Mikko.fi – Speedy deletion endorsed. As noted below, the article is not protected from recreation. A new draft that asserts notability and cites multiple secondary sources is welcome. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
I realise the site has only been online for four months, but it looks like it's already Finland's second-most popular online commerce website. There have already been tens of thousands of advertisements, with hundreds coming in every day. The site gets 37 thousand Google hits (the vast majority from Finnish websites) and has been advertised in Finnish print newspapers. JIP | Talk20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly valid A7 deletion of an article about a web-site that does not assert notability. 2nd in Finland isn't an assertion of notability - that comes from having multiple independant sources about a subject. Adverts are not reliable sources. If this site has created the buzz that you assert, there should be lots and lots of reliable sources out there and it should be trivial to provide them. SpartazHumbug!20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2nd in Finland may not be an assertion of notability, but it is an indication of importance/significance which is the standard for A7. WP:CSD#A7 explicitly states "This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need sources to assert notability, just to back it up. "Second-most popular site in Finland" is a valid assertation (or indication, if you want to use the current wording). From what I understand, the deleted article didn't say that, so it's a valid A7...but why not try and let a new article stand on it's own? You bring up a good point, though...Nom, can you come up with some valid sources? --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
allow re-creation The deleted article did in fact omit anything indicating it's importance, but if the new one can indicate this, it is enough to pass speedy. Market share--such as "2nd in Finland"--is an assertion of notability. When re-created, if the notability is challenged, it can then be sent to AfD. I remind JIP that it really does need some third party references to support the notability. DGG (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I assume that when someone creates an article that is speedy deleted if they have something more to assert in it they would recreate it with those assertions, as a good faith editor would do. Since no more has been added and no attempt to create one has been made, I can only assume that the deletion was proper. There is still opportunity for someone to create this article when and if they can. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Richard L. Hasen – Copyright violations are non-negotiable - we simply do not restore them and there is no version to revert to that is not tainted. There is no bar on your writing a new article from scratch – SpartazHumbug!19:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Kaltura - revised draft for review and approval – Undeleted as last actionable admin (admittedly unaware of this open DRV), redraft seems entirely reasonable and multiple authors have contributed, assuaging conflict of interest and spam concerns. Feel free to renominate at AfD if someone disagrees with this. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
I have been speaking with UsaSatsui and per his suggestion in the previous deletion review I submitted for Kaltura, I have created a new page in draft mode and would like for you to review it. UsaSatsui has already reviewed it and beyond a few small changes that he thinks could help, he feels it's in good shape. I have also sent it to one more admin to look at. Please review the draft I created User:Lishkee/Kaltura and let me know if it can be taken out of draft mode and published under Kaltura. Thank you!! Lishkee (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redraft to remove gushing prose Otherwise seems to have enough content and notability to survive. Drop me a line if you need someone to redraft it for you. SpartazHumbug!19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I would be happy for it to be worked on and toned down if you still think it reads like an advertisement. Spartaz - I'll be in touch with you for help, thanks!Lishkee (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article to distill out the bare facts. I have left a long note on the article talk page. Feel free to revert me if you don't like it and it still needs a good copy-edit since my time was limited. Notability is conferred by the awards but the article still needs some better sourcing. Blogs and selfpublished material are not reliable. To me at least its clearer what this should be about and less like an advert. SpartazHumbug!21:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it has sources that establish notability. The current revision looks okay. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
um... "several" might be an understatement; there are dozens of deletions there, on the user page alone. Note there was an MfD back in May that closed as "delete all subpages" as well; at that time, it was pointed out the editor in question has a strong focus on userspace, something that contribs would back up. I see no reason for this to be restored. Keep deleted.Tony Fox(arf!)16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. I see no reason to overturn the MFD, and I see no reason to make the admins jump through hoops every time this user wants something deleted or undeleted. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
