatica press releases posted on third-party websites. If this is notable, which it may be, a new article can be developed from scratch. -- Orlady ( talk) 17:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Siberian Wikipedia ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

False consensus/sock puppets voting

This article was deleted unduely. Altenmann, a now banned sock puppet master managed to get that article deleted ( Siberian Wikipedia), in the AfD he initiated as Altenmann, he also voted delete as Xuz, Timurite and Dzied Bulbash. In essence, his 3 (!) sock puppet votes should be discarded and the article undeleted as the deletion resulted from false consensus , created by this user. Needless to say, his main account, Altenmann, closed the debate as delete. In case of Derzhava, he made a similar trick, proposing deletion as User:Timurite and then deleting it as Altenmann.-- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• AFD is a discussion and the consensus is measured against policy not headcount. The closing admin found the argument that the information was unverifiable and lacked sufficient reliable sources to be the most policy based argument and that this supported delete. The socking is obviously bad, but the deletion argument was supported by other non-socking editors and the issues with the sources were not sufficiently rebutted to win the day. I personally see no point in recreating this, re-listing it and then deleting it since the lack of sources is absolutely fatal to the article. I suggest we incubate this and you should work on the sources to see if you can overcome that hurdle before considering a restoration or relisting here / AFD. Essentially, even with the disgraceful socking, no sources = no article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note that the closing admin wasn't Mikkalai... Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid you didn't dig deep enough into the issue. There were sources, too, as some users pointed out, but then again, those sources were not accepted by some users, so the issue was much more complicated. For example a number of users argued that Wikipedias in different languages often have few sources about them, yet outright deletion of our articles on different Wikipedias is unwarranted. A number of comparisons with other wikis like Lithuanian Wikipedia were drawn, but it fell on deaf ears. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)-- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and send back to afd- the afd was irredeemably tainted by socking. A new afd discussion should be allowed to take place where the article can be judged on its merits. Umbralcorax ( talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I should also mention that, much like the posters after me have stated, that though I think this article does need relisting, i do not think the closer made a bad close with the information they had at the time. Merely that the facts that turned up after the close, over which the closer had no control, warrant the article being given a second consideration. Umbralcorax ( talk) 14:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist. Regardless of the merits of keeping the article this clearly needs to be relisted as it's important that we are seen to do the right thing. Even if the closer feels that they would have closed the same regardless of the socks we do not know what influences they had on other people's actions. It seems at least somewhat likely that a fuller discussion may have taken place of whether the sources were sufficient if it wasn't for the socks and this may have influenced a closer's decision. It is also possible that the socks made editors think a deletion close was likely and so discouraged them looking for further sources. Hence I see no choice but to relist. Dpmuk ( talk) 21:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. As much as I agree with the close - WP:V is a core policy - the socking was just too prevalent to allow it to stand. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 00:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist --perhaps by SNOW. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist but there's no indication that Sandstein, the actual closing admin, has had a chance to comment here yet. I suspect he would not have opposed such a relisting, given the socking, but I can't speak for him. Jclemens ( talk) 03:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Sandstein made the correct information given the information available to him, but of course subsequent events have overtaken that. Therefore, endorse but relist. Stifle ( talk) 08:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Relist, exactly per Stifle. Please would whoever closes this debate consider saying in the closing statement that no blame attaches to Sandstein, who was understandably duped by bad faith users.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

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

This article was unduely merged and deleted without discussion based on the opinions of several editors that it is the same word as the kharsag epics, a group of Sumerian texts given that name by a fringe scholar.

Kharsag is clearly a completely different word from the fringe naming of a group of texts. It is a singular location, a sacred mountain in NE mythology that is always described in similar terms to the Mount Olympus in Greek Mythology - the birthplace and home of the original Sumerian pantheon including Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsag. I have been working to seperate this from the fringe theories surrounding it by providing a host of notable sources describing this word or part of a phrase referring to the same location. I therefore suggest it requires it's own page, concentrating on the scholarly work of the following eminent scholars. I have tried discussig this with the editors concerned who seem to consistently support the deletion of the work of the following notable, verifiable, non-fringe sources of information about a location fundamental to human origins:

Kharsag; also Khar-sag, Imkharsag, E-kharsag, E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra, E-kharsag-kurkurra, Kharsag-kzurcktra, E-kharsag-kalama, Hur-Sag, Gar-Sag or Gar-Sag-da ^[1] is a Sumerian word or part of a Sumerian phrase noted as the mountain home of the earliest mythological hero-gods including Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag. It was later used to describe temples or houses dedicated to this location. It is suggested to represent the location of a Sumerian creation story.

Arthur Bernard Cook amongst many others translated one of these gods "Nin-khar-sag, 'Lady of the High Mountain.'" ^[2]

The Nippur Cylinder, a reverse cut cuneiform cylinder, described by George Aaron Barton as "The oldest religious text from Babylonia" mentions Kharsag in the first line of the second verse - "The holy Tigris, the holy Euphrates, the holy sceptre of Enlil establish Kharsag". ^[3].

The 'Liturgy to Nintud' (Barton's translation) says "E-kharsag-gal is devoted to ceremonies" and "The luluppi-tree of the wife of the god, the pi-pi plants of ... In Kharsag the garden of the gods were green" showing similarities to other creation myths.

The 'Hymn to Ibi Sin' (Barton's translation) says "Kharsag for the cold constructed a furnace".

Barton's 'New Creation Myth' was re-translated as the first "Kharsag Epic" by fringe author Christian O'Brien, who claimed it began "At Kharsag, where Heaven and Earth met, the Heavenly Assembly, the Great Sons of Anu, descended - the many Wise Ones". ^[4]

Morris Jastrow, Jr. mentions it in context "Again, it is Sargon who in consistent accord with his fondness for displaying his archaeological tastes, introduces Bel, the 'great mountain,' 'the lord of countries,' who dwells in E-khar-sag-kurkura, i.e., the sacred mountain on which the gods are born" ^[5].

Charles Boutiflower mentions "Sargon II king of Assyria, who was of an antiquarian turn, speaks of " The Great Mountain, Enlil, the lord of the lands, dwelling in E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra" ^[6].

Gerald Massey translates "Kharsag-Kalama" as the “mount of the nations.” ^[7]

Hermann Volrath Hilprecht translated the location as "O great mountain of Bel, Imkharsag". ^[8]

William F. Warren refers to it as "the vast mountain, Kharsag-kurkura" when disucssing Sumerian cosmology ^[9].

Grey Hubert Skipwith refers to this location as "the great mythological 'mountain of the world,' 'Kharsag-kzurcktra'" ^[10]

Robert William Rogers mentions it's use in Assyrian times as "the home of the great god Asshur, whose temple E-kharsag-kurkurra was erected by the earliest rulers of whom we know anything" ^[11].

Stephen Herbert Langdon translates "gar-sag-da" as "nether-world mountain" in context of a temple dedicated to the unsettled locations of Kêš in Erech ^[12].

