Myla Vicenti Carpio ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I don't think there was a consensus to merge. I think there were valid reasons to keep, and I think there was overall no consensus. (involved, mentioned review here) CT55555( talk) 23:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply

As a keep voter in the original AFD, I still think it should have been closed with that. BhamBoi ( talk) 23:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse This is a difficult case, but I cannot see error in the close (and a no consensus close would have also been within the discretion of the closer). On policy, the merge/delete comments are much stronger. It is my understanding the community usually determines that meeting WP:AUTHOR means multiple works that are reviewed by independent publications, and this is what the merge/delete voters articulated. The keep voters who did suggest the subject met AUTHOR pointed to policy language that a book needs to be "well-known," and the subject's book was sufficiently well-known. However, as 4meter4 stated in a keep comment, "well-known" is a subjective measure. -- Enos733 ( talk) 01:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• On the !vote numbers, that would have been a no-consensus or a keep. But the keep !votes didn't link or cite any sources about this lady, so how on Earth were we going to write a biography? It's impossible so the outcome couldn't be keep. That also precludes no-consensus. I would endorse. — S Marshall  T/ C 08:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as within closer discretion. There was clearly a consensus against deleting, and all other outcomes can be modified or discussed at the talk page if needed. Stifle ( talk) 08:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a reasonable alternative to deletion. The book appears notable enough that it would survive an AfD so is a good target for a merge and redirect which is generally preferable to deletion, especially with a subject who may well gain more coverage to sustain their own article in the future. "No consensus" would not have been a wildly inappropriate outcome but in my view there was a consensus that the article shouldn't be kept. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse. While they technically pass NAUTHOR #3, there doesn't seem to be enough sources to establish their notability. No consensus would've also been an acceptable close. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} 03:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn this seems an obvious WP:SUPERVOTE. The consensus was to keep. I appreciate that the closer found an ATD however it was not the correct outcome after participation in the AfD. Lightburst ( talk) 20:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) reply

User:Twospoonfuls/sandbox/11 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Purportedly deleted for G12 copyvio reasons, this article wasn't published in the article namespace. These were my personal notes. Moreover, it doesn't satisfy G13, they were in my userspace, not draftspace. What is the point of a sandbox if its contents is going to be treated as final published material? If nothing else that is a point that needs clarification. Twospoonfuls ( εἰπέ) 22:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. It doesn't matter that it wasn't published, it was accessible. Can't keep copyright-violating material visible anywhere on the site. Based on what I can learn about the deleted page from the nominator's request, there don't seem to be any errors in this speedy deletion.— Alalch E. 22:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, even if no one else on the Internet does, and copyrighted material is not permitted anywhere in Wikipedia, even temporarily. There are very few sorts of material that are subject to deletion from sandboxes, but copyright violations are subject to deletion from sandboxes or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Almost anything is permitted in sandboxes, but not copyrighted material or attack pages. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse copyright violations are not acceptable in any namespace, including userspace. Sandboxes aren't treated as if they were "final published material", but that doesn't mean you can have anything at all in a sandbox. Publishing copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is typically illegal and the law doesn't care what namespace the content was in. From a quick check it looks like the text was largely taken from the book linked in the deletion log. Hut 8.5 16:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• FYI, the general criteria for speedy deletion (G1-13) apply to all namespaces. There's a lot of latitude in userspace but you can't host copyrighted material there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Allen Holub ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was deleted for lack of notability, in particular because nobody found any book reviews. But I have found various book reviews:

• [1] "Holub's Taming Java Threads contains some nice techniques for getting the most out of thread programming. I'm not sure if it's a necessary resource, though."
• [2] (Holub on Patterns) "The book distinguishes itself from other books on design patterns by taking implementation as the center of its discussion. [...] Any reader in the Java world could definitely benefit from reading the book."

Specifically for "Compiler design in C", I found numerous reviews:

• [3] "A large book [...] Quite well written, too, though it has a lot of errors."
• [4] - not sure what the review says, but [5] says "all titles reviewed are recommended."
• [6] - again, not sure what it says, but the snippets I can see seem positive
• [7] - some review, can't tell what it says
• [8] - "The authoritative reference for anyone who needs to write compilers"
• [9] - "Holub is one of those authors with a bent towards optimizing performance. In this book, he covers a whole smorgasbord of techniques and tricks that will speed up a compiler."

It seems from [10] that the rest of his books were published in the 1980s so are difficult to find reviews for online, but hopefully it is clear that his "Compiler design in C" book has had a significant amount of influence. Mathnerd314159 ( talk) 06:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin comments: The AfD was a simple unanimous "delete", so I doubt there is any question about the propriety of my close. None of the reviews mentioned in the DRV request were in the article or discussed during the AfD. So I have no objection to allowing creation of a new article at this title using new sources; it would presumably be quite different from what was deleted. In that circumstance this probably didn't need a DRV, but since the requirement to consult the closer has been deprecated, this is my first opportunity to give that advice. -- RL0919 ( talk) 06:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• I'd suggest writing a new version, which you don't need anyone's permission for. If you'd like us to restore the original version to draft space for you to work on then we can do that. However it was quote short (184 words), it didn't mention anything about compiler design (it was more interested in his work as a software trainer), and it read more like his personal website than an encyclopedia article. It also only cited two sources, his personal website and a profile on the website of a university he used to teach at. Hut 8.5 11:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  Alright, thanks. I wasn't aware that re-creating the article didn't require a DRV, maybe that could be made clearer somewhere, e.g. adding "re-creating a page" to "what DRV is not" on WP:DRVPURPOSE. Mathnerd314159 ( talk) 16:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Some new information has come to light since the deletion that potentially justifies there being an article on this topic, beyond what was discussed in the AfD, but as the deleted page does not have meaningful content worth restoring, the page should stay deleted, and a brand new version can be started.— Alalch E. 11:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse if this is an appeal. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow creation of new article either in article space, subject to nomination for AFD, or in draft space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• endorse but feel free to rewrite with the new sources. The sources you cannot see should probably be acquired (interlibrary loan?). The new sources should protect it from speedy deletion. Hobit ( talk) 15:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply