The page for MUME was deleted before the articles for deletion page had come to consensus. References were being found at the time of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.187.192 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 March 2010
Endorse closure There was a rough consensus to delete, and keeping the debate open longer probably wouldn't have been fruitful due to Hobit's difficulties in obtaining the book that was cited as a possible source. However, someone should userfy or incubate this to allow Hobit more time to locate the book. Honestly, there's not much DRV can or should do here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse sources are weak at the moment. I think a no consensus close wouldn't have been unreasonable, but a delete is also reasonable. If and when I get the source I'm waiting for I may bring it to the closing admin if it seems strong enough. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was into its third week; any suggestion that the closure was early is absurd. Endorse per A Stop at Willoughby, with liberty to userfy. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and allow recreation on location of sources. Sourcing from real books is to be encouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as per [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe] and A Stop at Willoughby. I will restore and userfy if any interested editor, particularly Hobit, so requests. Or this might be a case for incubation. DES(talk) 18:03, 10 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.
Awesome_(window_manager) – Speedy deletion endorsed but recreation permitted. I'm restoring the version deleted by AfD. May be relisted at AfD at editorial discretion. – Tim Song (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The article in question was deleted per lack of third-party sources and/or notability. Since the deletion discussion an additional (reliable) source covering Awesome was found in LinuxUser magazine [1]. This source was not mentioned during the discussion and as far as I can tell is absent in the article itself.
I talked to the admin who closed the discussion (Jayjg) and he suggested to take it to the deletion review.
In short, do you think the new source is sufficient to restore the article?
Comment It would better to find an English link.—Sandahl(♀) 19:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a translation by Google Translate, but no separate English article I'm aware of. MagV (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it in the English Linuxuser Magazine [2], you maybe able to. I know of it as window manager for X intended for power users and developers but I don't know that it's that notable.—Sandahl(♀) 20:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
allow recreation There's no requirement for sources to be in English. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
allow re-creation References in any language will do. I can't imagine why the deleting admin didn't simply restore it. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral and I know there's no absolute rule sources have to be in English and I didn't say there was just said it was better to have English ones. The discussion isn't about that one link it's about the lack of 3rd party sources at the time it was deleted.—Sandahl(♀) 02:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation and relist at editorial discretion. The availability of a new reliable source in any language means that the concerns in the original AfD may have been resolved. I do endorse the recent speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, however, as that version of the article (a) did not contain the new source and (b) accused the AfD's closing admin of trying to attack the "open source community." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the speedy for the same reason as A Stop at Willoughby. Noted accusation too. I'm very much an advocate of open source but I can't find much other than blogs and forums [3], maybe someone else can. I see it got carried off to LINUX.ORG.RU also.—Sandahl(♀) 03:53, 9 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.
Initially when the article was deleted a few months back, it was cited that IMDb did not have IronE Singleton in the credits. Now he has been added to the credits on IMDb and has a great deal of references from various media sources also. Please review his credits [4] and review his performance in the trailer of The Blind Side at [5] which begins at the 1:40 mark. Please overturn his article and add it back to wikipedia. Thanks! FilmnMusiCritic
Restore The ajc and iae links would appear to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to those below: the "blog" would appear to meet our requirements of WP:RS per A Stop at Willoughby. I agree that iaemagazine is significantly less reliable than I thought when I looked at it (nice job btw). So I'm going to claim only one RS at the moment and thus not enough for WP:N. I personally might !vote to keep given the other (weaker) sources, but it's not enough to overturn. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, more interesting but this is an online magazine that is less then a year old - only 3rd edition. Very promotional tone from the interview and two major danger signs, no by-line for the author and the credits for the mag have reference to article submissions so its odds on that this is a promotional puff piece submitted to the article to raise the subject's profile. I certainly cant accept this is independent and its a far from clear this is a RS. and lo and behold there is a page on how to submit yourself for an interview and the googlesearch for the website is all facebook and twitter chatter so this isn't going anywhere.
So the sum total of these sources is .. er .. nothing encyclopaedic that would establish notability under wikipedia polices. Sorry but this simply doesn't fly and I suggest, since we have been here before, that you simply wait until the subject of this article has done something noteable to be picked up by real world print media, in detail and without puffery. Endorse deletionSpartazHumbug! 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Sorry, but I don't think the sources presented here are sufficient to overturn the deletion, which was because of a lack of reliable sourcing. I largely agree with Spartaz's analysis of the sources listed above, except that I personally think the piece on The Buzz would be a valid reliable source.WP:RS states, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." The Buzz is hosted on the website of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and appears to fit the criteria of the aforementioned guideline. Therefore, I would not have qualms about its use as a source. I also have some mixed feelings about the IAE article, although like Spartaz, I ultimately tend to see it as promotional and a questionable source. I agree in full with the remainder of Spartaz's analysis and concur with his opinion that Singleton does not meet Wikipedia's threshold of notability yet.
Also, it should be noted that there was a clear consensus to delete in the AfD, with only Singleton's wife opposing deletion. The Imdb bit was mentioned in the nomination, but that changing does not make the consensus reached in December invalid. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:25, 9 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.
