Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 11

< November 10	Deletion review archives: 2008 November	November 12 >

11 November 2008[edit]

Hammes Co. – Improved article restored to correct title. Yay! Creation of redirect and listing at AfD at editorial discretion as normal. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I don't understand why this company would be deleted. Should I have called it "Hammes Company"? I wasn't sure. Anyway, I think they have done a good job making a positive contribution to the country. I don't know why this was deleted, but could someone undelete and let me edit it so that it passes any sort of problems? I'm certain that I can make it a positive addition to Wikipedia, and that's all I wanted to do. You can change the title to "Hammes Company" if that works as well. Please let me know. I'll try to leave that note on the admin's page who deleted it, but her talkpage is kind of confusing! Jmh153 (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

For clarity, Hammes Co. was deleted as it was a redirect to Hammes Company, which was in turn deleted due to the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammes Company. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can userfy the page if you like. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could "userfy" the page for me (I guess under the name Hammes Company, so it's correct), then I could edit it so it can be approved? Let me know what needs to be done so this page can stay! Thanks for your time as well! Jmh153 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Jmh153's version of the article is not identical with the version which was discussed in the previous AfD, my first thought was that it could be undeleted for open discussion as before, perhaps on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammes Company (2nd nomination), or perhaps that discussion could take place here and/or on the talk page of the userfied version. (Note that two admins protected "Hammes Company" from creation by users other than admins.) — Athaenara ✉ 18:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what's going on? Sorry, I'm just confused by all of this. Jmh153 (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The specific page you have complained about, Hammes Co., was not an article, but a redirect. This is a linking mechanism. The article you actually posted was at Hammes Company. But a previous article was at that name, and that previous article was deleted after a deletion discussion. Your article there was deleted as a recreation of the article deleted in the older discussion. The debate here is now turning towards whether that deletion of your version (as a recreation) was proper or not.

So the debate to this point has mostly been sorting out the history of what happened, what was deleted and at what names. Now that it's mostly sorted out, the debate of the propriety of the deletion that appears to be at the core of your complaint can commence. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the debate is turning towards whether the latest G4 deletion was proper, I have restored and userfied the article at User:Jmh153/Hammes Company. Now the whole history can be seen by anyone wishing to express an opinion. The original AFD deletion was very early on Sept 7, with several recreations being G4ed over the next couple of days. JMH's version was initially created on Oct 29. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone create the userfied version of that page so I can edit and then present in front of the moderators of Wikipedia? Or possibly un-lock the Hammes Company name so I can finalize it? Jmh153 (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. (See my post just above this.) You asked for it while I was writing up my summary of my userification actions. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! How do I get the User: part off of the article now? What's the next step? Jmh153 (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your next step should be to let this DRV debate play out over the next few days, and continue to edit the user space version where it is to improve it's chances of surviving another deletion debate, if that is the outcome of this review. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I'll do what I can on my end and hope that this review comes out positively. Jmh153 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn G4 and start a new AFD as per Athaenara, the admin who executed the latest G4. The new version is massively less spammy to me, and is definitely majorly different than the previously AFDed version. And when the G4 deleting admin opines for allowing the recreate and holding a new deletion discussion, that speaks volumes to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move User:Jmh153/Hammes Company into article space - I added some referenced info to the draft. It now has some structure and is ready for the big time. -- Suntag ☼ 02:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did the recommended and put your information in chronological order. Can someone please make this "Hammes Company" now, instead of "User:Jmh153/Hammes Company" now? If not, let me know what else I should do. Jmh153 (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be up to whatever admin closes this review. These generally run at least five days. Until this review is closed, there's not a lot more you can do, sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to article space from Jmh's user space. I think listing at afd is optional, if anyone seriously thinks it can or should be deleted. DGG (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the main reason I suggested it is that an AfD which concluded to keep would give it some protection from repeated speedy deletions. — Athaenara ✉ 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As would a Restore result from this DRV debate, even without the AFD afterward. :) - 14:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasAndroid (talk • contribs)

Good point. I moved the page back into article namespace as per the apparent consensus here. Should "Hammes Co." be a redirect to it? — Athaenara ✉ 15:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Creole_(markup) – Deletion endorsed without prejudice against a rewritten version addressing the concerns of the AfD. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This deletion happened very much under the radar screen. The Creole markup is used by many wikis. It has been discussed on several conferences. Papers have been published on the subject and such illustrious people as Ward Cunningham have spoken out in their amazement that this article was deleted. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering a couple things:
1. Why was the admin who deleted this page neither consulted prior to bringing the matter here nor notified of the deletion review listing, as the instructions require?
2. Why the 5-month delay before listing this deletion review?
3. Are you aware that deletion review is for calling attention to failures to follow the deletion process, and is not, for the most part, a venue to advance new arguments (or re-advance old ones) which should properly have been made at the AFD discussion?
Stifle (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ad 1. I tried to find out how to revoke the deletion and wasn't even able to find this page, until Gerard pointed it out. Wikipedia processes are simply complicated so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. If you know how to find out who needs to be involved, can you please pull them in?

Ad 3. If this is not the right place to revoke the deletion, where and how to do it then?
Dirk Riehle (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He managed to find this place and make this listing without any problem; it seems difficult to understand how he would not also notice the bolded instructions saying "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look" and "Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster".

has not yet been addressed.

From Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome".

Simply, deletion review is a "safety valve" in case an admin goes off and deletes an article against consensus or in violation of the speedy deletion process. In legal terms, appeals can only be taken here on a point of law. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Stifle for bringing this to my attention. I second his questions. Also, the unchallenged AFD cited the lack of 3rd party sources, an issue you have not remedied here. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - no errors in process in the AFD, no new arguments or evidence presented here to support restoration. Suggest the nominator write a draft in namespace with proper sourcing if it exists. Otto4711 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original page was a stub and needed more elboration. Why it was deleted is unclear to me. As to additional arguments, more wiki engines have adopted Wiki Creole since then, and more papers have been written. I can cite my own additional research papers if you like:

Martin Junghans, Dirk Riehle, Rama Gurram, Matthias Kaiser, Mario Lopes, Umit Yalcinalp. An EBNF Grammar for Wiki Creole 1.0. In ACM SIGWEB Newsletter, Volume 2007, Issue Winter (Winter 2007), ACM Press, 2008. Article 4.
Martin Junghans, Dirk Riehle, Umit Yalcinalp. An XML Interchange Format for Wiki Creole 1.0 In ACM SIGWEB Newsletter, Volume 2007, Issue Winter (Winter 2007), ACM Press, 2008. Article 5.
Martin Junghans, Dirk Riehle, Rama Gurram, Matthias Kaiser, Mário Lopes, Umit Yalcinalp. “A Grammar for Standardized Wiki Markup.” In Proceedings of the 2008 International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym ‘08). ACM Press, 2008. Forthcoming.

Dirk Riehle (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I suggest writing a draft in your userspace. Otto4711 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just rewrite if it has references and the deleted version didn't, it will not be subject to speedy deletion. That's the odd thinking about deletion review--almost always you can just go and rewrite. Of course it may end up at afd again, but no matter what we said here, it could still end up at afd again. and, I think it very unworthy of us to raise procedural objections to people who are trying to rescue articles no matter how long after. DGG (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - The closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. There are some scholarly papers.[1] However, they need to be independent of the topic. I did find an article using the topic in a footnote: "One project, entitled Creole, seeks to create a common wiki markup language enabling users "to transfer content seamlessly across wikis."[2]. -- Suntag ☼ 02:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; no reason I can see to overturn. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.