The article was two days old when deleted, and so was still just a stub article. The article was deleted without a prod, or any deletion request without prior discussion. Admin User talk:Jimfbleak deleted with the tag that it lacked notability. I discussed this with him and he declined to undelete it I believe. The day following that discussion, someone else must have undeleted the article and a BOT then deleted it. User talk:Chris G The problem is that when the article was created it had copyright issues. I resolved those for the editor who created it by removing all copyrighted material. The author of that book Richard Lynn has an article and is notable. The subject of the book The Bell Curve has an article, and another book discussing the topic The Bell Curve Debate also has an article. The topic of all of these Race and intelligence is controversial, but again, quite notable. Even if the book itself is not shown to be notable at some future time, the process of submitting the article for deletion and then comments should have been followed. I believe that the article topic is notable. Atom (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy A7 specifically mentions that books don't fit under it. Also [1] shows two reasonable news sources. Gscholar gets 11 hits (some seem like reasonable sources). So not a speedy in any case and quite likely notable. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. A pretty clear case. A7 did not apply. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion. WP:CSD#A7 does not apply to books, and proposals to expand it (or A9) to cover books have not gained traction at WT:CSD. By the way, I'm not sure at all what Atomaton is talking about. So far as I can tell, Jimfbleak deleted the article once under A7, declined to undelete it (citing G10, a bit dubiously), and that's that. The deletion log does not show an undeletion occurring, much less a re-deletion by one of Chris G's bots. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn Books are simply not eligible for A7, and while the subject of this book has been controversial in the past it is also highly notable. Calling this a BLP is way out of line. Trout slap for the deleting admin, please. DES(talk) 19:58, 4 April 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.
Why are all the pages relating to the Australian National University except the main one being proposed for deletion, and being merged into the ANU page?
I think the ANU page and the university sections are significant enough to have separate sections for each school of the university, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.37.202 (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was done by IP user 216.131.90.48. The edits are reverted, and the user has been blocked for disruptive editing. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:54, 30 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.
The page Koini was deleted. Unfortunately I do not have enough edits to speak with the administrator on their talk page. I believe that the page was deleted because I did not make clear the 'notability' of Koini. The site has been in development for two years, initially was the world's first finger print protected kids site, but was updated with different safety measures after sale of the technology. The site has come out of consultation with 'the Internet Task Force' and UNICRI for where one of the company's directors sits on the committee. We believed the page was reasonable to posts compared to others in the 'content-control' category such as 'Kidrex' which is just a Google custom search with no protections at all, whereas the Koini site is an extremely sophisticated social networking platform that is the first to verify every user, to provide protection to its members. I would be happy to elaborate on notability should the page be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneLifeNoFear (talk • contribs) 02:12, March 30, 2010
Who is the "we" in "We believed..."? What is generally going to be required is non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, rather than just your or my say so. Do those sources exist, if so then list some of them out here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What 82.7.40.7 said, basically; we don't accept "trust me" here, you've got to show us proof that it's notable. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It was a reasonable speedy deletion. I've had a look for sources and the best I'm turning up are some (fairly good) blog sources and PRwire bits. Once the site sees coverage in the mainstream media (or something more than blogs) provide those sources and we'll be good to go. But at the moment, there just isn't anything that meets the requirements of WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply - I am afraid I was using the 'royal we' - forgive me! - I have supported the company from the outset as they are in a space that I am passionate about - hence I felt is was important to have some reference to them on wikipedia - I felt that as the company geared up its marketing and became more newsworthy I would add the references and citations to news articles and press. With the CEO on several safer Internet committees and the platform being the only social network for kids with the extensive parental controls it has in the platform, there will be press shortly. - Having said that I do take your point and perhaps I was premature in posting the page now and should have waited for those articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.74.229 (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. This article met the criterion; the deleting admin made the correct decision. OneLifeNoFear, please wait until the company is actually notable (and you can back that up with evidence) before re-posting an article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:03, 31 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.
