Weak restore as redirect. Assuming that the term stays on the list a redirect is appropriate. However, I see that the citation for this entry in Urban Dictionary. Is that generally considered reliable enough to support a listing? Eluchil404 (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe so, Urban Dictionary is used by many ISPs and companys for abuse and language filters. ♥ Solarra ♥♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀—Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment the sources mentioned below address my concerns. My feeling is that to the extent the RfD relied on WP:IDONTLIKEIT it is invalid and to the extent it relied on the term not being in the target article it has been superseded. As such the deletion should be overturned and the redirect restored. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and oppose restoration. Anyone can add a definition to Urband Dictionary; it is most definitely not a reliable source. I'm removing the term from the list until it is cited to a reliable source. As for the redirect, there was a clear consensus that it was harmful, useless, and/or WP:MADEUP and should be deleted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that's a really poor source which I doubt would be accepted within any other article. It merely tells of existance of the term as used by one person in one context, expands none of the greater understanding of the term, doesn't give and indication of prevelance of use etc. that's pretty much WP:OR it's mentioned here and I fully understand it as X so I can include it as X --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced it with a better source. That said, I am still reluctant to overturn a unanimous RfD consensus that a redirect is harmful. If the redirect is restored, it should be immediately listed at RfD to develop a full consensus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dictionary is the textbook definition of an unreliable source. Endorse deletion and keep salted, until we have at least some significant coverage in reliable sources. Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to a redirect, per Tarc. Tim Song (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Taking into account that the term is potentially offensive, it's presence in Wikipedia requires really a good source to demonstrate that the term is notable. By the way, you could discuss this with me, before going straight to DRV. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comment All I am trying to do is make that article list of ethnic slurs complete so that redirect vandalism doesn't occur, if the term is not notable than we should keep Niglet salted and delete the term from the list. ♥ Solarra ♥♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Create redirect and restore entry to article. - Usage in a major motion picture[1], noted in the book "White out: the Continuing Significance of Racism" [2], and Chris Rock's Niglet SNL sketch [3]. That should be enough to establish that it exists beyond the confines of urbandictionary. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion, but now restore redirect per nom and Tarc. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Stop at Willoughby restated his argument above on my talk page, and I have to admit, I really don't like the idea of overturning the discussion as the consensus was clear. That said, the discussion made it fairly plain (as one of the originally nommed redirects was withdrawn) that if there was solid sourcing, keeping the redirect would be acceptable. I think new information has gotten us there and we are meeting the spirit of the discussion. But no objection to a relist so it can be discussed more completely. Hobit (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Updated bolded part to make it plain I think the admin's deletion was a good and proper close given the information available at the time. Hobit (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
restore redirect based on Tarc's references. --Stormie (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure but permit restoration. The consensus in the RfD was clear, and so the closure was proper. However Tarc provides information not considered in that discussion that shows the redirect is warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I believe I had adequately addressed the issues raised at the deletion debate by editing Richey Edwards appropriately and adding relevant secondary sourcing, actions which, given the limited rationale of the closer, I have no idea if they were seen or taken note of. Since I have contacted the closing admin previously regarding a different deletion and received no response, I am coming straight here. HidingT 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think you should have talked to the deleting admin about this first. If you're not sure of whether he saw your comments, then you should have asked him. In any case, a closing rationale from Fastily would be much appreciated. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misread me. I already contacted Fastily on another deletion and received no reply, therefore saw I'd be better served coming here first. The point of this debate is to discuss the close, not the protocol. Is it a good close? Given that the reasons for deletion were addressed? HidingT 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not misread you; rather, I merely wish to note that you should have raised this with Fastily first, regardless of your prior experience, and asked him whether he took your latter comment into account. I personally would have closed the debate as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Fastily's deletion was a poor decision. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist so that Hiding's argument, raised late in the FfD, may be fully considered. Tim Song (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no explanation for the close has shown up and the reasons to keep seem at least as strong as the arguments for deletion. It may be that the closer saw something else, but if so he's not sharing. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I did look at this at the time, but didn't get round to commenting on it or closing it. For me, Hiding's changes to the Richey Edwards article didn't go far enough to meet NFCC #8, and I have trouble seeing how they ever could have done. I see magazine covers as generally being replaceable by text where the message boils down to "X appeared on the cover of magazine Y". To have a good case under NFCC #8, it should be something more like the use of a Vogue cover in the Anna Wintour article which was debated (see here) some days before this case. Your mileage may vary. That's why we have deletion review. Angus McLellan(Talk) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Angusmclellan's arguments are compelling but a relist so that the new arguments by Hiding can be considered would not be unreasonable. Cunard (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
NetWrix Corporation – Request declined a userspace draft, preferably written by someone without a conflict of interest is probably required here. – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
I'd like to review the former NetWrix Corporation page to find out why it was deleted. The page is no longer accessible, but if possible, I'd like to have the former page sent to my account (SMschimmel) in order to find out what was wrong with it and edit/improve it for future submission. SMschimmel (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, write a userspace draft. The page content was a single paragraph that was pure marketing speak. It was rightly speedy deleted as spam (WP:CSD#G11) and then repeatedly recreated several times, all on a single day in August 2007. The content was very likely a copyright violation of the company's website and/or marketing material so I am not going to restore it as it would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopaedic and free from copyright issues. Given this, it would be much better for you to create a userspace draft from a source that is not 2½ years out of date. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn salting The relevant policy is at WP:SALT, which designates creation-protection ("salting") as a purely preventative measure. This title was apparently salted by the deleting admin, Beetstra(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), and subsequently converted to cascading protection by another admin. While salting this title made sense as a preventative measure at the time (to stop further spamming), this is no longer clearly the case.A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose re-creation per JzG. So much for "no longer clearly the case" that spamming will occur if the title is unsalted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Show us a userspace draft and we can discuss unsalting. Tim Song (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. "Stephen Schimmel, Product Manager, NetWrix Corporation." See WP:COI and WP:BAI. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deny request, as per Thryduuly and Tim Song. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
