Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 February 23
2009 February 25 >

24 February 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Last Call (a cappella) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

PROD should have been contested LastCallACappella (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC) I'm hoping someone will be able to store my group's a cappella webpage. It was originally set up back in 2007 and deleted on September 23rd, 2007 by Animum (see page here). For some reason, the original account I set up the page with was not tied to an e-mail account, and thus I was never notified that my page had been marked for deletion. I'm hoping someone will be able to restore it. Thanks![reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Overturn Deleted H2onE2 page and Glacial respiration – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
H2onE2 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

page=[1] page=[2] page=[3]AM I not permited to be a user on wiki or have a page? page=book cover.jpg Nominations to overturn these deleted pages. It appears that a vigilantly administrator {{subst: NawlinWiki|PAGE_NAME}} H2onE2 (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC) is working to censor topics from wiki. With 1,000’s of books in distribution and over a 100,000 video watchers the H2onE2 work is not new information but has been officially released to the public; [www.H2onE2.com]Glacial Respiration, Conceptual Ring of Ice, The End of Linear Western Religion, A Geological Exploration of an E2 Earthen Planet And the H2 Human Species, Author: B Billy Marse, Professional Geologist. Copyright © 2007 by B Billy Marse, ISBN 13: 978-0-615-15819-8, Library of Congress Control Number: 2007935751. In addition the work was performed by a professional Geologist, so it is not outside his specialty. Free copies of the work will be made available to administrators interested in evaluating the work for overturning the deleted pages. Additional information can be found at [4] Videos inclueded in this material are Pyramid and Eye Secret Solved [5] Video uncovers Revelations as a nature environmental doomsday, experienced and predicted by a previously lived civilization. It is like Zeitgeist but more old School. Help me spread it around, grab the code and post it. The video only hints to the knowledge within the book www.H2onE2.com. Exodus Uncovered as a Climate Change Event [6] H2onE2, Emancipates, Exodus, as a survival manifesto. This is an allegory, placed out of timed historical reference, to hide, a 10,000 year old, account of survival, during the great flood, specifically, transition from glacial winter to global summer. Documents the Plight, the journey and dangers, experienced at a climate collapse, termed, Glacial Respiration,. Uncovering environmental change from Exodus, requires the assumption that the great flood of Noah, creation and Moses parting of the Red Sea are, the same event. Different stories, absorbed by the Jews, adopted, and assimilated into their scripture.[reply]

Proof to Evolution Found in the Two Promoting Conditions [7]

Two primary conditions promote evolution, The first,, is a changing or altering environment, this forces adaptation and offers a platform or stage for a new species to repopulate. The second force promoting evolution is a frequency of radiation, with a sufficient potency to damage the cell structure, code, finger print, without completely destroying the cell. H2 on E2, Glacial Respiration, Conceptual Ring of Ice, The End of Linear Western Religion A Geological Exploration of an E2 Earthen Planet And the H2 Human Species Author: B Billy Marse, Professional Geologist The Simplicity of Space [8] The Simplicity of Space The video demonstrates visually the simplicity of space and uncovers a series of cult icons. These images demonstrate that the simplicity of space knowledge is known,... More» just not to you. A more detailed understanding can be discovered in the book www.H2onE2.com. Additional videos are located on the website --H2onE2 (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC) H2onE2 (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now my User page has been tagged for speedy deletion=[9]this sounds more like a orginized group looks to eras me and my work for public view--H2onE2 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was deleted as a copyright violation; can we please get permission sent in from defensetech.org to [email protected] saying that the content is released under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0? Stifle (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What was deleted as a copyright violation? The user's talk page has indeed been tagged for speedy deletion, the edit summary says "blatant self ad for author, site, and book, recreated in userspace after speedy". I have to admit I sympathise as it very much looks as though the editor is using Wikipedia to advertise her self-published book. dougweller (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    H2onE2, the page requested to be restored, was deleted as a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user's name (and voice, which I have heard) indicate that it's "his" book. WillOakland (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the publisher or copyright holder needs to send in the above-mentioned permission release. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether copyright permission was granted, an article by this user just failed AFD. If that AFD result is upheld and the content of the other deleted pages was substantially the same, then they should stay deleted. (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is really no point in asking the user to do the formalities of releasing copyright when the content is clearly unacceptable on other grounds also. DGG (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glacial respiration. The content of this article was different but it still exists solely to promote the author's original "research". --Stormie (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
apt-X (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

