Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 30

Article was readded after the review to allow cleanup and such. Work was moved to the posters userspace and was about to be reposted when it was again deleted.Terryrayc (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If needed please review the work done of the userspace.

Can you please clarify what you want done here? Stifle (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the article undeleted so I can post the updated page. If after that an admin would like to talk about the article regarding if it should remain then we can start the debate...which is fine with me. But I was told I'd have time to update the article and provide reference when I've done and will continue to expand and such, but I cannot if the article keeps getting deleted before I can post the changes. Terryrayc (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Restore Request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_23

Current page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DrAdamInCA/Civony

Toyetic (closed)

ZK_Framework

We cannot accept this deletion because of not-notable. ZK is a famous Ajax framework which is always listed the most active project over the past two years on sourceforge.net, the biggest open source hostting website. There are two published books, ZK - Ajax without JavaScript, and ZK Developer's Guide. Simply google ZK, and ZK Framework is listed the most relevant item. More reference could be found:

ZK and Agile at TheServerSide
The ZK Framework at Dr.Dobb's Poral
ZK - AJAX without the JavaScript at IBM Developer's Works
Ajax with the ZK Framework at deverloper.com
ZK Ajax Java Web Framework: Ajax with no Javascript at infoQ.com Robbiecheng (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A university seminar work. Ajax Sudoku game developed with the ZK Framework at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. 30.04.2009 link

Endorse deletion as a valid reading of the consensus. Deletion review is a venue to address a failure to follow the deletion process (e.g. closing a debate as "keep" when almost all the commenters suggested deletion, and the comments were grounded in policy). It is not a de novo hearing of the case. Note that arguments from very new users are customarily discounted or given less weight. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin AFD opened 14 days, comments made adhered to policy. Otherwise normal. MBisanz ^talk 08:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – proper admin closure. This is not AFD round 2. I think the fact that the nom, who also ended up !voting two more time - probably not aware of it, pales to the fact that the arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments for keeping. MuZemike 13:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Cannot I propose a 3rd AFD? Please read those references, I was too late to provide notability evidence. It's the evidence that matters not only because of who said it, isn't it? Robbiecheng (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can certainly bring evidence that the subject is notable before a deletion review. That's one of the purposes of a deletion review, and you should ignore anyone who seeks to imply otherwise.
  The often-repeated comment that "DRV is not AfD round 2" is particularly unhelpful to a new user, because the new user tends to take that as meaning "Your article has been deleted, this is not the right place to appeal the deletion, and I'm not going to tell you where the right place to appeal the deletion is." In other words, whether or not it's intended that way, it usually comes across as a totally bureaucratic stone wall.
  You can certainly propose a 3rd AfD, and Deletion Review can lead to that outcome. But in this case, I think the article is falling under the bar Wikipedia sets for articles about products.
  There are good reasons why Wikipedia has strong rules about what products can receive articles. If we weren't fairly tough with this policy, then our encyclopaedia would be drowning in marketing spam from people who're alive to the advertising possibilities of having an article. What you need to prove, to get this article kept, is notability—in other words, in-depth coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources.
  Wikipedia does have articles about products; there's Coca-Cola and Microsoft Windows and Chicken McNugget. We even have a fairly brief article on Bic biro. But that's the kind of level of notability we're aiming for.
  As a side-note, wikipedia editors are often very cynical about new users who've not shown much commitment to the encyclopaedia but do show a strong attachment to a particular company or product, and I'm sure you can see why. But our policy on this is assume good faith, so that attitude is often taken too far.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]