Samuel Noah Kramer mentions Hur-sag and very specifically uses it in the context of a speech by Ninurta, son of Enlil to Ninhursag representing a singular location, a sacred mountain and home of the first recorded Gods. "Therefore, of the hill which I, the hero, have heaped up. Let it's name be Hursag (mountain), and thou be it's queen" ^[13]. Paul Bedson ( talk) 11:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment The problem is that this is all original research. Describing this at WP:FTHN he uses phrases such as 'clearly understand', 'I would argue', 'firmly believe', etc. and has said "It might help to explain that the actual ancient cuneiform these words are translated from is more like picture language than ours. The picture-sign translated as "khar" or "gar" (or for Kramer "hur") in many of these books is that of a garden or enclosure and that of "sag" is a picture sign of a head. Hence mountain in basic translations, but undeniably used in the context of the home or birthplace of the first Gods (Enlil, NinKharsag, etc.) by all these authors and professors as a singular location." Dougweller ( talk) 11:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment I do not understand how all these noteable scholars research is anything original. It's all been well noted since at least 1918 and to the bulk of scholarly understanding a lot longer ago than that! I trust my explanations of the subject will provide editors assistance in making informed decisions. Apologies if my tone is somewhat argumentative, but that's not OR. Paul Bedson ( talk) 12:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• • Reply The conclusion you reach from these scholars is what is original research, or rather perhaps synthesis, see WP:SYN. None of them say that any particular word is the same as 'Kharsag' or that all the locations are the same. I'm not even sure if they all come from the same period, context, etc. Dougweller ( talk) 12:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note This article was never taken to AfD. The only relevant AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics, which was closed as merge. Kharsag was then created which was turned into a redirect on the grounds it was basically the same subject. I agree with that, but another editor has removed the redirect so it may be necessary to take it to AfD. Dougweller ( talk) 12:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• • Reply I have to disagree and trust it is immediately obvious from all the cites that this Sumerian word refers to a single mythological location. That's great news about a fair deletion discussion though. I'll copy over the format above and even if we disagree over OR and SNTH, I feel sure you'll agree that the form of the article above is far more suitable than where we started on this. Regards Paul Bedson ( talk) 12:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse merger... if we are reviewing the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics, the merge decision seems an appropriate closure. The Kharsag article seems to have been created in an obvious attempt to circumvent that decision and, as such, I endorse extending the previous AfD decision to this article... it should also be merged and the title redirected. Blueboar ( talk) 12:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close as out of scope of DRV. Deletion review only reviews deletions and the outcome of deletion discussions. Stifle ( talk) 13:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closure result given as "merge". I believe that it should have been closed as "no consensus", defaulting to keep. The merge of this article into the parent article has resulted in its deletion from the parent article, which was not what was decided at AfD. Closing editor is of the opinion that the closure result was correct. Discussion has taken place at Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Mjroots ( talk) 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

There was a recent discussion of the scope of DRV for reviewing merges. link This discussion should focus on the limited scope of whether the closing admin correctly judged the consensus as merge. Other comments may be better directed to the talk page.

• Relist so that further input may be obtained, and that the article may be improved by removing various forms of cruft, such as flagcruft. Mjroots ( talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment — I believe there was little support for merging this back. I also think the delete arguments far outweighed the keep arguments, and believe the correct outcome here is to delete this. I'm fine with a transwiki, as I suggested to list.wikia.com, but don't believe it appropriate to Wikisource (way out of scope) or Wikiquote (which is focused on quotes in works or by individuals, not collections re an event). A relist may be inevitable but will fursur be another huge bickerfest. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• What? - this was closed 2 (two) days ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. I made a few comparisons at WP:ANI for those ignorant of AfD decisions users who are dissenting - just like with close result elections, those who lost can assemble a crowd but it doesn't mean that they have that narrow majority that the other side has (look at Italy, many huge protests involving millions of people but then the same ruling party wins again). This is like going to a polling station day after the election if you don't like the results to cast your vote and while doing that you also consider that this "vote" of yours is somehow able to override whatever was decided in a serious process of elections yesterday. So, accept that the decision of AfD was to merge this article into the article after a very very lengthy (65kb) discussion and that it was made two days ago. You can start this review over and over again hoping that other users will get bored and that you will manage to delete it but this is not the fair play.-- Avala ( talk) 19:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• At DRV, for technical reasons there's a convention that we don't normally overturn a "merge" to a "keep" or a "no consensus". (It's because all three outcomes are effectively the same:- the article history is retained. In other words the redirect can be turned back into an article by any editor, using the standard WP:BRD technique, so a deletion review is unnecessary and the decision can be made on the redirect's talk page.) I do agree with Mjroots that that charlie foxtrot of a "debate" would probably better have been closed as "no consensus".— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• S Marshall, DRV is not an area I am familiar with. This may be an occasion where WP:IAR is applied in order for a fuller discussion to take place. As I understand it, those who have already made their contribution to the previous AfD debate do not get a second bite of the cherry. New eyes and fresh input to the discussion is the aim of a relist. Mjroots ( talk) 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

And I must say again that doing that two days after the lengthy AfD makes no sense. Especially when it was such a difficult decision to make that requiered going through so many arguments. All this because some users "can't act like adults and respect the outcome of the Afd".-- Avala ( talk) 20:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Disagree with S Marshall. This is not a convention, but rather it is an unusual request. AfDs were not in the past considered capable to mandate merges, especially in contested cases. An AfD may well produce evidence for consensus to merge, but that is a different thing. Here, we have an administrative decision to mandate a merge, and S. Marshall suggests WP:BRD to undo the merge. This is a mistake. The merge should not happen by default. If there is disagreement, aka no consensus, then the articles should remain separate (for now). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Nonsense. "An administrative decision to mandate a merge"? Administrators don't mandate content decisions and a "merge" outcome at AfD is not binding on subsequent editors.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 14:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Nonsense? The AFD closer said "The result was merge...". The article currently has a tag at the top that says "The debate was closed on 17 April 2010 with a consensus to merge". These statements are past tense and sound as definitive as any ever do. Your suggestion that the merge can be undone by a standard WP:BRD process is to accept that the merge is a fait accompli. Under BRD, the unmerge edit is trumped by the first reversion of it. The articles should be separate until there is a consensus to merge (which is not evident at the AfD). An AfD closer should not be allowed to (appear to) mandate an editorial decision. In this close, the closer appears to mandate a merge, and the text sounds like the decision is made. This is why the close needs to be overturned. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• No, I certainly don't accept the merge as a fait accompli! I understand the "merge" closure to mean "keep" with a recommendation to merge. If it was a fait accompli, the closing admin would perform the merge on closure.

