Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 17
17 February 2013
Windows Blue
the following URL reveals that the software is official and not just a rumor: http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-blue-update-to-build-on-and-improve-windows-8-1131737 Georgia guy (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse decision to delete and redirect. This one is a no-brainer, and the title of the source above proves it: "...to build on and improve" is a future state concept for Windows. At this point, it's not the name of a product, it's an internal codename for the next development. Closing admin clearly read the policy-based arguments and made the correct decision (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion for two reasons:
- The closing admin mentions that his decision to close was not purely based on WP:CRYSTAL but also based on Fleet Command's analysis of the article who showed that the article's claims do not appear in its sources.
- The supplied link only contains rumor. By its own admission, the source has acquired all that it reports from a POV interpretation of a job listing on the Microsoft website that is later removed. This does not sanction restoring an article that contains totally imaginary claims about features of the next version of Windows.
- Codename Lisa (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
John B. Kimble
I was the closing administrator on this AfD, but I am bringing this deletion review on behalf of User:68.50.111.217 who wrote on my user talk page, "Deletion review request. Why was John B. Kimble deleted? The deletion review was not completed and mostly keep or no consensus. Please tell me how to appeal the deletion as I believe it to be improper." [1] In fact, all of the "keep" recommenders were single-purpose accounts; none of them had made any edits except to the article itself and its AfD. The article was about a person who has run for office several times but never been elected and has received little more than routine coverage of his campaigns, thus failing WP:POLITICIAN and not qualifying as notable under WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Undelete The John B. Kimble article had been on Wikipedia for a number of years and the subject had met the general notability guidelines and not necessarily the politician guidelines. He had been on Hard Copy, Today, BBC, Top news stories in the Dc area as well as nationwide when he had the opponent's wife as his campaign manager. He was also mentioned in the New York Times as well as many other news outlets when he volunteered to pose in Playgirl Magazine in 1996. I agree that a lot of single purpose accounts posted to his article as well as other accounts but those editors probably are very well versed in the subject matter. I do see that in many other articles and some of the so called sock puppetry may have been accidental rather than intentional. From the google news search posted on Wikipedia it does seem to show more general newsworthiness than political news worthiness. The article is used on Facebook as well as many other outlets which shows Wikipedia as a major news outlet. I believe the article should be undeleted because there was no consensus and the subject is interesting and newsworthy pursuant to the gng guidelines..I also have to comment about the single purpose accounts in that they really don't mean anything because those people would know about the subject they are writing about. Thank you. 68.50.111.217 (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)68.50.111.217 (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion The sock/meat issues probably derailed things, however, when one looks at the policy-based arguments (as opposed to WP:ILIKEIT) the consensus was indeed to delete. Perpetual runners are often looking for publicity - Wikipedia is not publicity, and neither is this debate. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, per Bwilkins and my initial assessment. DRV is not another venue for the AFD arguments to play out. I see nothing improper with the close. Syrthiss (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Relist, A consensus is not only a handful of editors. Even the initial proposal for deletion was not accurate. The article was not rebuilt in 2011. I see no reason the article should have been removed. The subject clearly meets general notability guidelines even though he does not meet politician guidelines.68.54.86.51 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)