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

One of the admin's main reasons for deleting the page was an incorrect URL. After this was raised the admin in question suggested the matter should be debated here. Lumpthing (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse-After reviewing the cached version of the page, I'm not seeing any assertion of notability. CSD A7 would seem to apply.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I do not see a claim of significance or importance in the deleted article, either explicitly or implicitly. That is what is required of A7. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the assertion of notability implicit in the web-app's status as the only website or app focusing on creating a more organized form of online discussion? Lumpthing (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The cached copy I'm seeing has two sources that appear to meet WP:N. Doesn't meeting WP:N mean that A7 doesn't apply as it's a defacto assertion of notability? Hobit (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did consider the "sources" but they looked quite unreliable to me given the tone of the articles and the links to the yoomoot webpage. But if I'm wrong or even if I might be wrong I would agree to erring on the side of caution and sending it to AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Mkativerata. The sources don't appear to rise to the level of substantial coverage in reliable sources that is required for WP:GNG. There's hundreds of new sites start up every day; come back when you're notable please. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the re-created 28 May article contained different, more reliable references Lumpthing (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy and list at AfD The sources don't need to be enough clearly meet WP:N to be an assertion of notability. In any case, the coverage is clearly substantial (articles are solely on the topic) and the sources appear to be reliable on first blush. Not a good case for a speedy.Hobit (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see an assertion of notability either, and I'll endorse the speedy accordingly. However, wikipedia's collaborative and we want to encourage good faith new users, so when we're dealing with a new user, there ought to be more to DRV than rigid enforcement of the rules; we should seek to explain, to engage with the nominator and to provide FairProcess on demand. So I'll go with Recreate and list at AfD if the nominator insists.—S Marshall T/C 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the nominator and I would appreciate that. I would also appreciate clarity on what version of the article is being reviewed. The re-created article (28 May) included two additional references. It would also be straightforward to add an explicit assertion of notability. Lumpthing (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've started a discussion on speedy criteria for sourced articles here. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On reading Hobit's link, I see that his case is that so many sources for an article is a de facto assertion of notability. That's a fair point: one can show that something's notable by linking to the reliable sources that have noted it, and in fact that's the only way one can show notability. I've struck my "endorse" accordingly, because I find Hobit's argument persuasive.—S Marshall T/C 20:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see the article has been re-created during this discussion. We do not normally do that. What I have therefore done is change it to restore the history so it's visible, which is what we usually do. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD the only part of the article that even approximates an assertion of significance is the references. Now I'm not personally convinced that the references show the subject meets WP:WEB, but that kind of question is more appropriate to AfD than to speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 12:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the appropriate next step for submitting a different version of the article which contains better references and an explicit assertion of notability? I tried creating a new version of the article on 28 May but it was simply deleted, and it appears the changes made in that version are not being taken into account in this review discussion. Lumpthing (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally if you created a new version of the article which didn't meet the original reason for deletion (or any of the other criteria for speedy deletion) then the article would not have been speedily deleted. However you had already started the deletion review process, and as DGG notes above we don't typically recreate articles while a deletion review discussion is ongoing. (Your version of 28 May wasn't actually deleted, it was replaced with a template. The text is still visible.) Hut 8.5 15:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's visible because I restored it with the template, btw. This should be done as a matter of course during a good faith Deletion Review discussion, except for issues of copyright and libel. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy, no assertion of notability, likely COI, likely promotion, and "It moved out of private beta in May 2010" says it all really. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in Wikipedia's guidelines is there a mention of the age of the site or date at which it changed from invite-only to public being relevant? In what way does the article show any bias? Lumpthing (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rekonq (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

