Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 20: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Only Much Louder]] and [[ShowCause]]: end. del. comment |
→[[Launchy_(application)]]: closing (del. endorsed) |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
* OML was a single sentence plus links: '''Only Much Louder''' was started in 2003 by [[Vijay Nair]] and [[Vishal Dadlani]]. It was deleted as G11 (spam) but also failed A7 (no assertion of notability) and A1 (lack of context). ShowCause was slightly longer but stated that the comp[any is defunct. I suggest you try working them up in userspace with some [[WP:RS|sources]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 10:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
* OML was a single sentence plus links: '''Only Much Louder''' was started in 2003 by [[Vijay Nair]] and [[Vishal Dadlani]]. It was deleted as G11 (spam) but also failed A7 (no assertion of notability) and A1 (lack of context). ShowCause was slightly longer but stated that the comp[any is defunct. I suggest you try working them up in userspace with some [[WP:RS|sources]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 10:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletions''' per Guy. No need to give reprieve where the content in question fails CSD A1 in any case. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 15:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletions''' per Guy. No need to give reprieve where the content in question fails CSD A1 in any case. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 15:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
====[[Launchy_(application)]]==== |
|||
:{{la|Launchy_(application)}} — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Launchy_(application)|AfD]]) |
|||
Active, reasonably popular software (see [http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=132975&ugn=launchy&type=prdownload Sourceforge page] for statistics. Article provided basic info and useful links. [[User:Guiltyspark|guiltyspark]] 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Neutral''' - I deleted the article after an uncontested [[WP:PROD|prod]]. Nothing in the article in any way indicated the notability or importance of the application, so I agreed with the prod and chose to delete. --[[user:Cholmes75|cholmes75]] <sup>([[User talk:Cholmes75|chit chat]])</sup> 21:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**Fair enough. I would have contested but I'm still quite new to Wikipedia, and as such was unaware that any of that was happening. I believe the download statistics linked to on the sourceforge page demonstrate notability. [[User:Guiltyspark|guiltyspark]] 22:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''': The article may have been deleted via PROD (which normally means immediate restore upon request), but nonetheless it came under [[WP:CSD]] A7 as being about a product with no assertion of notability, and I have amended the deletion log accordingly. However, you can always rewrite the article with an assertion of notability - you don't need to get the original stub, barely above a sentence, undeleted first (though you can challenge my deletion here if you must). Assertions of notability must be in the article, not in external links, and raw download numbers are rarely of use as an assertion of notability as the question is "how big is big". --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 23:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Endorse deletion''' as valid A7, per Sam. No prejudice against creation of an article which establishes notability by reference to reliable secondary sources. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Question''' - is [http://www.lifehacker.com/software/keyword-launcher/download-of-the-day-launchy-172527.php this lifehacker page] enough to establish notability? I'd be happy to add it to the undeleted page, I know it may have only been a few sentences but it represents effort in collecting the links etc - it's gotta be less work to undelete it than to do all of that again. [[User:Guiltyspark|guiltyspark]] 18:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:Blogs aren't [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 18:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:54, 26 November 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)
20 November 2006
the two articles were deleted for failing to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations)#Criteria_for_companies_and_corporations, but a quick google search for "only much louder" gets you linkS to online versions of printed articles on oml, and its co-founder. [1] and [2], for instance.
showcause, on the other hand would get you fewer results on account of the word being a legal term. and to my knowledge, less media friendly. however, they're both record labels, as mentioned in the above links, and here; [3]
a discussion followed on User_talk:Oden#Only_Much_Louder_and_ShowCause, and well... oden suggested i come here. my only grouse is that if someone has to delete an article, without any prior knowledge of the context, the least they could do is google it.
the articles needn't be restored. i just wanted some sort of discussion on this. --Yufeeko 21:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- OML was a single sentence plus links: Only Much Louder was started in 2003 by Vijay Nair and Vishal Dadlani. It was deleted as G11 (spam) but also failed A7 (no assertion of notability) and A1 (lack of context). ShowCause was slightly longer but stated that the comp[any is defunct. I suggest you try working them up in userspace with some sources. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletions per Guy. No need to give reprieve where the content in question fails CSD A1 in any case. Xoloz 15:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)