An editor who initially created this previously deleted page has recreated it without any formal review after two prior deletions, but there do seem to be a fair number of (marginal but extant) third party sources available to back up a case for notability. For transparency's sake, can we get someone to restore the talk page and the history of the article proper? MrZaiustalk 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's nothing worth restoring from what I can see. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing additional there, but I can email them to you if you like DGG (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah - I'll take your word for it. Thanks folks, MrZaiustalk 12:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Sons of Eilaboun – Recreation permitted with sources. A straight restoration doesn't seem to me to be a good idea, since the old content at The Sons of Eilaboun is almost entirely original research and that at Sons of Eilaboun rather a link farm. The ideal solution is for someone to write a sourced, neutral version from scratch. History-only undeletion could be considered later if it makes sense. – Chick Bowen 00:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sons of Eilaboun (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Number 57 deleted the article about the documentary film "Sons of Eilaboun", I send him a message asking him to undelete the article but he did not reply! Please undelete the article" Sons of Eilaboun", This article is about a documentary film that won an award, and was featured in many film festivals as well it is in the imdb website: www.imdb.com/title/tt1249418 Al-Awda Award for the best documentary, Palestine Carthage film Festival, Tunis Izmir Short Film Festival, Turkey Boston Palestine Film Festival AMAL Euro-Arab film festival, Spain Palestinian Perspectives, Canada And many other film festivals and events! I don't see any reason to delete it put political. Please undelete this article! AmirCohen (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. The deletion was logged as a G4 (recreation of deleted content) but there is no indication as to which deletion process originally deleted the page. I'm open to reconsideration if one is pointed out. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Found it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sons of Eilaboun. Can the nominator explain why the expressed consensus at that debate should not be abided by? Stifle (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation if more reviews can be actually cited. The deletes were based on 1/ there being no reviews, but there is a full review in Aljazera [10], gven during the debate, and some were alluded to in other languages but not actually cited (note: the review in Al-Ahram I remarked on in the debate is merely a mention). 2/Lack of IMdB entry, which can merely reflect cultural bias. 3/the very low quality of the article, which was mainly about the event, not the film, but this is a reason for editing, not deletion 4/COI, which is not a reason to delete 5/whether or not the award was notable, about which nothingwas proven either way. 6/incorrect arguments adduced in support of the article e.g."growing popularity",which of course is not the same as actually being popular & notable If there are multiple reviews it qualifies, but let a better article get written. DGG (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a userpage version with proper sourcing that demonstrates that the film passes WP:MOVIE and ask an established editor to move it to article space (getting someone else to do it is a good way to demonstrate good faith - if you want when you've completed the userspace version you can contact me on my talk page and I'll have a look - I like to think of myself as "in good standing"). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion at the time was reasonable, but as DGG says, there is now coverage. [11] isn't too bad as coverage goes. No objection to sending back to AfD in a few weeks to see what people think of the sources if someone feels that's the right thing to do. Hobit (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation I think the article should be recreated, because this documentary film is important historical documentary of a topic that is being ignored. Additional to that the film have a imdb entry ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1249418 ), won a important Palestinian award, such films will never win an Oscar because of political reasons. The film was screened in many film festivals and events in many courtiers like USA, Canada, Turkey, Tunisia, Palestine, Israel, Australia, Germany. An article in Aljazeera was written about the film and many Arabic news papers (see http://www.sonsofeilaboun.com/in-press ), and it was mention in an article in Al-Ahram. Ilan Pappe the Israeli historian is featured in the film, and gives a historical background. The film maker is a very respected Palestinian visual artist, and I don't know why Wikipedia have no article about him. AmirCohen (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Obrienaudition1.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This image had been selected for deletion, and was deleted unnecessarily as the result of a discussion that began on February 15 and ended on February 22. Furthermore, the consensus of the discussion (contradictory to the closing admin's actions) was to keep. I count a total of four "Delete" and a total of 12 "Keep" and two "Strong Keep" arguments with one strikeout (possible vandalism?) and one comment. The majority of the discussion's vote and comments leaned towards "Keep." The image in question clearly illustrated Conan's audition for the job as host of "Late Night" and furthermore supplanted the text with an image in Conan's early days from the show (something that was lacking in the article). The image was of significiant value to not only the "Late Night with Conan O'Brien article but also Conan O'Brien's own article. I also find it quite coincidental that this image was selected for deletion in the last week of his show's tenure on the air. I'm new here to the deletion review process (and forgive me if I've posted this incorrectly; admins feel free to make changes as necessary), but this image (as per the consensus of the deletion discussion) should not have been deleted. Srosenow 98 (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The policy-based reasons for deletion outweigh arguments like "keep, it's important", "keep for historic reference", "keep, all that needs to be said is said", and "keep... quit whining". Wikipedia aims to be the free encyclopedia, and the default for non-free content is that it should not be used. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (from closing admin). The Keep discussions centered around the claim it is a historically significant image, however, no referenced sources were in the articles or provided in the discussion to support the claim. -Nv8200p talk 15:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion/Comment There were plenty of sources in both articles making mention of his audition for the job on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno set and his audition in general. Furthermore, Conan (at that time) was an unknown, as opposed to the others who auditioned for the job. I think if we're going to have an image of Conan O'Brien in either the Late Night or his own article, it would provide a historically significant look into how he looked back then to include the image that was deleted. Also, the policy-based discussions made no sense. There were only four and they all brought up the same point. There was no further support of the deletion claims, and the "Keep" comments (which did outweigh them with a vast majority" lent credence that the image should've been kept. With only four "Delete" comments and a total of 12 "Keep" and two "Strong keep" arguments, common sense says that the consensus of the discussion was to keep the image, not delete it. Srosenow 98 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think if we're going to have an image..." "... it would provide a historically significant..." and this is the problem, you think as did the other supporters, however it's not a question of what you or I as wikipedia editors think, it's a question of what does the rest of the world think. Do they present this as a historically significant image? If so can you point to that (i.e. source it)? --81.104.39.44 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment First, a screenshot of a copyrighted program (even an audition or a pilot) does not in any way fall under an "Original Research" clause. Second, it is widely known and is stated on both the Late Night with Conan O'Brien article (as well as the article for Conan O'Brien himself that he auditioned on the set of the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Both mentions of that are cited with valid references (which were missed in the original deletion debate somehow). All images of Conan O'Brien on both articles are very recent, and since Conan O'Brien was a television unknown (with no hosting experience whatsoever), it would help explain and illustrate his audition (and his awkwardness as host, which is apparent by watching the first episode of the show, available on YouTube). The arguments that the image in question failed NFCC #1 and NFCC #8 are moot, especially #1 (replaceable by a free image or text alone). Since we're dealing with a screenshot of a copyrighted program, it's irreplaceable in that regard, and text alone cannot illustrate its historical significance and the fact that he was a television unknown auditioning for a widely popular television program. Srosenow 98 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The image itself is not OR, but the suggestion that the image is "historically significant" can be - unless you can provide sources which comment on this image or at least the event and consider it historically significant. A WP:NONFREE motivation can be OR and needs to be sourced, just as much as article content. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The general requirement will be that the image had some sort of critical commentary, and in the instance of historically important image it isn't unreasonable to expect that commentary will cover that. If you can't source that it is historically significant, you can't say so without it being WP:OR. If you can't give critical commentary as to it's historical significance, then I would suggest that it isn't actually historically signficant. The sourcing that he auditioned on the set, doesn't automatically make that image historicially significant. Watching you tube videos and drawing conclusions is almost certainly falling foul of WP:OR --81.104.39.44 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn while it may be OR to call this a significant image, it pretty clearly is. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm unaware of NFCC guidelines not allowing opinions (or "OR") when it comes to subjective matters. Hobit (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well wikipedia isn't an exercise in rule making, just because everything isn't spelled out in simple terms doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist. In this and similar cases it's not directly about the NFCC policy, it's about our basic editorial standards. If we are presenting this in the article as a historically significant image, then it falls under the content policies every bit as much as text. If on the other hand we are not presenting this in the article as an historically significant image, it then seems quite a stretch to then to keep a non-free image on the basis of it being historicall significant. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also add that many of the inclusion criteria are meant to try and eliminate the subjective elements as far as is practical. I would have thought for the foundation's stance on non-free content this would be particularly true, I doubt they would support a criteria which suggested that the basic principal could be undermined purely on subjective grounds. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - competently closed on basis of arguments, instead of vote counting. The historically important argument was clearly spurious, and discredited. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there's nothing iconic about this image, just screaming "it's historic" doesn't make it so. Nobody articulated what makes this particular image historic and I must be too dumb to see it. --B (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think you both clearly have no understanding of the subject matter. Conan O'Brien was a complete unknown, with no hosting experience at the time, and that particular screenshot helped illustrate his auditioning process. Text alone shouldn't suffice. Srosenow 98 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but in the absence of sources that indicate this was noteworthy, that's irrelevant. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No? I'm unaware of our image guidelines requiring sources (or even mentioning them) to prove an opinion. Am I missing something? How relevant something is is an opinion... Hobit (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Is he flipping the bird in the picture? Was the video fraudulently edited? Is the video famous (ie the Zapruder film)? Is there something so historically significant about the video that not having a screenshot inhibits the ability of the user to understand the topic? No. It's just a random screenshot of his audition. There is nothing whatsoever significant about the image itself. There is no fair use defense whatsoever for using it. His audition may have been a significant event in his life, but not every significant thing needs a picture. Here's the question that you need to answer - what information does this picture convey that text alone cannot convey? In articles like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Kent State shootings, these images are so famous that not including them in the article inhibits your understanding. Mere words don't do them justice. But what in the world is it about this screenshot of Conan that matters can you not say in text? The fact that the event happened is all that matters - the picture is purely decorative. --B (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think B's comment about just screaming "historic" explains the problem more clearly than what I said. Editors who vote 'keep' with a reasoning of 'historic' for an non-historic image can't seriously expect the closing admin is just going to count votes. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the problem with the argument (and why I posted this here in the first place) is that consensus clearly dictated that the image should stay. Policy based or not, the votes were strong on the Keep side and they were thrown out like garbage. What ever happened to "consensus" in this case? It's a pretty sad sight to see common sense (in this case, the original xfd argument and its final vote count) thrown out the window. It's a wonder I still contribute here. The bureaucratic bullshit - excuse the language - is way over the top. If we're gonna follow this idiotic logic, let's take the Mt. St. Helens eruption of May 18, 1980. A rather significant eruption in geologic history and it's certainly no secret it happened. Why don't we remove the images of it because "not every significant event needs a photo." Sure, he wasn't flipping the camera off, nor is it an edited video, but the fact of the matter is that it was a screenshot taken of Conan O'Brien when he was a complete unknown auditioning for a television show that was already widely popular. Not only that, but it was the only image on Wikipedia that illustrated his appearance at or around the time that Late Night debuted (which has changed quite a bit since then). The fact that he was a television unknown (with a few small parts in SNL and having been a behind-the-scenes writer @ the Simpsons as exceptions) should be far more than enough to warrant the inclusion of the image in both articles. It was also pretty ironic that the image was tagged for this nonsense right at around the time his last episode was airing - which makes the image even more significant in context. If I were an admin here, I would've kept the image up. It shouldn't have been deleted. Srosenow 98 (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't just ignore policy because it's convenient or because of a large headcount. There are some policies which by nature of our project goals are non-negotiable (such as verifiability, copyright infringement etc.) The non-free content policy is in place from a foundation level to meet our project goals of being a free encyclopedia, it can't just be superceded even if every editor on wikipedia decided, forget the "free" bit when it comes to images (in fact IIRC the foundation made more of this when individual wiki's did start loosening their stances on non free content). Also see Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus - "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." If you apply the part about "based on opinion", that pretty much covers much of what has been said here in support of the image. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • List of Kuwaiti companies – Overturned. On the one hand, I think it's important to note that what DGG calls for below--habitual relisting for articles edited toward the end of an AfD--has never been policy and shouldn't be. I don't read this review as a precedent toward that end. On the other hand, there's consensus here that the article as it existed at the time of deletion accounted for the principal objections. Can be relisted at any time by any editor. – Chick Bowen 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Kuwaiti companies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was an AfD from July 2008. While at the time the closure may have seemed reasonable, I think it was an anomalous AfD in light of the result at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of companies of the Bahamas, and the existence of many similar lists in Category:Lists of companies by country. See the article as it was at deletionpedia. The objection to the list seemed to be mostly based on it being advertising and promotional, but these comments do not appear to accurately describe the list as it