William Goad ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I had no time/energy to protest the deletion of the article when it was done. I really don't think it was garbage and I really believe that it's notable. Even only the number of crimes make it so. However, in case the administrators decide that it's "garbage", please restore the last version somewhere in my user page so I can expand it. It would cost me too much time to find again the references and to create it again from scratch. Thank you. —  Ark25  ( talk) 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Can't comment on the original article but the subject is definitely notable. Thus, undelete Egg Centri c 15:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• There's no need to vote. This is a contested PROD so restoration will be automatic.— S Marshall T/ C 16:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Not the real reason why this page was deleted. Is the editor involved with a competitor or commercial product? This page was linked at other pages in Wikipedia, eg. comparison of accounting software. This software is GPL Licensed open source and has many users in South Africa, Please assist to restore this page so that it can be updated 196.210.160.59 ( talk) 12:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I've given the IP some tips on his/her user page. As far as I can see this was A7 speedied and there's nothing particularly wrong here, it just needs a better article. Egg Centri c 13:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Can someone undelete so we can review whether the speedy deleted per WP:CSD A7 (an article about a company or organization that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject} was valid. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn A7 speedy deletion. The article noted "The business model is one of the first "software-as-a-service" models" to credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The company is in South Africa, so the source material may not be immediately accessible via the internet. No objection to listing at AfD. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 07:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy as per WP:GNG. We should also have WP:MARKETINGISNOTNOTABILITY -- HighKing ( talk) 08:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Speedy and the GNG have no relation to each other. It is not necessary to show notability to pass speedy. all speedy requires is some rational indication of importance. Failure to show notability is a reason for prod or AfD, both of which give a reasonable period for the original editor and other editors to find adequate sources for it, which is often possible. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply

John F. Ashton ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The AfD was closed on 11 May as No consensus. The closer then undid the close on 23 May, and it returned to the unclosed pool where I picked it up, unaware of the previous close. I did eventually become aware of the previous close, but this was quite late on in my close review; that I had already spent over an hour on the close may have influenced my decision to carry on with the close. My thinking at the time was that I was dealing with the same AfD, and that as long as I took account of the article talkpage comments and article developments since the close, that would be sufficient. Normally this wouldn't be significant, however, there had been significant article development between the two closes, so this morning I am thinking that would put me in the position of casting a supervote. The article is currently userfied at User:John J. Bulten/John F. Ashton. I am thinking that there are possible reasonable outcomes - one is to uphold the close, and allow the usefied article to be moved into mainspace where it can face a second AfD, or restore the article to mainspace and relist the AfD. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't really see that there's a functional difference there. Both circumstances result in the article being in mainspace and an afd discussion happening. Egg Centri c 12:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Uphold first close, but wait on AFD and set an incubation deadline (about 1 month). Thank you SilkTork. The primary DRV issue is that we had two weeks of AFD, two weeks of NCDK close and hostile editing, and then a sudden deletion after 2 hours; this may well have been according to process, but I didn't see the user who asked for the "unclose" inform any of the interested parties who were working hard on the article (468 revs) all that time, so it was a shock to several of the editors per your talk. The primary AFD issues are that notability under AUTHOR (over 20 reviews of 5 books, only 2 of which were rebutted) and PROF#C3 (CFRACI status found after AFD close) were never rebutted during AFD. Because I did so much work during AFD and there was a sudden influx of other editors of multiple POVs (cutting the article from 40K to 20K), I was waiting for a cooldown before I did more significant work, presuming that a second AFD would be poorly nommed before at least 1-2 months. If we have a week of DRV and then a second AFD, this article will have been continuously under the hatchet administratively for 6-7 weeks, and that is not a conducive environment to establishing consensus. Further, the amount of time I consumed meeting the seemingly illogical demands of a dozen other editors, finding 70 sources, getting sent to ANI for AFD length (where Uncle G found no disruption), and still seeing the article deleted makes it very hard to justify a lot more on-demand fixup work in a hostile environment, given priorities IRL. Of all AFDs I've been in this has been the most-sourced ever. These are not my only observations but suffice for now. JJB 14:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Or What Unscintillating said. JJB 18:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• On the numbers, it's a no consensus that leans towards delete, but when I review the arguments I find the view that was most clearly stated by Hrafn very hard to argue with and deserving of significant extra weight. To me, if it had been closed from a clean start based on the arguments presented in that AfD, "delete" looks right. I think that a slightly messy process produced the right outcome.

