The rational for deletion was the person in the article was "not a major figure in the OSS movement" as well as due to unreferenced notability. Certainly the ASF is a notable organization, and a leader in the OSS movement. The person in the article is a co-founder of the ASF, has been elected to the board each and every year since the foundation of the ASF, had been elected as EVP/Secretary since the start and has recently been elected Chairman of the ASF. Since the ASF is based on merit, if the members and peers of the ASF are so inclined to award the person with these responsibilities, it indicates his notability within the ASF and the OSS movement in general. A/UX was a noteworthy OS for Apple and the person was the editor of the A/UX FAQ and was a prolific porter and coder of A/UX code, as well as the admin for the jagubox server, noted in all A/UX documentation. Evidence of this can be found on various jagubox mirrors which contain copies of ported and original code. Slashdot did have a specific Apache section and Jim Jagielski was the editor for that section, based on his involvement and in that area (see http://apache.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/10/198257). Note: I am the person in question, so certainly I am admittedly biased. Certainly this may seem "promotional" but the facts remain that the content is correct and corresponds to a person who has made significant contributions to the OSS movement, even if just for the ASF connections. Similar to the re-instatement of Greg_Stein and the continued availability of Sam_Ruby and Ken_Coar, for example (Note: Suggested changes have been made to page at User:ChristTrekker/Jim_Jagielski). Jimjag (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decidedly neutral. It appears to me that the proposed new version does pass WP:N, but the problems with sources still have yet to be addressed. More sources are needed first. It is also in need of quite a bit of cleanup, but sources should come first. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation and List - I don't have access to the original page but there is enough in the userfied version plus some reasonable material from here to make it worth a second look. Note to creator: avoid phrases like "leading expert" unless you can closely source them! BlueValour (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace and list at AfD. The article hasn't changed much since the AfD, except for new references, which are -- of course -- crucial. I'm not sure of notability, but the article escape G4 and deserve another hearing. Xoloz (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
prejudicial and uninformed attitudes and gross bias of a subject which has laboratory tested scientific foundations and with these foundations reaffirmed in papers published in the fields of Psychology, Psychiatric Biology and Medical Genetics. Please visit http://pdc-psyche.net/reviews.htmArnauld (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Article was deleted as original research with no prejudice against a new referenced article. How was there prejudice, uninformed attitudes and gross bias? --SmashvilleBONK! 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse it was the correct consensus that it was at present an essay without specific sources. If you can write a good article on this subject, do so in your user space. DGG (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; consensus was clear, article was original research, and DRV is not the place to rehash arguments on the merits anyways. Close was good, end of story. — Coren(talk) 18:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't have access to the article but I am happy to accept the judgements above. The point I would make is that there are sufficient sources available for an encycloaedic page so the nominator should accept the invitation to produce a cited rewrite. BlueValour (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This deletion has made a significant impact to the organisation of the beer articles, and yet appears to only involve discussion between two users. When the beer categories were organised there was a widespread notification and involvement of interested parties to establish a working convention and appropriate consensus. Discussion here and here. Given the background and complexity of these beer cats I am suggesting the cats that have been changed are restored and a wider discussion and consensus is sought for the best way forward. The admin who closed this debate is on a wikibreak, which is why I have brought it straight here. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, it wasn't deleted, just renamed - see Category:Beer and breweries by country for the new category - and it looks like there was pretty good agreement on the project page. --B (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may be missing something, or there may be a misunderstanding. I don't see a discussion on the project page to remove or rename or restructure the supercat Beer and breweries by region, which held the main cats: Category:Beer and breweries in Europe, which then held the subcats Beer and breweries in Germany, etc. I only see the discussion on this page, which is between Vegaswikian and Hmains. I have pointed out above that a considerable amount of users took part in the discussion to shape and create the system which has now been changed by the two users. Perhaps I am going about this the wrong way. My concern is that the beer categorisation system which took some discussion and thought to create has been altered without wide consensus. I feel that a change like this should have the opportunity of a wider discussion. If people feel this CfD has been handled correctly, what should I do now to get an appropriate discussion going on whether the current system is generally preferred to the previous system? Should I put Category:Beer and breweries by country up for CfD - suggesting that it be renamed Category:Beer and breweries by region, which is then subdivided by Category:Beer and breweries in Africa. The current renaming has led to the odd situation of continental and multiregion cats being subcategories of a country cat - and the European cat being deleted completely! I'm sure the guys were well meaning, but I think they didn't pay close enough attention to what they were doing, or of how many people were involved in the original discussions. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Actually, consensus to rename looked pretty darn clear. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, agree with Smashville and B. --Kbdank71 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure people are looking at the right discussion. The ones I link above are to the discussions that originally took place to create the supercat Beer and breweries by region and related subcats. The discussion under review is this one in which the last comment by Hmains is "comment to administrator This nomination should be re-listed since we only had a concrete proposal two days ago." SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're reading the same one. It was closed and renamed. --SmashvilleBONK! 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
article was speedy deleted, but there are multiple articles written about the WHATWG and their draft of HTML5. it also seems the deleting admin is going to be unavailable from wikipedia for three weeks. riffic (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Edit history and representatives from big-name hi tech companies makes this a case for community investigation. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm speedily restoring, article exists in five different languages. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
