eAthena – Malformed request; this is for requesting that a deletion or deletion discussion be reviewed. Requesting that a protected redirect be retargeted should be done at WP:RFPP, and requesting that a redirect be deleted altogether goes to WP:RFD. – Stifle (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wrong redirect. Looks like blatant advertising of commercial "Ragnarok Online" game.
What's the problem? Actually I had no idea what is this "eAthena" and wanted to learn meaning of this term. So I entered query to Wikipedia. Result was strange for me. There was something completely irrelevant - about some commercial MMORPG game "Ragnarok Online". This result is believed to be utterly incorrect. I did some investigation and discovered that there was older page but it has been deleted and replaced with redirect (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EAthena). After googling I discovered true meaning of "eAthena" term and it differs from what redirect displays. I believe such actions are either vandalism or blatant advertising intended to advertise commercial "Ragnarok Online" game on Wikipedia. As you can see, this resulted in false information represented to me, I believe such practice is unacceptable for encyclopaedia articles.
The following issues were found with mentioned redirect:
eAthena turned to be open source MMORPG server project. Nothing more, nothing less. It haves nothing to do with "Ragnarok Online" game except they implement similar protocol which could be somehow compatible to protocol of "Ragnarok Online" game to some degree. This server is used by another open source games like "The Mana World" and "Aethyra" and these games have nothing to do with Ragnarok Online. Except their overall idea is similar - they're MMORPGs so ideas behind protocols are the same and there is even some partial compatibility may exist. However games using eAthena usually implemented from scratch and not directly compatible with "Ragnarok Online". So, redirect appears to be some unfair method of competition or some kind of blatant advertising of commercial "Ragnarok Online" game.
Article which is target of redirect contains exactly nothing about "eAthena". There is even no such word on this page, except redirect itself. So, visitor haves no chance to learn meaning of "eAthena" term at all. There is no links as well, etc. So, there is lack of proper information about term. This looks a bit like vandalism.
In any event, some server software haves nothing to do with whole complete MMORPG product. Server software is just some sub-part of final MMORPG product. So, at very least such redirect is very rough, inaccurate and could provide wrong information to visitors.
If you want more common and clear example, imagine if there is redirection of "Apache HTTP Server" article to "Windows". Just because Windows supplied with IIS web server and both IIS and Apache implementing same HTTP protocol and Microsoft wants to sell Windows and shut up Apache, etc. So, if this redirect should exist, you should also create redirect from "Apache HTTP Server" to "Windows" as well ;)
P.S. I'm sorry, I'm not a professional Wikipedia editor but rather casual visitor. If I did something wrong here, do not blame me too much. Instead, try to correct my faults and review my request based on Wikipedia goals and purposes rather than from bureaucratic and formal points of view. 91.77.158.255 (talk)
I think what you should be asking for is that the redirect be deleted, correct? If so, or in any case, DRV is not needed here. MuZemike 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may alternatively be an appeal of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EAthena (second nomination), which resulted in the redirect being protected. If that's the case, then this is the right place. If the nominator wants the redirect to be retargeted, Talk:EAthena or WP:RFPU is the place, and if xe wants it deleted, it's WP:RFD. I'm leaving this open pending clarification. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Aramark – Restored by deleting admin; nominator politely reminded that consulting with said admin can be a whole lot quicker :) – Stifle (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
While I'd agree some section might be construed as spamish, I do not agree that the article could not have been saved without major rewrites. I also feel that it did not qualify for G11 Speedy Deletion. QTC 05:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The article was not unambiguously promotional. Since the subject is clearly eligible for inclusion, a minor rewrite should be preferred to deletion. Example: "Aramark Limited is a food, facility and apparel service partner. With 250,000 employees, it is the 19th largest employer on the Fortune 500" decltype (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rapid Overturn The deleted article was not promotional,except possibly for a listing of a few too man officers of the company. It was speedy deleted twice: the An earlier version was not a valid deletion either: it had one promotional paragraph & one unbalanced paragraph of trivial criticism. If both had been removed, the article would have been passable. The company is important enough that the article should be much expanded. It is so large, that even if the entire article had been promotional, the article should have been stubbified bot deleted. If 2 different admins are prepared to delete material like this, we need to remove or tighten up the G11 standards. DGG (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC) DGG (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Sarcasticidealist only deleted it because someone had moved it to an all-caps version of the name and edited the redirect to prevent someone moving it back, so that deletion was entirely in order. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. G11 requires that there is no possible neutral version to which to revert, but that's not the case here. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I was quite surprised when I saw this pop up on my watchlist as deleted. I don't know about the version Sarcastic deleted last year, but the version deleted most recently didn't look like it was an unrecoverable piece of spam. Maybe the officer's list needed trimming, but I do not believe CSD was the appropriate method. MBisanztalk 17:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting Admin As I can see there's an overwhelming consensus to restore the article, I have no issues if the article was restored and stubbed. I only ask that next time if a user disagrees with my actions, that they try and discuss it with me before listing it here, as deletion review is more of a last resort. I promise I don't bite! :) Icestorm815 • Talk 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies as Nom' Completely missed that section snuggled there at the end about discussing with deleting admin first :-/ QTC 01:51, 25 May 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 deletion log does not indicate whether this article was deleted following being tagged with a speedy delete, or whether the deleting administrator deleted it on his or her sole authority. The deleting administrator recorded WP:A7 as the reason for deletion. I don't know what the article said, at the time of its deletion, but I am sure a case can be made that the Foundation is fully notable. The deleting administrator hasn't been online in five months, so I would like to request someone else userify this article, its talk page and full revision history to User:Geo Swan/review/Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation. Geo Swan (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userify if desired at the time of the deletion the article was a request for help in doing a better stub, followed by the text: "Details : NEFA Foundation is an organization that seeks, tracks and publishes intelligence on the Islamic Terrorist / Jihadist movement. Its purpose is to inform people about and try to stop further attacks similar to the 9/11/2001 attack on the World Trade centre. It may have information about or be connected to the intelligence services and other 'insider' data. (Anyone who has experience with such info will tell you that deniability and source-outsource separation is always a number one priority in intelligence so proof of this connection is by definition very difficult. Plausible deniability )" In the absence of sources one cannot tell if the organization is potentially notable. I consider this borderline speedy, but i would have checked for sources first. The mere assertion that there it an organization devoted to such purposes with no further information does not necessary imply notability. there are many non-notable political groups. DGG (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to userfy; DGG just quoted the entire text. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The article clearly met the speedy deletion criterion for organizations because it merely asserted existence and nothing about importance, fame or notability. I have no objection against recreation if such information can be found. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Looks like a reasonable A7. Userfication seems pointless, per Stifle. decltype (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
