Creole_(markup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
This deletion happened very much under the radar screen. The Creole markup is used by many wikis. It has been discussed on several conferences. Papers have been published on the subject and such illustrious people as Ward Cunningham have spoken out in their amazement that this article was deleted. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wondering a couple things:
- Why was the admin who deleted this page neither consulted prior to bringing the matter here nor notified of the deletion review listing, as the instructions require?
- Why the 5-month delay before listing this deletion review?
- Are you aware that deletion review is for calling attention to failures to follow the deletion process, and is not, for the most part, a venue to advance new arguments (or re-advance old ones) which should properly have been made at the AFD discussion?
- Stifle (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad 1. I tried to find out how to revoke the deletion and wasn't even able to find this page, until Gerard pointed it out. Wikipedia processes are simply complicated so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. If you know how to find out who needs to be involved, can you please pull them in?
- Ad 3. If this is not the right place to revoke the deletion, where and how to do it then?
- Dirk Riehle (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He managed to find this place and make this listing without any problem; it seems difficult to understand how he would not also notice the bolded instructions saying "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look" and "Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster".
- has not yet been addressed.
- From Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome".
- Simply, deletion review is a "safety valve" in case an admin goes off and deletes an article against consensus or in violation of the speedy deletion process. In legal terms, appeals can only be taken here on a point of law. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Stifle for bringing this to my attention. I second his questions. Also, the unchallenged AFD cited the lack of 3rd party sources, an issue you have not remedied here. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - no errors in process in the AFD, no new arguments or evidence presented here to support restoration. Suggest the nominator write a draft in namespace with proper sourcing if it exists. Otto4711 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the original page was a stub and needed more elboration. Why it was deleted is unclear to me. As to additional arguments, more wiki engines have adopted Wiki Creole since then, and more papers have been written. I can cite my own additional research papers if you like:
- Martin Junghans, Dirk Riehle, Rama Gurram, Matthias Kaiser, Mario Lopes, Umit Yalcinalp. An EBNF Grammar for Wiki Creole 1.0. In ACM SIGWEB Newsletter, Volume 2007, Issue Winter (Winter 2007), ACM Press, 2008. Article 4.
- Martin Junghans, Dirk Riehle, Umit Yalcinalp. An XML Interchange Format for Wiki Creole 1.0 In ACM SIGWEB Newsletter, Volume 2007, Issue Winter (Winter 2007), ACM Press, 2008. Article 5.
- Martin Junghans, Dirk Riehle, Rama Gurram, Matthias Kaiser, Mário Lopes, Umit Yalcinalp. “A Grammar for Standardized Wiki Markup.” In Proceedings of the 2008 International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym ‘08). ACM Press, 2008. Forthcoming.
- Dirk Riehle (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just rewrite if it has references and the deleted version didn't, it will not be subject to speedy deletion. That's the odd thinking about deletion review--almost always you can just go and rewrite. Of course it may end up at afd again, but no matter what we said here, it could still end up at afd again. and, I think it very unworthy of us to raise procedural objections to people who are trying to rescue articles no matter how long after. DGG (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - The closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. There are some scholarly papers.[1] However, they need to be independent of the topic. I did find an article using the topic in a footnote: "One project, entitled Creole, seeks to create a common wiki markup language enabling users "to transfer content seamlessly across wikis."[2]. -- Suntag ☼ 02:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion; no reason I can see to overturn. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|