was apparently rewritten by User:mazca. Many of the companies on this list appear to be notable and at least half have articles in Wikipedia, so a list here should be reasonable. It also seemed that there may have been procedural problems with that AfD, in that there was no comment in that AfD for a full 11 days after nomination, a bunch of comments happened in a 24-hour period after a relist, but then no comments were made after an apparently significant rewrite. I recommend overturning the AfD for consistency's sake and to combat systemic bias against non-English speaking countries. DHowell (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and restore as nom. DHowell (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you say what this list would do that Category:Companies of Kuwait does not? (And don't tell me to read WP:CLN; I don't find that guideline persuasive.) Stifle (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It organizes it as a single list instead a bunch of subcategories that are more difficult to navigate; it provides a short description of each company; and, assuming that any redlinked companies are notable, it provides potential subjects for articles we haven't written yet. To get the same information that this would provide in a single convenient list, I'd have to click on every subcategory and every article in order to see with the category system. And I'd still have no way within Wikipedia to identify notable Kuwaiti companies for which we do not happen to have articles. DHowell (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. and edit I do find that guideline persuasive, and in any case it is the accepted guideline. Similar lists brought to afd now are generally kept on that basis if there is no better reason than "duplicates a category". They are in fact complementary, because a list can give additional information, and include people obviously qualified for which there are not yet articles. This particular list gave the information in a much too expansive style, but it was edited during the course of the debate and I see nothing much wrong with it except that I'd trim the style a little further. The closer, as is frequently the case, did not take into account last minute changes--probably the best course when that happens in an afd, is to continue the afd for another 5 days. DGG (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my closure. The last minute changes were constructive, but didn't constitute a rewrite. There was a clear consensus, and I don't believe the close was procedurally flawed. PhilKnight (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you honestly believe the constructive changes did not address the deletion arguments? Can you tell me exactly how the deletion arguments apply to the final state of the article before it was deleted? DHowell (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removing the external links probably fully addressed the advert concerns, however, in my humble opinion, not the other views. I guess part of the reason we differ, is that from my perspective, arguing that a list duplicates a category is entirely reasonable. Sure, if the red links were sourced, then deleting the article would be removing sourced content, which should usually be avoided. However, given the redlinks were unsourced, then I consider the 'duplicates a category' argument to be valid. Anyway, based on the discussion here, I don't have any objection to recreating the article. PhilKnight (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close was procedurally correct; it isn't salted, so go ahead and put your new article right there making sure that it doesn't run afoul of the problems leading to its deletion in the first place or it will be speedy deleted. I'm not buying a pig in a poke. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that "my new article" would substantially be similar to what was eventually deleted, but I don't see how the deletion arguments made apply to the article as it was when it was finally deleted. How, specifically, do you suggest I recreate this article, avoid a G4 speedy, and not "run afoul of the problems leading to its deletion in the first place"? DHowell (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Looking at the difference between the last revision before deletion and the revision from its nomination, there is a significant change. It isn't a whole new article, but it is greatly improved. I don't want to overturn the decision...going too far down the road of asking the closing admin to examine the article in detail (rather than focus more on the discussion) leads us to bad places. But I do think it is reasonable to recreate it. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, an allowed recreation would either be wasted effort (rewriting the same content) or a copy of the deletopedia content (without edit history, a GFDL violation). Better to restore the final version with history. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Article improved after consensus for deletion was reached. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorese The AfD was properly carried out. The other AfD you cite wasn't closed correctly as it was done by a non-admin, and it had more than a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. These NACs by this user really need to be looked at. Themfromspace (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Firstly let me make clear that this is not a request to reinstate the article on Web 3.0. I agree that it is important that articles on Wikipedia are useful, well researched, and able to cite relevant authorities - otherwise it just becomes a web-publishing platform for anyone's viewpoint on anything; and I do understand some of the reasoning behind the most recent deletion of Web 3.0. However ... this is a term used in the media and within the industry, meaning people will search for it, so I am prepared to add a sub-section to Web 2.0 to cover this, and redirect the term Web 3.0. To that end, could I have access to the last published version so that I can prepare this? Thanks. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_24&oldid=1138435304"