Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 January 13
2010 January 15 >

14 January 2010[edit]

  • OptiPNG – There is no consensus to overturn this AfD. However, there is considerable feeling that a merge would be appropriate, which I will editorially suggest. – Chick Bowen 00:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
OptiPNG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as "no consensus" by nose counting. Pcap ping 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely wrong. I explained my rationale very clearly. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I might have read this as a consensus to delete, given the weakness of the keep votes and strength of the keep votes, but I also think it was within the admin's discretion to read it as no consensus. I don't think the closure was an "incorrect interpretation" of the debate - there was more than one interpretation open to the closing admin and "no consensus" was one of them. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Can anyone point to a "keep" argument in that discussion that wasn't "exceedingly weak and relied on unverified claims" to use Julian's exact wording? Pcap ping 22:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused... are you arguing that it should have been deleted? –Juliancolton | Talk 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and delete - Juliancolton, you did not clearly explain your rationale for your 'no consensus' close. which were the 'keep' votes that you weighed heavy enough for there to be "no consensus"? which keep votes were backed by policy? as far as i can tell, not a single keep vote was policy based. however, the delete votes point out that there is not a single third party, reliable source that has been presented. not one. how can there be no consensus when not a single "keep" vote had valid reasoning behind it? the "delete"s, on the other hand, argued that notability has not been attained. this should have been closed as delete. the consensus, which should be based on wikipedia's policy, and not a headcount, said delete. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete I'm not seeing any policy based keep votes and the delete votes were all solidly policy based. Spartaz Humbug! 22:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • EndorseWeak endorse. I can't bring myself to say that JC's close was clearly erroneous. Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify: I would have closed it as delete, and I came very close to a !vote to overturn here. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete unless the nominator can explain how they came to a no consensus decision. The keep !votes (or really, votes) did nothing to support their position in a manner founded by policy. JBsupreme (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did explain. Many of the keep votes were weak and not well-considered, which is why I didn't close it as keep. But there was by no means consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be Bold and Merge and Redirect to Portable Network Graphics, imho. That was suggested by a couple of people in the AfD discussion, seems reasonable, and is an editorial decision that doesn't need a DRV. If anyone wants to bring it back to a standalone article, they should come up with the significant coverage in reliable sources. --Stormie (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i support this, and would do it myself if i knew how. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closed within administrative discretion; while keep rationales were thinly phrased, it's quite appropriate in a context like this for the closer to infer that the keep !voters argued by implication that such widely used software has been covered sufficiently by reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BURDEN. All those arguments amounted to were that the software has been used on a few hundred images on commons. Pcap ping 01:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- I see no delete consensus from that afd. Redirects or merges can be handled at the article and don't need an AFD/DRV ruling. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse God bless an admin who looks at a lack of consensus and calls it as he sees it. Given how close many votes are -- both in number and strength of arguments -- there are way too few "no consensus" closes than should be expected. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The only "policy" based argument doesn't call for deletion where a merge is sensible. WP:N is only about whether the subject should be a stand-alone article. There is no problem with WP:RS, there is no doubt of the reliability of the source, WP:RS does not exclude non-independent sources. Merge and redirect as per Pcap 07:48, 29 December 2009 in the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect, merging at editorial discretion – considering the weakness of the keeps, I see consensus against a standalone article, but not quite enough for deletion. I understand that no consensus and redirect are the same with respect to deletion, but I believe in recognizing the distinction. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The keep votes may not be the most well written, but AfD is not a debate competition. There is reasonable indication of coverage in reliable sources, at least enough for "no consensus" and allowing the article a chance to be expanded. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also find that several of the delete votes are not very convincing, commenting on those who voted keep rather than the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. I have the utmost respect for Juliancolton, but the keep !votes were based on bare assertions that there is lots of coverage, that the program is apparently widely used, and that people need a reliable source. The burden of proof is on users seeking that the article be kept to produce proper sources. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not so sure WP:BURDEN should be applied to notability in this way. Just asserting that something is not notable is no more convincing than asserting that it is. In my opinion, the votes of those who have searched for sources weight the most. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I don't believe any sort of consensus was reached at this AfD. On the one hand, yes, the arguments to delete were stronger, and we all know that AfD is not a vote. The relevant guideline is WP:PNSD, which is actually murkier than one might expect on the subject: "Polling forms an integral part of several processes, e.g. WP:AFD; in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. In both cases, consensus is an inherent part of a wiki process." This suggests that while the strength of arguments presented is the top priority, the closing admin should not override the majority unless the minority's reasoning is especially strong. WP:CONS is a relevant policy, and it states: "Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. ...Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. ...In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes." This suggests that while the strength of the arguments should be the top priority in determining consensus, consensus cannot be truly reached if a majority strongly rejects a minority's arguments. Now, there were ten participants in this AfD. Four editors voted to keep, with rather flimsy reasoning. Three voted to delete, with stronger reasoning. One voted to merge, one voted to redirect, and one merely offered a comment but leaned towards keeping. Only four of ten participants in the debate felt that the information in the article should not be preserved on Wikipedia somewhere. While they may have had the stronger arguments, their arguments were strongly rejected by a number of editors, indicating that consensus was not reached. Juliancolton's close as "no consensus," therefore, was accurate. Pcap, I suggest starting a proposed merger discussion on the talk page; I think it's likely that it would develop a consensus to merge. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per A Stop at Willoughby. Separately worth noting that this book provides trivial coverage as does this book. The second specifically calls it "notable". Not hugely strong, but there you are... Hobit (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the first afd is always a nose count.--Otterathome (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete WP:BURDEN isn't reached - wasn't even attempted. There could be 100 keep votes saying they like it and I'd say the same thing. Miami33139 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The number of other language projects on this software may serve as an indicator of "popularity", or no-nonsense notability, and the Italian, German and Russian Wikipedias carry the article. I found it mentioned in an English book, a Polish book, and two blogs with editorial oversight (=RS) - added to article. It is subjective exactly how many lines count as "significant", or how many "non-significant" independent mentions sum up to significant, but a delete is completely out of line, merger and redirect to WP:PRESERVE content could be disccussed [and redirects close as keep (with history preserved, for later improvement)]. No consensus was a correct closure. Power.corrupts (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, within admin discretion. GlassCobra 17:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse ASaW pretty much said it all for me. The deletion votes certainly had the advantage of better rationale and reason behind them, but they definitely didn't achieve a consensus for it, if only because none of the keep !voters ever responded. That being said, neither side presented extremely compelling arguments, and given the initial relisting and numbers involved I'd say a no consensus closure was definitely in order. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (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.
Barnegat Fund Management (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are oodles of news stories about these guys now. Lighten up Francis! 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lighten up Francis! 13:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbarnes (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. Here is an article from the New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/small_fund_big_Mx0CteaUi94eN4doGCQr9H It didn't show up when I did a Google News archives search, but did when I searched on Google itself. Perhaps the company is notable after all. I didn't participate in the initial discussion. – Eastmain (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus could hardly have been clearer here. I have no objection to a new article being created with appropriate reliable and verifiable sources, probably best done in userspace. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: DRV is supposed to consider newly found sources, even if the close was completely correct interpretation of consensus. If this doesn't get overturned: Create a stub with enough sources to show notability, then ask an admin to restore the deleted revisions so you can use the text. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Could not reasonably have been closed any other way. As ever, deletion isn't permanent. The article can be userfied for you to improve it. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure There was a clear consensus to delete. That said, the sources look good and you should feel free to re-create the article while citing them. As such, the closing admin here should restore it to the DRV nom's userspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bunch of Tools The reason that wikipedia is struggling in so many ways beyond its financial woes is because the authorities that be are more power hungry and controlling than the government of communist China, and its rules and procedures are more vague and complex that the US Tax Code! Feel free to take your biased vengeance out on me and delete my account if you feel that I'm being abusive, for that will only solidify my stance.Lighten up Francis! 15:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbarnes (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse per clear consensus, and the nominator's decision to attack/insult the community is doing it no favours either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100119005106&newsLang=en
  • Power Hungry & oh so sensitive please review [1] and then punish me for doing no wrong. Lighten up Francis! 17:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbarnes (talk • contribs)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Obsession (band) – Article restored – There seems to be consensus here that the topic has a new claim to notability that has not previously been considered, and as such the article is not deletable under WP:G4. While we could relist at AfD, doing so immediately would seem to be pointless bureaucracy. I will restore the deleted revisions and allow the interested editors to work on the article, without prejudice against any future AfD should someone still not be satisfied with the notability claims.  Skomorokh  05:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Obsession (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

(reason given - Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) Obsession is a band spawning the career of Michael Vescera, premier metal vocalist. (Also in the band Yngwie Malmsteen and Loudness) The band provided soundtrack music for the movies "Sleep Away Camp" as well as "Texas chainsaw Massacre 3". The band is also on the Metal Blade 15th anniversary CD. They have been around since 1982 and are very notable in the metal community. Per any of the deletion discussion, when the page was reposted all comments regarding the deletion were concidered and edits were made. Any references in the discussion regarding "advertisement" were removed from the article. Any references saying that there could be copyright violations are wrong.(I own/write/and operate the websites with the copyright in question. theobsession.net) It was deleted by Wizardman Obsession is listed on BILLBOARD - http://www.billboard.com/search/?keyword=obsession+carnival#/search/obsession%20carnival%20of%20lies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbruno2 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the page to be allowed and recreated. If there are any concerns or issues with the page, let me know and I will make the edit. It makes no sense to delete it.

  • Endorse AfD close. Is there anything the AfD participants missed that would make this band pass WP:BAND? Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: According to this they meet criterion 5 of WP:BAND having released two albums on Enigma Records. J04n(talk page) 21:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least restore history and merge/redirect to Michael Vescera, as long as he personally is deemed sufficiently notable for an article, this content should have been merged there rather than deleted, it was referenced and worthwhile for the article on Vescera. --Stormie (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Jbruno wants the G4 speedy deletion overturned, not the original AfD. Is the current version substantially identical to what was deleted at AfD? If not, let him keep working on it, and AfD again if necessary. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 and list at AfD. The consensus for deletion at the AfD was based on the fact that adequate sourcing could not be found. The external links provided in the new article may resolve that issue; as such, the original reason for deletion may no longer exist and G4 is not an appropriate criterion for speedy deletion. An attempt to reach a consensus on the newly provided sources at AfD would be the best solution at this point. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse closures but now restore per J04n. Appears to now meet our inclusion guidelines (though I'm not the best with the arcana of WP:BAND). Hobit (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore / undelete. Pretty clearly passes both the letter and spirit of WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no opinion on notability of bands (not my thing), but I've userfied the version created by the DRV submitter, here: User:Jbruno2/Obsession (band). Rd232 talk 17:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has been recreated before this DRV was closed, somewhat out of process. This means that there are now two versions, including the userfied one; however, since they are written by the same author, this is not a big deal. Like several people commenting here, I've never been clear on the distinctions of WP:BAND, but it seems like the best outcome here is a new AfD. For now I will leave the recreated article where it is. Chick Bowen 00:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD to determine whether or not this band passes WP:BAND. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2010 (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.
A Very Potter Musical (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This got deleted for notability, which seemed funny to me since the REPOSTED version of the first video has over one million views, and has a large sub-fanbase among Harry fans (one video shows them attending a midnight release of Half Blood Prince in costume and they are recognized instantly).

