Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:57, 3 May 2010

First of all speedy deletion was declined to begin with, and a user re-nominated soon after, again. No one even took the time to reply to the talk page or consider it. Even after this, the article met WP:MUSICBIO #'s 1 - Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. #10 and #11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Candyo32 (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide external reliable sourcing that either invalidated or postdates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Jarrell? The deletion reasoning in question was G4, that it was recreated content which had been deleted through AfD, and those can sometimes be a bit rash - something I cannot comment on without being able to see the deleted content. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 11:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedily deleted (A7) despite hangon and page indicating importance.--Oneiros (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not in this case, but in two others deleted by him(Hans Hagen and Taco Hoekwater). Since his reaction there was negative, I supposed here it would be also.--Oneiros (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore. This article made credible claims of significance or importance: main developer of a notable product; professor. Whether those claims amount to actual notability is disputable, but that dispute is for an AfD debate. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn unjustifiable speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author of LuaTeX (successor of pdfTeX), maintainer of MetaPost, developer of ConTeXt (alternative to LaTeX), which indicates importance. Article was speedily deleted (A7) without any prior discussion. Oneiros (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, article gave no reasonable indication of importance or significance. (And I have a maths degree, so I know what all those TeXs are.) Stifle (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"main developer of LuaTeX"—how should that be worded to indicate importance or significance?--Oneiros (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore. This article made credible claims of significance or importance as a developer of a notable product and the main developer of another. Whether those claims amount to actual notability is disputable, but that dispute is for an AfD debate. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn did not meet the conditions for speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD on the basis that someone would like a discussion. This should be automatic for non-offensive speedies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author of ConTeXt (alternative to LaTeX) and LuaTeX (successor of pdfTeX), which indicates importance. Article was speedily deleted (A7) without any prior discussion. Oneiros (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore. This article made credible claims of significance or importance as a developer of a notable product and the main developer of another. Whether those claims amount to actual notability is disputable, but that dispute is for an AfD debate. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn possible claim to significance, so did not meet the reason for speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 :{{DRV links|Jessica Jarrell|xfd page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Jarrell (2nd nomination)|article=}}
 * First of all [[User_talk:Candyo32#talk_before_2_May_deletion|speedy deletion was declined]] to begin with, and a [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Jarrell_%282nd_nomination%29|user re-nominated soon after, again]]. No one even took the time to reply to the talk page or consider it. Even after this, the article met [[WP:MUSICBIO]] #'s 1 - Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. #10 and #11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. [[User:Candyo32|Candyo32]] ([[User talk:Candyo32|talk]]) 18:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
+* Can you please provide external reliable sourcing that either invalidated or postdates [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Jarrell]]? The deletion reasoning in question was G4, that it was recreated content which had been deleted through AfD, and those can sometimes be a bit rash - something I cannot comment on without being able to see the deleted content. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 11:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 ====[[:Till Tantau]]====