A few month ago Rekonq was deleted. The reason was that it was not considered notable enough at the time (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rekonq). Since then a major linux distribution, kubuntu has announced that rekonq is going to be the default browser in the next release (kubuntu 10.10 Maverick), in replacement of konqueror (See: [1] [2]). My opinion is that Rekonq is now worth an article in wikipedia. Bzhb (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That would seem to be worth a restore. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you indicate what sources, other than the two you mention, would be used here? I see a primary one and a blog one (though a good one). Is there anything else at this point? I don't know enough about Linux distributions to know if this one is so large that its browser should automatically be notable... Hobit (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• kubuntu is the bigger official derivative of ubuntu (first linux distribution). The difference with Ubuntu is that it has a different desktop (KDE). It is widely used, but as it is free software it is very difficult to know how much. There is not much traditional sources of information on rekonq, since free software is mainly develloped through mailing list, IRC, blogs, forum, wiki... It is not like there is a company that will do a press release for it... I can point to one more blog : [3]. Also it is written on the french wikipedia page about rekonq ([4]). Finally I didn't mentioned it since it won't be consider a notable source of information, but ther have been discusion on the kde developers mailing list on whether rekonq should be made KDE default browser. So the situation is that rekonq is a young unmature browser with a big momentum behind it in the KDE free software developers community. It has for sure a future into KDE-based linux distro (about half of linux distro). So it is in the process of becoming notable... 4 month ago it was deleted. Today it is maybe. If it is still not yet okay, I will come back in a few month when the early kubuntu 10.10 review will be published in the tech press :-) ... Bzhb (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "It is not like there is a company that will do a press release for it..." - doesn't matter we don't list products on wikipedia on the back of press releases, nor should we developers announcements regardless of the medium. It's all about non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, even if it's open source if the world at large is interested in it, then others will write about it, --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I meant with press release is that journalist often makes an article about a product because they receive a press folder... anyway it is a bit out of the subject Bzhb (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest we wait for reliable sources to show up, but I'll defer to others with more knowledge of the area. Hobit (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliable sourcing for free, open-source software products is a perennial problem, but one thing's for sure: after that announcement, Rekonq should no longer be a redlink. I'd suggest the easy way round this is to redirect Rekonq to Konqueror#Web browser, and update Konqueror#Web browser with the new information. That way, we don't fall foul of any notability rules, and at least someone searching for Rekonq on Wikipedia will actually find something helpful about it.—S Marshall T/C 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that konqueror and rekonq doesn't fit that well together because they don't use the same technologies. There is moral filiation between to two, but not really a technology filiation. It is just that rekonq project is to "fix the problems" that konqueror has as a modern webbrowser, hence the name. In case it is choosen to do something like that, it could perhaps better fit with webkit, the underlaying engine. Bzhb (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point. For "Konqueror" in the post above, read "Webkit".—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Igbo players of American football (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:Igbo footballers (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:Igbo volleyball players (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:Igbo basketball players (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I've never started a deletion review before, and I'm not at all interested in having a fresh deletion debate on the merits of these categories. But I am interested to know if this close is a legitimate interpretation of the discussion that took place. From my point of view, I do not understand how the closer arrived at the conclusion he did based on the discussion that took place. Thanks Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes: The rationale in question is in the first CFD listed. The same rationale was applied by reference to three other CFDs listed above, in which the discussions to be interpreted were more or less the same (the same participants and opinions in each one), so I think whatever the result here it should apply to all four of the categories that were discussed. (This has been discussed with the closer, and he has said he is not persuaded to change his decision but has given an OK for the DRV.) Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closer. I would also like to know if this was correct, and if not by all means it should be overturned. Besides my closing comment, more discussion is here. In a nutshell: nominator's rationale was 1) "Category:Players of American football by nationality should only include nationalities, not ethnicities", and 2) "We shouldn't be categorizing by ethnicity and sport". Regarding first point, it does only include nationalities (Category:Igbo players of American football has entirely different parenage). Regarding second point: not proven, and if accepted we must, to be consistent, eliminate scores of similar categories, and this has not been fully discussed. Herostratus (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist-My first instinct was to overturn, as the close didn't reflect consensus in the debate, but upon further examination, I can understand the closer's reasoning. The nomination was made under a false understanding, namely that the category in question was a subcat of Category:Players of American football by nationality, which is not the case and never was. This was, no doubt, a good faith mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. From my point of view, that essentially invalidates the arguments from both User:Namiba (the nominator) and User:Mayumashu (the only reasoning given being "per nom"). That then leaves us with one keep and one merge, so the close was easily within admin discretion, although it could be argued that a no consensus might have been a better choice. However, we do have at least one editor raising a valid concern that the category is too specific and should be simply merged into Category:Igbo sportspeople. Thus, I'd suggest relisting the debate with that as the rationale. That way, the communtiy can evaluate that claim, without the process being tainted by concerns over a non-existent relationship to Category:Players of American football by nationality.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate the intent of suggesting a relist; I'm just not sure it would result in anything productive in this instance. The discussions were open for about 3 weeks and only resulted in a small amount of participation. If we re-open it and get nothing, I'm not sure we're any further ahead. What we really need is an assessment of whether a close like this is permissible at CFD when participation levels are low and unlikely to increase with relisting or remaining open any longer. If a close like this is OK, that's fine with me—I just would like to know one way or the other because I happen to close CFDs from time to time and would like some community guidance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse While the "merge denied" may be unusual wording, it reflects the lack of consensus at the CfD in question. There was simply no consensus one way or the other and the closer made the correct call here. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion (from original closer). May I suggest that the close be upheld as a close of a malformed CfD, but with no prejudice against a new, separate CfD being made and with no implied precedent being established (sort of like Bush vs. Gore). A person making a new CfD could then make the CfD based on a different argument(s), such as that we should not categorize to this level of detail or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P90X (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Why was the P90X article deleted? It contained factual information about the exercise program and was a good source of reference, especially on the length of the individual exercise DVDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.12.158 (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It was deleted as an advertisment. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I deleted the article because, as presented, it was an article which in my opinion did not claim or demonstrate significance or notability. On re-reading the deleted version I would still make this judgement. A much longer version was deleted an an advertisement by Fastily, who will doubtless if asked be happy to comment on his action. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I originally tagged it for speedy deletion after trying my best to rework the article. No matter what I did, it sounded like an advertisement, and I couldn't find any sources that weren't either written by fanatical users of the product or trying to sell it. Most of the sources that were already there were either written by the company that sold it, or taken from internet forums, so their accuracy was disputable. rzrscm (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy There was a previous AfD (which was withdrawn with 3 keep !votes and no delete !votes) so not eligible for a speedy. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Anthony.bradbury's deletion was pretty much on point. However, Fastily's deletion of this version (admins only) leaves me scratching my head. Granted, it had some fluff that needed to be toned down, but by no means did that version of the article meet G11. — ξ^xplicit 07:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural overturn, with liberty to relist on AFD. An article that has survived a previous AFD is not eligible for speedy, excepting newly-discovered copyvios. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no point overturning the deletion of the cached version; it doesn't stand a prayer at AfD. I presume the version subject to the AfD that BlanchardB closed as "keep" was substantially different. Can we see the best version of the article, please?—S Marshall T/C 20:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I undeleted the history to permit informed discussion. The fullest version is a few edits back, at [5] DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn- for one thing, it wasn't eligible for any sort of speedy, as Stifle pointed out above. For another, if taken to afd, there's plenty of reason that people would make good faith votes to keep, meaning its not a done deal that it would be deleted. Article could use work, yes, but doesn't look unsalvageable. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I'm stating this in reference to the version DGG has posted above me. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is the version that survived the AFD. This is the version that was G11ed by Fastily on May 21st, This is the recreated version by User:Dietcoke111 with a cheap shot at "administrators who are morons with too much time on their hands" that was deleted by Anthony.bradbury. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• On seeing the complete version DGG links, I'm happy with overturn.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the 21 May deletion since that version survived an AfD. Admittedly the AfD nom was withdrawn, but the discussion was clearly heading for a Keep consensus. The 23 May deletion by Anthony.bradbury was entirely proper. Hut 8.5 13:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Umbralcorax --Rajah (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Felt that the article was useful. Not perfect, but clearly not FUBAR'd. Dbk1441 (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]