  I think that you and I agree that the merge is not enforceable except by the usual talk page consensus route, and what we're actually disagreeing about is whether it's necessary to change the closing admin's choice of words.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 22:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Yes, by "Overturn", I mean the close should be modified to "The result was merge to no consensus." ... "merging seems the most agreeable solution based on the discussion once the article has been sufficiently condensed and discussion on a merger should continue on the talk page." or similar. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• I disagree that BRD is an appropriate way to challenge a discussion outcome, but we can discuss on the talk page. Note that I am also recommending overturn. Flatscan ( talk) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to keep. There needs to be an overall Rfc on the issue of reaction articles, and until then, keeping this content out of the way in a separate article is the only way to proceed to stop the juvenile edit warring and ACRONYM soup style debating the merge decision precipitated. Discussing a merge has rapidly turned into a waste of time and led to edit warring over a Main Page linked article. Inexcusible. What little consensus to merge that might have existed in the Afd has basically been spat on by the people who want to ignore the merge outcome, and give everyone else the finger. If they can't get over themselves and demonstrate they are willing to find a plausible way forward in this content dispute, that actually addresses the fact that there is not actually currently a consensus for wholesale deletion of this kind of information, then they can go and play in someone else's sandbox. I don't happen to think these laundry lists should be here either, but picking this particular article at this particular time to have that debate was simply a wrongheaded idea all round, it was only ever going to end in a train wreck, you only had to look at past Afd's and the scale of this event to know that. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment from closer: note that the discussion was closed as merge, but included a stipulation that the international response be "sufficiently condensed". The idea was that removing all of the news replications would create an article of a suitable merge size. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 20:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This is not clear for the keepers, who interpreted the closer as keeping all the data. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close, policy-based consensus is that the list of formulaic "me too" messages from half the governments on the planet is not an encyclopaedic topic in its own right. Not liking the subsequent content edits after (s)merging does not invalidate the close. Guy ( Help!) 20:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  No, if that were remotely true, the only right closure would have been delete, because it's not a valid redirect and we don't keep the histories of unencyclopoedic topics. The closure was merge, not delete and redirect, or even simply redirect. There was a reason for that which the closer has already explained about four times at my count now, and the only 'not liking' going on here is from the people who don't have a clue what that difference is, insist on NOTHEARING the closer, and want to pretend the outcome was delete. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• The actual problem here is that we don't all agree on what "merge" means. Some think it means you must copypaste the entire content; some think you only have to copypaste some content; still others think you don't have to copypaste at all, just condense and rephrase the information. Whatever the meaning, the decision is an editorial one. Administrators may close an AfD as merge, but it is up to editorial process to decide how to best do that. On the issue raised here, S Marshall is correct. Overturning this AfD to no consensus is a waste of time because the content can still be merged. A no consensus closure means exactly that: no consensus for anything and no consensus against anything. The default to keep only occurs because that's the only way to go—it does not mean the article has to remain. Even looking at the AfD, though, merge was the correct closure. So there is nothing at all actionable here; go back to the talk page and work the merge out. ÷ seresin 20:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close The AfD got enough attention the first time around, but it's completely infeasible to think that all of that content -- flags and quotes from, what, 100 world leaders? -- should be placed in the main article. As the closing admin said, merge, after condensing the content. It goes without saying that "condensing" does not mean "put in a collapsible box". -- tariqabjotu 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as the vapid keeps were rightly given less weight. This is like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama condolences; condolences by heads of state for tragedies is so commonplace as to be not newsworthy. Tarc ( talk) 20:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Relist. I want to say keep, because such articles can be of great encyclopaedic value, however, this one is more of a list of people and countries who expressed their condolences, as they would with such a horrific event. If it were expanded and a significant amount of prose was added which explained the international repercussions of this event, I would be inclined to say it could function well as a standalone article if enough information exists to build a well-structured article. Merging would also be a viable option, imho. While, if expanded and improved, this could be sustainable article, as it is though, I agree with Arbitrarily above, it would be better trimmed and merged. I think a relist would be in order to allow the possibilities of a merge to thrashed out fully and to allow for improvement of the article because it seems that nobody is satisfied by the status quo. My support of relisting, however, should not be seen as a criticism of Arbitrarily's close. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment The problem is that as it stands, this article is longer than the parent article - it will need a LOT of creative trimming to get it down to a sensible length to merge back in while keeping what we do add properly referenced - and that ignores any problems with getting everybody to accept the Merge. Nigel Ish ( talk) 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Question how is the closure result of merge acceptable given the original consensus of split from the main article? - see discussion at talk:2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash/Archive_1#International_response Mjroots ( talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close - The separate article has no rationalization, and some of the data, namely the list of countries with official mourning, is notable. The article should be as it stands now with the list of condolences removed. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- per Seresin, who said it well. Reyk _YO! 22:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The content itself fails notability guidelines. The consensus of the community has been carried out, and the article is (mostly) condensed. As several users have discussed, transferring the word-for-word content to another wiki project or moving the content off-wiki is a viable option to appease the dissenters. -- N419BH ( talk) 22:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Really? Which notability guidelines are you thinking of? WP:N is passed with enough headroom to fit the the Empire State Building under it. Could you clarify? Hobit ( talk) 13:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn: relist or keep as no consensus There is no precedent for AfD to force content onto an article from which it has been excluded by consensus. Merge is not a standard outcome – anyone coming to AfD asking for a merge would have the discussion closed as out of scope – and is only tolerated under IAR when it resolves problems, not when it relights problems which had already been resolved by consensus. The closer correctly noted that the the list would have to be trimmed before merger, but is that not simply a way to hide a major delete when there was no obvious consensus? Of course, and predictably, the trimming was not done and the list was reinserted verbatim, creating a huge list of policy problems on an article which is currently linked from the Main Page and an edit war which ended in full protection. If the content is non-notable, it should be deleted; if it is notable it should be kept as a separate list. Physchim62 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Merge is a valid AfD outcome. For example, see WP:Deletion process#Articles for deletion page and WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. Flatscan ( talk) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn There was no consensus for merger and so the close was improper, seeming to impose a solution rather than recording the outcome of the discussion. This was contrary to WP:DGFA as it did not respect the judgement and feelings of the contributors to the discussion. Colonel Warden ( talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I'm not sure what the people who say "merge is not a standard outcome" are thinking. It's a very standard outcome, and has been viewed as more or less binding in the past. Failure to selectively merge in a reasonable time after a merge AfD outcome is grounds to simply copy and paste one article on the end of another to get the ball rolling. Gigs ( talk) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment If the page will be merged in the sense of putting all the information in a collapsed table then I think merging is a good idea, but if merging means doubling the length of the main page I would favour the no-consensus route of defaulting to keep and opening a general discussion about this type of article, of which there are many. Weakopedia ( talk) 01:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to NC there was in no way consensus for anything. I don't personally see the value in the article, but A) it meets WP:N and B) there was no consensus. Hobit ( talk) 03:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  I believe the closer's rationale was that many of the "keeps" were very weak; as more of those are discounted, the scales tip towards the side of the decision that was given. Looking through the "it's referenced", "it's interesting" type of opinions given at the time, I find it hard to disagree with the closer. Tarc ( talk) 03:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  "It's referenced" when it _is_ referenced, is a pretty solid argument really. Is this a NOTNEWS thing? Something this significant (the crash) isn't and spin out articles are reasonable when well sourced ("it's sourced"). I don't like this type of article and would probably !vote to delete them in general (though I'd not start with something so recent). But that view certainly doesn't seem to have consensus, at least with respect to this article. Hobit ( talk) 08:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  Solid argument for what? That something is referenced is no reason at all to keep it. Yes WP:NOTNEWS, WP:MEMORIAL, WP:NOTABOLITY, etc, etc, etc. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 09:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  Hobit, was anyone arguing that it wasn't referenced? Being referenced isn't the be all and end all of determining the worth of an article. Tarc ( talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  As far as I could see the debate came down to an open question of should we have this type of article. The nom basically stated, without argument that it was NOTNEWS, unencyclopedic, and a memorial. The folks on the other side argued it was notable. The side arguing for deletion made a vague wave toward policies, but on the whole didn't explain why those issues applied. Face it, WP:N has the advantage of being fairly clear cut (multiple reliable sources exist or they don't and the fuzzy line is fairly small). Things like "unencyclopedic" are, by and large, a matter of opinion. Here the opinion was that it was worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As I said, I personally don't think this article is a good idea but A) I don't see anything looking like a consensus to delete and B) Honestly deleting it at this point is potentially hurtful and bad for Wikipedia. Wait a few months or start with the similar 9/11 page or some other US-based one. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is actually a solid argument when there is risk of cultural bias or when there isn't a clear line being crossed and it thus isn't clear that the "OTHERSTUFF" should also go. Hobit ( talk) 03:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  What is "vague" with the links to the NUMEROUS policies that the list of condolences breaks? How it is vague? Each one of these policy breaks are by itself reason enough to delete it. However, the claim that it *is* notable is very vague. How is it notable that everyone says exactly the same thing? That a country offers condolences in a disaster is standard fare, how is that notable? Nobody has ever even *attempted* to answer that. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 16:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  It's vague because people are simply stating an opinion. "delete per NOTMEMORIAL" says nothing other than the person feels it's a memorial. Delete as encyclopedic says nothing other than the person feels the topic isn't encyclopedic. Keep as its sourcing meets WP:N is, in this case, a black-and-white truth. Given that the majority felt inclusion was proper and the only reasons to delete are based on opinions, I think deletion is clearly inappropriate. Just because you, or the closer, agree with those opinions isn't a valid reason to delete. WP:MEMORIAL doesn't clearly apply, and "not encyclopedic" is like saying "IDONTLIKEIT". Hobit ( talk) 23:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  I'm sorry, you've got it exactly backwards. The policies in question are not vague or emotional, the repeated claim that it's notable comes without argumentation whatsoever, and is obviously based on emotion/opinion and nothing else. Nobody has been able to explain *how* it's notable, while we have been able to explain exactly how it breaks these policies. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  Interesting, as I say, I see it exactly the other way around. So let me do notable, and you explain how it breaks these policies. Mine's easy. It's notable because it vastly exceeds the requirements of WP:N. There are a large (dare I say massive) number of independent, reliable sources about this topic. Therefor it is presumed notable. I think the article sources speak for themselves, but I can enumerate them if you feel that's needed. Certainly it is only presumed notable, but that's all the notability guidelines can do. Now, could you show exactly how this breaks the policies in question without using opinions like "it's a memorial" and "it's not encyclopedic"? Neither of those policies provide an objective way of concluding when such a thing is true (and I for one, along with a significant majority of the AfD seem to think they don't apply). NOTNEWS and it's related hangers-on actually do (short burst of news coverage) but I don't see how that applies here. Hobit ( talk) 12:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• I'm confused by your interpretation of notability. For every newsworthy topic T you could create a separate article R about the reaction or response to T consisting of various sourced quotes about T. But surely for article R to have notability, there must be reliable sources commenting not on T but on R itself, that is, commenting about the reaction to topic T. And the amount of content we tolerate in article R would surely be proportionate to the amount of sourced commentary available about R, correct? Fletcher ( talk) 03:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  Hobit: It's notable because it vastly exceeds the requirements of WP:N. - That's a tautology, and not an argument or explanation. You are just saying it's notable because it's notable. There are a large (dare I say massive) number of independent, reliable sources about this topic. Therefor it is presumed notable. - This is not a discussion about the crash, but the list of condolences. To claim that the list of condolences has WP:N and therefore should have it's own article you must find multiple independent sources for that list of condolences. Note, not one source per condolence, multiple independent sources that list many of these condolences. I guess multiple independent sources per condolence would work too. So you see how insane that is? It doesn't work. This list of condolences in NOT NOTABLE. Hence, it should NOT have it's own article. Hence the merge was the correct decision. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 06:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  Yes, it's notable because it' vastly exceeds the requirements of WP:N. That's not a tautology for the record, it's more along the lines of "7 is a prime number because it has no integer divisors other than 1". That's simply a true statement. I disagree with your sourcing requirements--as long as each one has a reliable source, I'm fine. The topic-as-a-whole is clearly notable and each element of the list is sourced, and that seems to be the general inclusion guideline for lists. Else we'd not have lists of coaches for certain sports teams (many of which are featured) and the like... Hobit ( talk) 12:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  No, it's a tautology. You do not explain *how* it's notable, you just repeat your claim that it is. You have no argument. And I'm sure *you* are fine, but we are now discussing the fulfillment of Wikpedia Policy, and it's not fulfilled. The topic as a whole is clearly notable and has it's own article. Now we are discussing the "international reaction" article and more specifically the list of condolences. Your continued failure to understand the difference completely invalidates your argumentation as you clearly haven't read and understood WP:NOTABILITY. It's about if a topic is notable enough to have a separate article or not. You provide no argument for that except a baseless claim that it does which you are unable to back up. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 19:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  No, I think you read WP:N wrongly. The subject is (clearly) notable in that sense, since it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability is not the only criteria for inclusion to consider though, as the policy states ( WP:GNG, fifth point 'presumed': "[notability] establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.", but the later is disctinct from notability considerations. Cenarium ( talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  Yes of course. And this topic both do NOT have notability, as you will not find multiple independent sources on "international reactions" as a whole, nor each reaction separately, AND it breaks several other policies, yes. So the notability failure means there should not be a separate article, so the merge was correct. The other policies means that the list of condolences should be removed. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I'm inclined to the view that if there is no consensus to keep an article, and there would be a consensus to merge or delete but for the split of opinions between merge and delete, a merge is the appropriate close. That is because there is a clear consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted, and a merge is the least drastic way of implementing that consensus. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 03:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (no consensus). Merge was not the consensus result of the discussion. In fact, I see insufficient discussion or consensus building given the widely differing opinions offered. Anyway, merging is an editorial decision, and a one-week AfD is a poor way to make editorial decisions, especially for such a fresh topic. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• overturn to non-consensus I can see perfectly good arguments in several different directions, and since they're more a matter of article style than policy, I cant really choose between them--and neither could the community. When that happens, there's nothing to do but admit the impasse and se if the matter becomes clearer going forward. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse merge. If an AfD just involved counting "votes", then this would have resulted in a "keep". But AfDs don't just involve counting "votes"; they also involve which side has the better policy-based arguments. I believe that the delete and merge supporters had better policy-based arguments in this case. In particular, much of the content of the article consists of a repetitive listing stating that one president or prime minister after another sent their condolences, with some quotes from such statements, but substantially all having the same tone and general idea. Basically, this kind of list violates the policy that Wikipedia is not a memorial or a collection of news reports. I would recommend that the list of countries that declared official days of mourning be slightly merged into the main article, and that is all that mainly needs to be merged. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  If the Afd proved anything, it's that people really don't undertsand MEMORIAL. It states, "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others". Now, forgetting the rather pointless 'other', I very much doubt anybody involved in creating the article, was a friend, relative or acquaintance of anybody on the plane, and I finds it quite ludicrous to ascribe the wish to memorialise as the motive of all those editors. Quite bizarre. MickMacNee ( talk) 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  I admit that the deceased were probably not friends, relatives, or acquaintances of the editors who wrote this article. But when I see an article that reads like this: