Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 23
I see 5 keep requests and 4 delete requests, yet the article was still removed. The delete requests were made by JBsupreme, Joe Chill, and Theserialcomma, plus Miami33139 who raised the AfD who are all clearly involved in a case against tothwolf, which is clearly a COI and does not assume good faith to those impartial to this case. If these were ignored, the article would have been kept.
Hm2k (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- On reading the discussion I agree with Sandstein that the strength of the arguments was on the "delete" side. However, I am perplexed by Sandstein's refusal to userfy the article, which strikes me as bizarre. I hope he will explain.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Commment: I didn't participate in the AFD to attack Tothwolf. I have been participating in software AFDs for over a year. Most of my participation is in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was checking sources and giving the historical background for this software. There was a mass deletion of IRC related articles going on at that time and I remember that the tone was hostile, to a point where it was pointless to discuss and work on issues together. When one article that I worked on was dragged into AfD (possibly as a sort of revenge [1]), I stopped participating. However, you can see an old article version here with references in online and print media. Cheers! -- 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The subject is an accomplished as well-cited journalist and tv personality. The article was completely rewritten since the first deletion to include legitimate references, yet I feel it was deleted because such differences were not noted by the deleting party Karpaydm (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because we are a collaborative encyclopaedia, Wikipedia benefits from providing good faith users with FairProcess on demand. In this case I do not see any reason to deny it, so I will run with restore and relist in order that Karpaydm may see that his rewritten article, which at first glance appeared impressively-sourced, is not deleted without a supporting consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I nominated it for deletion, both times. I used AfD the second time because the second version was indeed rather different from the first, and I was surprised to see it go via G4. Obviously I think it should be deleted (the vast majority of references were to her own writings, not people writing about her) -- and while I'm not keen to see people spend more time on an article I don't think has a future, I'm not averse to having it done via AfD. So: indifferent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)