  Our role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. It's too harsh on Silk Tork to say that it wasn't, and although Silk Tork's scrupulous approach to this does him credit, I don't think deletion review has a role here. I endorse the outcome. I don't really endorse the messy process used to get there, which is regrettable but not terrible. It certainly doesn't amount to a procedural irregularity that justifies disturbing the close.— S Marshall T/ C 17:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

To be clear, which of the three outcomes do you endorse (NCDK, delete, or userfy)? Which of Hrafn's views (by timestamp) deserve extra weight? JJB 17:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I endorse the outcome that we've been asked to review (which is Silk Tork's close of 23 May). The view I thought deserved extra weight was the first view Hrafn expressed during the discussion (and I mean "first" in the order it appears in the AfD; I accept that the sequence may have been more complex during the course of discussion and Hrafn's comment may have been amended, but I reviewed the discussion in its final form rather than diff by diff).

  What this means, specifically, is that I agree with Hrafn where he said: I'm seeing little-to-no substantive independent coverage here. Most sources listed either (i) include Ashton himself as a (co-)author, (ii) are creationist (and thus WP:FRINGE) affiliates of Ashton, (iii) are/were Ashton's employer and/or (iv) make only passing (and/or dismissive) mention of it. I think that where the sources give in-depth coverage they are not reliable within the meaning of WP:RS, and where they are reliable within the meaning of WP:RS, they are not in-depth.— S Marshall T/ C 17:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Restore to mainspace, allow a week or so for improvement, and then relist. I said keep, but it was a rather weak keep; I think it's borderline, though it had strong advocates & opponents. I think the true result was no consensus, but it'd be better to have another discussion after improvment (which in practice is the same thing, as has been pointed out above). DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse first close, overturn second close - The AfD was opened 29 April 2012‎ and closed about 12 days later. Phantomsteve's 10 May 2012‎ no consensus close interpreted the discussion correctly and the close was otherwise proper. Phantomsteve reopen the AfD, 25 days after it was listed and 13 days later after close, on 21:01 23 May 2012, giving the reason "questions have arisen about whether this is "no consensus" or not." The reopening of the AfD was untimely, particularly in view of the article changes during those 13 days. The untimely reopening of the AfD makes the second 22:53, 23 May 2012‎ close out of process. Also, DRV is the place to handle questions about whether a close interpreted the discussion correctly. While SilkTork appears to have done some fine work and stand up self reporting to DRV, it is better to stick to process to minimize admins waste of time and give value to proper/timely consensus discussion closures so that those participating in consensus discussions feel fair play is part of that process. Since the first close was no consensus, the article should be restored to main space and there is no objection to immediately relisting at AfD. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 10:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse SilkTork's closure. My reading of the discussion is that the "delete" side had stronger arguments, so I contacted the first closer asking him to justify his close. The first closer was unable to justify his "no consensus" close owing to lack of time. Hrafn ( talk · contribs)'s arguments about the insufficient coverage in reliable sources in terms of depth and independence, as noted by S Marshall ( talk · contribs) were particularly persuasive. I do not believe that SilkTork ( talk · contribs) committed a procedural error. Because the previous closer rescinded his close, SilkTork was free to approach the discussion without being constrained by the previous close. His closing rationale is an accurate summary of the consensus, a product of over an hour of reading and analyzing. I support the proposal by John J. Bulten ( talk · contribs) to "wait on AFD and set an incubation deadline (about 1 month)". After more work has been done on the article, it can be (i) brought back to DRV for consideration or (ii) restored to the mainspace directly if {{ db-repost}} does not apply and renominated at AfD. Cunard ( talk) 04:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to Userfy  The article had already been userfied by the time it came here to DRV, and the request that I had made, to which there had been no response, was to overturn to "Userfy".  What happened was that POV-pushing contributions savaged the article after the "no consensus" close, with an objective of proving that the topic was not notable.  I only participated in a small number of the edits after the article was reduced by about 40 sources.  I saw belligerence toward objections to adding BLP violations, and incompetence in identifying sources.  A quote by Kurt Wise as being something Ashton said was agreed to by two editors.  This incident was immediately followed by another defective source citation, followed by an editor yelling at one of his/her own quotes.  I can provide diffs on request.  The point is that this article needs a chance to recover from the POV pushing, so it is appropriate to leave it on JJBs user page without a schedule.  It would be more correct to call this close userfy, because there is no plan by the 2nd closer or anyone else to keep the article deleted, and keeping the close as "delete" will serve only to confound a next AfD.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply

  Thank you for this completely affirmed analysis. During AFD certain editors suddenly began massive edits that continued until second close, reducing size from 40K to 15K and deleting about 45 sources. Because I had been responding to the same editors' demands at AFD for two weeks I opted out of trying to analyze every deletion claim on talk, having already established there that many of them were policy failures. Accordingly, as Cesiumfrog's editing also shows, there is too much damage to the legitimate notability claims that were unanswered at AFD and yet declined for comment by both closers to be repaired during this DRV (not to mention outright erratic edits needing reversing). The purpose of userfication is to show that Ashton's award "FRACI CChem" meets PROF; that 5-8 of Ashton's books with numerous reviews satisfy AUTHOR; and that sufficient mention of Ashton satisfies both GNG and the cumulative nature of BASIC, just as I said in my very first AFD comment. Time for consensus to arise on these very old points, given the hostile environment, should not be deadlined unreasonably. JJB 18:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse If you read SilkTork close he makes it clear that he will "userfy the material on request to allow work to continue until notability can be established.", that has been done work is ongoing there. Once it is felt fit to move it back then it can be done, this has the feel of debating a process rather than getting on with fixing the article. Mt king ^(edits) 00:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Willy on Wheels ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The most notorious wikipedia vandal now has at least three mentions in reliable sources. I don't believe these are enough to produce an article necessarily (they may be though), but they are enough to add him to Troll_(Internet)#Examples - which is where I would like this redirect to go to. Once the redirect is in place it's a simple matter to chuck in a sentence or two about WoW there. Egg Centri c 12:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Seems to me the right course of action should be to add him to Troll (Internet)#Examples first and create the redirect only if it sticks there. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 14:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

S'pose so. here we go Egg Centri c 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment This isn't indepth coverage of Willy on Wheels. How does he deserve a page? Curb Chain ( talk) 23:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

  And who asked for a page on Willy on Wheels? As I seem Egg Centric only asks for a redirect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 23:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Three passing mentions in news articles about the general concept of WP vandalism are nowhere nearly sufficient to justify a Wikipedia entry - not even a list entry in the Internet Troll article. It would be different if there are three reputable articles about the subject but passing references are not sufficient to substantiate claims of notability. Prior deletions of the page (mostly speedy- but the last via RfD) were in compliance with WP:DENY. The proposal to restore is not.
  Note also that the addition of the paragraph about this vandal has already been reverted with the argument that his/her specific behavior does not necessarily meet the technical definition of an "internet troll". Rossami (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC) reply

And that is an important point. I feel that there is a place in our encyclopedia for Willy, but it ain't where I was thinking of putting it.... Egg Centri c 00:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Sources aren't indication on why he meets WP:GNG, so he doesn't deserve to have an article. WP:DENY is clear cut in here also considering that the original vandal left Wikipedia a very long time ago, same with his wanna be many impersonators (and we have plenty of archives to prove that fact). Keep Deleted and suggest withdraw. Secret ^account 03:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse RFD close - The 2007 September 4 Redirect for Discussion closer cited "protected titles mechanism" and the above DRV request does not indicate a basis to overcome that to redirect the Willy on Wheels to another page. There are additional RFDs [1] and you additionally would need to overcome the reasons listed in those RFDs to allow a redirect from the Willy on Wheels page. Also, the requested target Troll_(Internet)#Examples doesn't seem appropriate (more of an RFD issue than DRV). Comment - As for the relaible source material, there's probably a place for it in a Wikipedia page. However, the examples listed in Troll_(Internet)#Examples are general examples not tied to any individial account, and listing Willy on Wheels there is a specific example tied to an individual account, so the info doesn't belong in Troll_(Internet). You eventually might have better luck in adding the info to Wikipedia or another page having Wikipedia as a main topic. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 10:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, do not redirect. The troll article actually does a good job of keeping the examples just to the actual notable ones that had real-world effects or consequences. Willy had very little effect on Wikipedia (there's only a small and ever-decreasing number of oldbies who even remember that era), and absolutely zero effect on the real world. That would frankly not fit in at all among the other examples cited that involved lawsuits and arrests, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - very much should not point to Wheely Willy. If substantive references exist (I'll leave that to others to decide), then I suppose maybe that could be added to the examples at the bottom of Vandalism_on_Wikipedia, and then this could be protected as a redirect to there. But otherwise, keep deleted and salted. - jc37 13:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC) reply