I looked around trying to find out why there weren't more sources talking about them, and one possible reason is after they received a lot of attention, they decided to take down the videos and retitle them to avoid legal troubles. So the play that we now know as "A Very Potter Musical" and had difficulty finding credible information about was originally titled "Harry Potter the Musical." It is under that title I was able to find more notable sources, such as:

Mentioned on Entertainment Weekly: http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/06/23/harry-potter-musical/ Mentioned again in a year end article, citing it as one of the top viral videos of 2009: http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/12/29/best-viral-videos-of-2009/

I feel this in conjunction with the originally cited NPR article (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/michigan/news.newsmain/article/8/0/1530366/Arts..and..Culture/A.Very.Potter.Musical) as well as being mentioned by many bloggers, we should at least reconsider deletion.

With the sizeable fanbase I think this show deserves its own page with a list of cast and crew. I can't see what was on the original page, so I'm not sure what other info was found.

I apologize in advance if I haven't started this deletion review properly. It's my first time trying it. Razordu30 (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. AfD consensus is clear. Nom's lengthy discourse does not contain any suggestion that the subject meets WP:N. The links cited seems to be blog posts. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But according to the article on what is considered Reliable sources, blog posts by interactive columns (as in the the Entertainment Weekly link) are acceptable as long as the writers are professional and the article is subject to the provider's full editorial control. I feel that because the "blog" post is one run by Entertainment Weekly, a well-established periodical with a focus on entertainment news, this would satisfy the requirement.
I'm probably just not understanding the requirements properly, but it would seem to me that NPR and Entertainment Weekly constitute Reliable Secondary Sources, Independent of the subject (neither NPR nor Entertainment Weekly had anything to do with the show), and that the show has gotten considerable coverage. Razordu30 (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if they are reliable sources, they are not significant coverage. One consists of exactly three lines. The other mentions the subject once. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, nothing has been pointed out to show that the deletion process was not followed properly. Recommend userspace draft. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse very clear AFD, no evidence that procedure wasn't followed properly. We understand that Razordu30 disagrees with the result, but that's not what DRV is for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure There was a strong consensus to delete at the AfD, and there's no good reason to restore the article provided above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (unfortunately); nothing suggests that there has been a significant change in the situation so that the article now has sufficient detailed, reliable, secondary sources to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. NW (Talk) 23:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, clear closure. No objection to a userspace draft if the creator desires. GlassCobra 17:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there was a clear consensus at the AfD to delete the article so any other closure would have been improper. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accio Endorse. The closing admin interpreted the consensus of the masses correctly. Its possible that a better sourced article would have survived AfD (and might if recreated), but that apparently didn't happen. EW naming it one of the top 10 viral videos on 2009 suggests it should be mentioned somewhere in the project, though.--Milowent (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2010 (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.
Erfan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Erfan is a notable Iranian rapper, based on the history of the page, there have been many attempts to create a page, I recreated with references and cleaned up article. RHaworth was the last deleter, he suggested I create the article in User:Fishoil3/sandbox and post for deletion review. Fishoil3 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the systemic bias that consorship in Iran will introduce to providing sources I would accept the primary sources (i.e the radio interviews) as evidence of notability and allow recreation from this draft. Spartaz Humbug! 11:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly endorse re-instatement. Come clean Fishoil3 and declare your relationship to Erfan. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a quick look, the sources look fine and secondary (interviews are just fine in general as secondary sources). allow restoration Hobit (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation per Spartaz. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation The sourcing in the userspace draft looks good; a re-creation of the article in this state would not be eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G4. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (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.
Simple Instant Messenger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing reason is not a legitimate deletion reason. Spartaz argues that article must be deleted despite strong consensus for Keep, because the current citations were inadequate. AfD should be decided on the merits of the "best possible article", not simply on fixable flaws in an existing version. LotLE×talk 06:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I found a number of (non-Russian) sources after the AfD had closed. See my post here. I suggest this be userified to Lulu for further editing. I was going to request userification to myself at some point, but I'm rather busy at the moment. By the way, some admin should move Serverless Instant Messenger to Lulu's user space as well because it's a WP:CFORK and needs to be merged with the (to be un-)deleted article. Pcap ping 07:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't misrepresent my words What I actually said was

    keep arguments are mostly by assertion and the argument that the article is lacking adequate sourcing hasn't been refuted.

    . Absent some fresh sourcing I see no reason to ignore the rough consensus of the AFD. Is there a reason the nom did not do me the courtesy of raising this on my talk page before raising this DRV or was it just bad manners? Spartaz Humbug! 11:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I wrote just above, I did find some sources after the AfD had closed. Honestly, I though the two Russian round-up reviews—one in Computerra and the other in ixbt.com were enough—, so I did not look for more until after the AfD closed. Others "asserted" (as you put it) the same point. FYI: the additional sources from my post to Honeyman linked above: I also found it covered in another on Tom's Hardware, and it has an editorial review on Softonic, which seems genuine (in that they didn't like it). Also found a long review in German here (same publisher as Linux Magazine). Pcap ping 18:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FISH to the nom for not bringing this to the admin first. Overturn to merge based on the fact that there are sources and a merge is a darn reasonable outcome, suggested by many in the AfD. Topic may not be acceptable for a stand alone article (I disagree, but that's not a crazy reading of the discussion) but that doesn't prevent a merge where there is a reasonable target. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to what? Serverless Instant Messenger is probably {{db-afd}}. Actually, I just tagged it as such. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can someone explain how G6 applied there? Deleting a proposed merge target as an uncontroversial delete seems odd. I'm assuming I missed something. Anyone?Hobit (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hobit, if you look at the top of the AfD (below the header but above the nom), it looks like that article was bundled into the AfD because it was about the same product. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. Well after many of the !votes had happened it seems. I don't buy that one, but... Hobit (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I added it to the AfD because it had been prodded (by Miami3xxxx, if I recall correctly). It was another article for the same product. What would you have done given that there was an ongoing AfD? Pcap ping 14:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'd prefer to let the AfD finish and then send the other to AfD also. I personally dislike folks adding things to AfDs once significant discussion has already occurred. I find it confuses people (or at least me). Hobit (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. In my view, there are only two keep votes (Alison22 and Pcap) that don't amount to either a mere assertion of notability, or an argument that is not based on accepted guidelines. Alison 22's argument was refuted - the sources cited did not amount to significant coverage. On the other hand, there were four firm delete votes, all of which properly applied guidelines, and none of which were specifically refuted. The closing admin therefore made the right call: the raw vote count was a misleading indication of consensus. A proper reading of the arguments shows the consensus went the other way. This is subject to a discussion of the new sources, which may suggest notability (I'm not qualified enough in this area to judge myself). As for merge, a deletion outcome does not prevent the later appropriate inclusion of similar material in another article, does it?--Mkativerata (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the fairly low signal-to-noise ratio in the discussion, I'll go with endorsing Spartaz's close. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, well within administrator discretion. JBsupreme (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep Heaven help us if any admin can disregard consensus so clearly in the direction of Keep and just toss an article away, or vice versa. All editors participating are aware of policy and an overwhelming majority voted to Keep based on their understanding thereof. We need to get admins out of the business of abusing administrative authority to impose their own view on the subject via supervote. The AfD was presumably at "no consensus" when it was relisted the first time and then relisted a second time a week later, and consensus only became clearer for retention after the second relisting. Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, discounting unsupported assertions and novel arguments is permitted; basically per Mkativerata. No objection to working on sourcing in user space per Pcap. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse appears to have been a reasonable close and well within admin discretion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and merge with Serverless Instant Messenger — Neustradamus (✉) 15:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The arguments to keep were unusually weak in this case. One "keep" vote must be discarded as by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Two "keep" votes offer no real rationale whatsoever, and must be discarded. Two other "keep" votes are based on WP:ITSNOTABLE, an argument to avoid. Votes to merge are moot given the deletion of the article to which this one was supposed to be merged. As such, only Pcap and Honeyman offered valid arguments to keep, and those were rejected by a majority of the participants in the discussion (whose votes were not discarded per the above). The arguments to delete were strong, as mentioned above. Unlike the OptiPNG AfD being discussed above, the invalid nature of most of the "keep" votes here renders the closing admin's decision to delete a good one. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will point out that there appear to be sources found (above). Not sure if that will change your mind, the the assertions of notability now have evidence behind them. Hobit (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I saw that. It doesn't really change my mind that this was a good AfD close, but it does mean that I wouldn't object to the creation of a new article based on those sources (assuming someone can read Russian). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that how you suck up to the power base here? LOL. Pcap ping 10:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Power base"? Look, I don't know a whole lot about this whole software fight involving you, Tothwolf, Miami33139, Theserialcomma, JBSupreme, etc., and the very last thing I want is to get sucked into it. All I'm saying is that this was a good AfD close – nothing more, nothing less. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You win "best wikilawyer of 2010 award". You just argued in the OptiPNG DRV on this page that votes ultimately should be counted. And here you said the exact opposite. Pcap ping 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (This is worthy of reading, even though it may seem at a glance TL;DR.)
    I wish people would actually read the case before assuming that the ArbCom case was about me or just some software-related AfDs. Yes, the name could have been chosen better (case name discussion), and the way the case is named has resulted all sorts of problems due to an assumption from a handful of people that the case was about my behaviour when they looked only at the case name and ignored the evidence itself. (Links related to the case name can be found here.)
    The short version is that the case was filed by Jehochman on my behalf [2] (RFAR link) due to Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme targeting me for harassment. The case also involves a hell of a lot more than just software-related AfDs, although Miami33139 in particular tried very hard to make it look like that's what the case was about after trying unsuccessfully to convince ArbCom to not accept the case (which is the same type of thing that he did during the AN/I about the same harassment issues). Prior to September 2009 though, Miami33139 simply did not participate in software and computing-related deletion discussions (with the exception of those related to multimedia software, with nearly all of those being AfD discussions Miami33139 himself created). In September 2009 he tried to superficially involve himself in deletion discussions related to software and computing topics as well as WP:COMP in order to try to hide the fact that he was following me around and going through my past contribs to prod or create deletion discussions for things I edited (not only articles, but also redirects, templates, categories, etc). Unfortunately for Miami33139 and the other two editors, their edit histories (including deleted contribs) make the patterns completely transparent. None of those three editors create, update, or improve articles, redirects, templates, categories, etc in these topic area though.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Excellent application of WP:NOTAVOTE. Triplestop x3 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, weakly. I understand that a number of the AfD participants considered the Russian sources insufficient, and that Spartaz read the consensus that way. Although I found additional non-Russian sources after the AfD had closed, DRV isn't supposed to be a continuation of the AfD, but an analysis of how the closing admin examined the consensus at the time of closure, and I can't really find fault with Spartaz's decision there. The AfD discussion was also quite confusing because there were two articles about the same product, and the merge discussion was taking place in between the lines. (Actually, even Spartaz missed that, because he only deleted one of the articles.) Even though the other editors did not clearly endorse the sources presented, I would like to point out however that only User:JBsupreme and User:Benlisquare voted delete after the Russian sources were presented. Like Miami3xxxx, the nominator, these editors are known for their position to delete most software from Wikipedia (See the Tothwolf ArbCom for Miami & JB, and this AfD for Benlisquare's stance. We don't know if User:Joe Chill re-examined his vote after the sources were presented. Pcap ping 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did check back. There was only two sources, which isn't multiple. Joe Chill (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A question: I've always treated the word "multiple" to mean one or more. Is that not the normal definition people use? Then again I also use "a couple" to sometimes mean "a few" which confuses my students from time to time... Hobit (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus. If the community thinks the sources are sufficient, no admin has the right to over-rule them. Whether the community actually thought that way is unclear, so either relist or close as non-consensus and discuss again in a month. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Consensus accurately read by ignoring "Keep" votes like "this is open source software" as unrelated to policies. Spamming that message to all FOSS deletion discussions was a disruptive influence. Miami33139 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus was formed at AFD that the article should be deleted. 16x9 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2010 (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/2010_January_14&oldid=1140764203"