Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator instructions

< February 2 Deletion review archives: 2009 February February 4 >

3 February 2009[edit]

  • Zack Snyder – restored following editor request (director has very few films, hence template was tagged CSD but nonetheless, my deletion of this template was mistaken) – Gwen Gale (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Template:Zack Snyder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

Browsing template of a major film director. Deleted as "useless". Should at least go to tfd. - Richfife (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rather than going through unnecessary process, can you advise where the template was used? Stifle (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum: Watchmen (film), 300 (film), Dawn of the Dead (2004 film), Zack Snyder - Richfife (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion since director templates are commonplace at film articles to link readers to their other works. I am not really sure why Gwen Gale deleted the template without any sort of discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, it was sheer abuse of administrative powers to delete this popular filmmakers' template. Alientraveller (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion; not sure I'd !vote to keep this at TfD (given that there are minimal links to go in this template), but it's clearly not eligible for speedy deletion. Blatant misuse of admin powers. PC78 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deletion. Come on - the guy isn't Spielberg or Scorsese! He has directed only three films (one not even released yet) and a music video. All his credits have wikilinks in the article so if anyone wants to know more about them they can click on those. The number of unnecessary templates is getting out of hand. People seem to create them for every Tom, Dick, and Harry no matter how prominent they are. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to TFD as obviously not non-controversial. There have been some gross misuses of G6 lately. Stifle (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as a perfect example of... something. Style creep? We have a template for Spielberg movies, therefore we must have a template for each and every director, right? Wrong. Most of them serve simply to inflate the importance of minor figures in movies, minor bands and so on, and increase the server load in the process. How many linked articles justify a career infobox? Not less than a dozen, certainly. In fact, most of these subjects would be treated with a single short article in a real encycopaedia, not the sprawling morass of lengthy poorly sourced crud on every single minor project that we see so often here. Bring it back if anyone other than fanboys can be show to really care. Gwen applied Clue. Well done. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let the fanboys swipe lie... The question is not whether it should exist. The question is whether it is speediable without discussion. By your own admission, some directors (Spielberg) deserve them and some don't. I agree. Where does the line go? To left of Zack Snyder or to the right? That should be discussed, which is what I'm asking. - Richfife (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind about leaving the fanboys swipe alone. Read Wikipedia:Anti-elitism. I know it was meant more for opposition to traditional educated contributors, but... Any dismissal of a entire group as hopelessly compromised in all things (fanboys, professors, porn fans, government officials, white power advocates etc...) is, well, really bad. - Richfife (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing everybody else here as "fanboys" is pretty bad form, especially for an admin. The main concern here seems to be an abuse of power and process. Admins are not granted special priviledges to do with as they please. There was no valid reason to bypass TfD. PC78 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There was discussion sometime ago at WT:FILM about how many films a director should have to warrant a navigation template. We considered three the bare minimum but did not want to go out of our way to create three-film templates. Yet such templates were not necessarily detrimental to Wikipedia, so we left existing ones alone. This template was in existence for quite some time, so unilateral deletion was not the right step. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Definitely in no way met the speedy deletion criteria and clearly from the above and from the deleting admins talk page was not the uncontroversial case speedy deletion is meant for. Send it to TFD if you think it should be deleted and let the community decide but don't unilaterally delete things that clearly do not meet the criteria. Davewild (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. The deleting admin did not provide a rationale that is in line with speedy deletion criteria. "Useless" is not a valid criterion for AFD either. - Mgm|(talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. According to the the IMDB, Zack Snyder has directed or is in the process of directing 13 films. Watchmen (film) promises to be one of the biggest films of the year. 300 (film) was huge. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as an invalid speedy. I would that every invalid speedy should be overturned (and invalid this was; even as IAR and CLUE may well underlie our project, the community have again and again rejected the idea that one should employ either in effecting speedy [or, really, summary] deletion, insisting that pages that do not meet CSD [as strictly construed] be taken to XfD), but I recognize that it is not particularly useful to urge restoration where there is no dispute that an XfD will result in deletion, but I am not at all convinced that there is no chance that a TfD will result in the template's being kept; the community may decide that Guy and Gwen have this one right on the merits, but the community must have the opportunity to reach that conclusion. Joe 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Deleting admin has restored the template. I'll list it on TFD in an hour or two if no one beats me to it (I've got my hands full right now). - Richfife (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Blaqstarr) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Contesting PROD. Blaqstarr did production work on M.I.A.'s Kala and has released material on Diplo's label Mad Decent. [1] Chubbles (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Dixie Chicken (bar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The Dixie Chicken is a notable bar with many reliable sources. If I had seen the Afd, I would have added them to the article. Please see; The Eagle (newspaper)'s Bush mentions local bar in speech, the Southern Poverty Law Center's article Discrimination at the Dixie Chicken?, the The Battalion articles Unofficial tradition of ring dunking began on accident, and Dixie Chicken owner Don Ganter dies, and KBTX-TV's articles Dixie Chicken Items Up For Grabs and Dixie Chicken Owner Dies. This Afd should be overturned. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another article However Northgate was also deleted, with, I feel has just as much notablity as the chicken. maybe a northgate bars page might work? or a new northgate page. I dont' know. Oldag07 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a notable district in itself, Northgate should also have an article of its own. There are many reliable sources; Northgate goes 'urban' with new apartments, Northgate Music Festival kicks off shows tonight, Safety On Northgate, Students Say It's Not An Issue, Northgate Drinking Ordinance Reviewed, Crime Wave Hits Northgate Area, Northgate issues topic for panel... Bhaktivinode (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion as deletion process properly followed. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I still endorse my deletion as correct on the information available at the time, but would of course have no objection to the new article. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stifle clearly had no choice but to close the AfD as delete. However, the article does not appear to be create-protected, and since you guys have found all these better sources, may I suggest you start from scratch, as it seems the old article was none to good anyway? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd endorse that idea. Stifle (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since both of you endorse the idea, I will add these above sources to the article as it is not "create-protected" as Beeblebrox has stated. In addition, I have asked that the article be userfied so that previous statements and sources may be added as well. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but if anyone thinks they can write an article to establish notability then please go ahead. Would be happy to userfy the previous article at any reasonable request if you want to work from the previous content. Davewild (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate it if you would userfy the previous article for me. Above, I have listed numerous reliable sources and would like to add these to any previous sources and/or details. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the history so you can see if there is any content that can be used. The new article is not a substantial recreation of the previous one so would have to go back through AFD if people think it should still be deleted so propose this deletion review should be closed. Davewild (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Per Beeblebrox and Stifle's suggestion, I have added the new reliable sources to a new recreated article. In the meantime, I am waiting for the deleted article to be userfied so that any other sources and/or statements may be added. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Endorse deletion All of those new sources are nothing but local news sources, except the SPL, which does not meet WP:N as they are not third-party sources. Should be re-deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update In addition to the reliable sources provided above, there are multiple reliable sources from books that establish the notability of the Dixie Chicken. Please see; The College Buzz Book, Stadium Stories, The Pride of Aggieland, and The Insider's Guide to the Colleges 2009 for a few examples. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Some of the numerous text listed above, which are reliable sources, have been added to the article. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update The article has been expanded. Also, two reliable sources, from the pre-Afd article, have been added to the current article. Bhaktivinode (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per recent updates as these reliable sources and statements were not noted in the Afd. The present article, with its stated notability and mulitiple reliable sources, is vastly improved over the deleted version. The article clearly states why the subject is notable and has multiple reliable sources to back up these claims. Bhaktivinode (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still feel deletion was correct and article should be re-deleted. Nothing there is significant coverage, only minor mentions, a presidential joke, and, primarily, local claims not backed up by any actual major sources or reference books. It's "role in A&M tradition" is completely sourced to local sources and brief college directories that primarily use summaries written by...university-affiliated people. If you have to say "it is notable for" just to try to claim its notable, that usually means its because it ain't (kind of like starting a sentence with "no offense). Nothing has even really been added to the article but more sources, all local except four, three of which are nothing but college directories which, of course, do not establish notability, and the so called discrimination claim has NOTHING at all to do with the Dixie Chicken beyond one of the confrontation's happening there. The new sources again do not counter the deletion reasons. This is NOT a notable establishment by Wikipedia standards and the article should be deleted (and really, its recreation before this DRV was done seems inappropriate to me). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article in Playboy Magazine, of which the Dixie Chicken is the subject, is a reliable source and verifies its notability. In addition, comments on the subject by; Austin American-Statesman, Yale Daily News, ESPN, U.S. News & World Report and many other reliable sources have also verified this notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Six additional reliable sources have been added to the article since the last update. Aso, the article has been expanded to further expound on the subjects history and notability. Presently the article's notability is clear, and well sourced from reliable sources. The deletion should be overturned. Bhaktivinode (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot Original closer followed proper procedure. Current version is six billion times better and should survive. Not sure what's left to discuss. Townlake (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close but keep new version per Townlake. Hobit (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

ExperVision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I requested the speedy deletion, and create protection of this article, because it was overly promotional, just parroting the official website of this organization. The user who created it all those times eventually came to me and asked for assistance in creating an article that would better meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. This user was new and very inexperienced, as well as being less than fluent in the English language. Working together, we have developed a stub article on the subject, which you can see here. It's not great, but it seems to me to get by the basic criteria for a stub. I approached the protecting admin and was rather brusquely told to make my case here, so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, draft lacks any reference to reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The subject is clearly notable based on the cited study and the awards and honors mentioned on the company's website. But there are several things left unsourced (use the company site per WP:SELFPUB if you must) and a few product entries still sound spammy (the word solution is never a good one to see in that context). I recommend a bit of trimming and tweaking before putting it live to avoid another deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until an established editor writes about it unprompted. Beeblebrox, sorry if I seemed brusque but what else did you expect me to say? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What does "established editor" mean, and does that mean there is some kind of list for which editors are more equal than others? Sorry, I just looked at this page (I do evey now and then) and I find the term "established editor" insulting. And I wonder how user:MacGyverMagic can say "neutral" and then say "clearly notable". I am no expert, but isn't the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia notability? Dendlai (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little perplexed myself. Yes, this guy was adding spammy material. Now he would like to make a proper article on what seems a notable company that he happens to have an interest in. I assumed his good faith was genuine and helped him out. That means the article is invalid? I don't think so. Like I said, it's not perfect, but it beats the tar out of an awful lot of other new stubs. All I have done so far is clean up the article, he did all the research and laid out the important facts. I'm a little surprised at an admin taking the attitude that contributions from new users are unwelcome or invalid. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to improve the sourcing and the tone of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have discovered that the company was written up in MacWorld, which has the largest circulation of any Macintosh focused publication, and have added information and a ref to the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment to all previous participants The draft has undergone some changes, and now has multiple sources showing that this company has been the subject of media attention for nearly two decades, so if everyone could check it out and re-evaluate it would be much appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Recreation with the condition that it be relisted at AFD with all deliberate speed to ensure that it can survive. I think that with a little work it could be a decent article.Firestorm (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not deleted through AfD originally, it was speedily deleted as spam. The only reason it's here is because it has been create-protected. It is my hope that if it were moved to article space, more editors would see it and it would probably improve rapidly. I've done what I can with it, but software is really not my area of expertise. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, I should have said "listed" and not "relisted". I still think it should be put up at AFD to make sure it meets our inclusion criteria and can stand up to more scrutiny. Firestorm (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy relist at AfD as needed. It clearly isn't a speedy candidate at the moment. Just recreation would have been a fair way to do it, as a speedy based on recreated content would be bogus. Also any argument that things need be done by "established editors" imply to me a lack of understanding of the purpose of wikipedia. Arguments of COI and spamming are also largely irrelevant if the article meets our guidelines. This one is debatable, but a quick news search turned up things at booklist and the like, beyond what's already there. I think the topic is above the bar and this article is a reasonable (and not spammy) stub. Perhaps the specific devices reviewed should be here instead, but I think putting it all under one company makes more sense. Hobit (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional request If the create protection is removed, it would make sense to also remove it from the alternate capitalization Expervision to serve as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin I asked (both here and on their individual talk pages) that everyone who commented before the improvements to the draft re-examine the issue in light of the improvements to sourcing and tone, but none of them bothered. So, the comments at the top are based on an older version. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • TurnKey Linux – Request withdrawn, see below. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

TurnKey Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This article was flagged for speedy deletion as SPAM without seeking consensus or debate, at the sole discretion of User:Efe , who usually edits music articles and has demonstrated he does not understand the subject matter. The deleted article is sourced with proper citations from reputable sources and describes in neutral language a community-oriented opensource project. There is no selling involved. Wikipedia includes articles on many other Ubuntu derivatives , no less notable. Why was this project singled out?

The project is quite popular for it's specialized niche (Software appliance) with over 10,000 downloads as evidenced by sourceforge statistics, despite still being in beta, which shows significant interest from the community. The project even has a MediaWiki software appliance featured on mediawiki.org. This is deletionism run amok. -- LirazSiri (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a kind administrator has provided the wiki text of the deleted article which I have saved at User:LirazSiri/TurnKey Linux for the benefit of those who do not have administrator privileges. I have also recreated the article with a few modifications so that it can serve for the basis of this discussion. I still don't understand the urgency with which User:Efe (who rarely ventures outside his domain of music entries) speed deleted it. Couldn't deletion have waited until the matter was debated and consensus reached? - LirazSiri (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I ask what those "reputable sources" were? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to have this discussion if the article was still accessible. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the wiki text, but here are a couple of said reputable sources: Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter#Issue108 Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter#Issue115 . I doubt whether a significant fraction of the many other Ubuntu derivatives that are covered on Wikipedia are mentioned in the official Ubuntu newsletter. - LirazSiri (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Sources as of the last edit:

And additional lists of external links:

  • This is a specialized niche area (Ubuntu based distributions) which is well established on Wikipedia. For this area the reporting sources are independent, reputable and relevant. Ubuntu is much more than a Linux distribution. It's a large and diverse international community with millions of users that embodies the Ubuntu (philosophy) of "humanity towards others". The Ubuntu community is large enough to have its own independent media organs (e.g., the Ubuntu Newsletter edited by the UWN team, full circle magazine) read by hundreds of thousands of subscribers interested in this niche subject. What is the rational for claiming that these are not reputable sources? - LirazSiri (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note, that the reported basis for the speedy deletion of this entry by User:Efe was that it violates Wikipedia:SPAM policy, not Wikipedia:Notability. However, if you would like to argue that the notability of this article is in question you will be hard pressed to justify keeping articles on any of the other Ubuntu based distributions which have Wikipedia entries and provide fewer sources (e.g., Mythbuntu, Baltix, Fluxbuntu, CrunchBang_Linux, Super_Ubuntu). If TurnKey Linux is not notable, by the same standards you will have to delete most of the entries in the list of Ubuntu derivatives. I'd like to remind you that notability standards were established to enable Wikipedia:verifiability, not to satisfy the destructive urges of deletionist zealots. - LirazSiri (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That all-or-nothing argument doesn't apply here. The status of other articles has no bearing on this deletion review. Back to the article; can you a) find completely unrelated reputable third-party sources that contain significant information on the subject? Sure, Ubuntu may be very large and have independent organs, but all the same I am suspicious when all the references have the same base name. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your personal suspicion regarding sources is arbitrary and irrelevant. Also, you are misapplying the all-or-nothing objection here. I'm not arguing the article is notable because there are many other entries on related subjects, I'm arguing that it is sourced in a way that measurably exceeds the prevalent standards for notability in this niche area. Notability standards are not black and white, they vary substantially from subject to subject. For example, they are higher for people and for controversial entries because Wikipedia:verifiability has more weight.
  • Again I would like to remind everyone that notability was not the cited reason for the speedy deletion of the entry and that even if it was verifiability is not at stake here. This is an entry on a free software project, developed collaboratively online, just like Wikipedia. - LirazSiri (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The sources above are, as noted, entirely lacking in independence or significance, virtually the entire thing is self-sourced due to lack of any alternative. It lacks any assertion of notability, other than "it's teh k3wl distro" which applies to any one of a hundred others. Come back when there are multiple non-trivial reliable independent sources. And since Liraz Siri is one of the developers, creating it again may well end up with a block for self-promotion and COI violation. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for threatening language. You seem to be assuming bad faith. There is no conflict of interest since both my contributions to Wikipedia and my contributions to TurnKey Linux serve the free software community, not myself personally. This is not self promotion, as I am not promoting myself. I am advocating for a free software project I care enough about to contribute to, much as I care enough to contribute to Wikipedia and the Open Directory Project. I also contribute to Ubuntu, so does that mean I can't contribute to Ubuntu articles on Wikipedia? Or to articles about ODP?
  • It is not yet another distribution. It is an assembly of pre-integrated software appliances built from the Ubuntu distribution. It is unique in this respect as there are no other free software projects building software appliances based on Ubuntu or any other distribution for that matter.
  • As evidenced by the opinion above of at least one other administrator (Stifle) who voted to overturn the deletion this is not a clear and cut case of Wikipedia:SPAM as originally flagged by User:Efe. Wikipedia's deletion guidelines for administrators state that When in doubt, don't delete.) - LirazSiri (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Lacks reliable sources to show that this distribution is generally recognized as being important. The arguments (above) for how TurnKey Linux is such a great idea should be addressed to people who write articles for magazines or for edited web sites. Once you convince those people, coverage in Wikipedia will follow. I could do without the article creator giving us lectures on Wikipedia policy. I can see the argument for sending it to AfD, but I doubt it could survive AfD in this condition. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only natural for an editor to get attached to an entry he has put so much time and effort into. If I didn't strongly believe the entry belonged in Wikipedia I wouldn't have bothered in the first place, so of course I'll argue passionately for it to stay. LirazSiri (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, that's it deletionists - you win. I give up! I hereby remove my deletion review request and will refrain from commenting any further on this matter. It seems once they throw the book at you arguing is an exercise in futility. Nevermind that the article has been around informing users for many months with no objections. Nevermind that the original reason for deletion (Wikipedia:SPAM) was absurd and that debate was never sought. Nevermind that capricious and arbitrary nature in which one free software entry is singled out over hundreds of others by a kafkaesque mob that seems eager to ignore the Wikipedia:ignore all rules policy and discounts my arguments due to the poisoned well nature of my contribution to the article or the project it describes. None of that matters because once an entry is deleted (for whatever reason) and reaches review it will be held up to standards which few entries of its kind could meet. I get it now. You win. Good day. - LirazSiri (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Speedy Deletion as a process violation and submit for standard WP:AFD, WP:PROD, or merge IMO the deleter tipped his or her hand: Turnkey Linux's entry has been in Ubuntu based distributions for months now. An individual actually acting out of concerns about spam would have sought out all mentions of Turnkey Linux on Wikipedia and deleted them. It seems pretty obvious to me that this is a case of someone with an administrator account using those privileges with a specious speedy delete justification simply to avoid having to make the argument for non-notability a non-admin editor would have to make - something unrelated to spamming but which requires actual effort and care to demonstrate one way or another (and which would have been dead easy to do in the case of actual spam - which this clearly wasn't.) Way to wreck someone's work to save yourself sweat on your brow, Efe.
So unquestionably not spam. I've never heard of Turnkey Linux before - I usually just use the main Debian or Ubuntu distros and haven't explored derivatives - but even a casual familiarity with IT ought to indicate that this is quite potentially notable as one of only two virtual appliance distros listed in Ubuntu based distributions! I don't know if it's a good virtual appliance or a notable one - I might still support deletion of the article in a normal AfD - but at the very minimum I would endorse merging with List of Ubuntu-based distributions or some article about virtual appliances. It seems unconscionable to me and completely irresponsible that anyone decided to annihilate such a large amount of content with a flick of the wrist. When a vandal blanks a page at least it can be reverted but when admins pull this sort of crap it requires extraordinary effort on the part of editors to recover their work.
"Your personal suspicion regarding sources is arbitrary and irrelevant." QFT: it's as irrelevant to a discussion of spam as an all-or-nothing argument would be to an actual discussion of notability, which this is not - this is an abuse of process. Wish I'd gotten this written before LirazSiri tapped out. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article created by a software developer, promoting the software project on which they are working. That is exactly the kind of thing for which speedy deletion was intended (just like garage bands). The fact that they re-created it during the deletion review is also a very bad sign. So well done for sticking up for this WP:SPA, WP:AGF and all that, but your comments don't actually address the fact that it is blatant promotion by an editor with a clear and admitted conflict of interest and no history of benefit to the project to give us any kind of idea that they are genuinely able to write in a way which is not promotional. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_3&oldid=1138435318"