Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 25

Seekda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The admin Tone has requested (Talk) to put on the deletion review the article about seekda. He admits that the style is now ok, but his only consideration is notability. It was my fault that the article got deleted several times, as I had no clue about using wikipedia when starting preparing it. Every time I was making a save, an admin was coming and deleting it. Anyway I took all the comments into consideration, I spent lots of time to study how similar articles about other companies look like. I believe that currently this article meets all the standards and its quality is comparable to similar articles about companies, which can be found on wikipedia. If you believe that there is still something, what could/should get fixed, please let me know and I will adjust it to required standards.

Tone believes that because several admins deleted it, he prefers having some more opinions in favor before restoring it. Please see his talk page Talk for our discussion. I would appreciate your positive response. Mzaremba (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• It should be restored. It has been deleted on grounds of both A7 non notable, and G11 advertising. Since it asserts it "has developed the first global Web Service Search Engine based on focused crawling, " it asserts notability, and A7 can not hold. It is seems a straight descriptive article on the software company without puffery, and so I do not see how it amounts in any sense to advertising. If notability isdoubted, afd is the place to test it. DGG (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• There was enough content that it should not have qualified for speedy deletion under either A7 (notability). The history shows that it was also speedy-deleted under criterion G11 (spam). That one is harder to call. The sources provided do not make a clear case that this company meets our recommended inclusion criteria for companies. I note that this draft was speedy-deleted 5 times by 4 separate admins. However, I also not that it was deleted each time within mere minutes of creation. Overturn speedy-deletion and immediately list to AFD. That will give 5 days for improvement, discussion and consensus to determine if an encyclopedic article on this company is reasonably possible. Rossami (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy restore/list - Tone was the last deleting admin, so it would be appropriate to permit Tone speak for the other deleting admins. Rossami's comment that the deletions by separate admins occured within minutes of each others justifies a conclusion that their actions effectively were that of a single admin, so comment by each of them is not really necessary to speedy act on this DRV. Speedy restore and list per above comments. Comment There is a Florida company called seekdata, but I was not able to find any info on the Austrian spin-off company Seekda. -- Jreferee t/c 18:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think you may be misinterpreting my analysis of the history. Each of the deleting admins gave a different justification. Each appeared to be acting independently and each appeared to conclude that the page was deletable. My comment about time was the duration between creation (or recreation) and deletion - my guess is that this page apparently got caught each time through the New Pages patrol. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

JAMAA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) (DRV1) (DRV2)

The previous deletion review was closed within hours of its opening and was not given sufficient time to run its full course. See DRV1 and DRV2. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close this nomination. Please stop abusing the DRV process. The first DRV endorsed closure but didn't prevent a reliably-sourced article from being created. That was ten days ago. The second DRV was speedy closed because nothing had changed in the ten days since the first DRV. Now, go create an article or give it up. Corvus cornix_talk 21:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Glitz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

There were multiple procedural errors in the deletion of this page. It is fundamentally a notability dispute (and not in one of the A7 categories), so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. The most recent deletion uses CSD G4 (recreation), but my recreation is about the graphics library, while the previous article was about an avatar in a MMORPG. Furthermore, the article was tagged with {{db-nn}}, but the subject is not in any of the categories. Simply put, if someone wants to delete this article for notability, it needs to through the standard WP:AFD process. Superm401 - Talk 06:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion Latest deletion cites G4, which does not apply to previously speedied material. Procedural flaw. the_undertow ^talk 07:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. not a valid G4 delete. By the way, if the previous article was about an MMORPG avatar, it does fall into an A7 category (web content) --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion - Public disclosure of private information of a person under 18 using an avatar for which there is no reasonable assertion of importance/significance in the article falls under CSD A7 and possibly CSD G10. -- Jreferee t/c 17:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Permit recreation only if the article is renamed to Glitz (software). The name is appropriate per www.freedesktop.org/Software/glitz. As noted above, my own review of the matter was mislead by the prior deleted content. It makes no sense to continue with an article name that makes deletion mistakes likely. -- Jreferee t/c 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to use parenthetical disambiguation when there is no other article by that name. Superm401 - Talk 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you want an article on Glitz software or are you really after the confusion likely to be generated in overlaping the edit history of a BLP problem article (Glitz) with a different topic (Glitz software)? In any event, my purpose is so that we can keep track of attempts to recreate Glitz software once Glitz (software) is deleted at AfD and also manage attempts to recreate the BLP problem Glitz article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Don't Overturn, allow creation of a feasible article G4 might not apply, but either A7 or A1 certainly do. Generally, I consider DRV nominations that are longer than the deleted article borderline disruptive. The last deleted article ("Glitz is a widely used image compositing library that relies on the OpenGL capabilities of graphics hardware.") neither asserted notability nor did it even explain properly what it was about. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how, as we are here voluntarily, that a DRV can be disruptive. In this case, you may be correct with A7 or A1, but that was not why the article was deleted. This is about the administrative action, not the article itself. the_undertow ^talk 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Almost everything in Wikipedia is run on a volunteer basis, yet there is more than enough disruption going on. Your argument is like saying that there is no vandalism since all vandal fighters are volunteers. If you can't be arsed to write an article that meets even minimal quality standards you have no right to hold admins to a high standard of performing what is for a most part an annoying and repetetive chore. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Do not overturn my deletion in present state, but allow re-creation. Exact text when I G4'ed was

  Glitz is a widely used image compositing library that relies on the OpenGL capabilities of graphics hardware.

  So that fails WP:CSD#A7. Suggest userfying of article by creator pending review by another editor. Although G4 may be procedularly incorrect at the time I speedied it, the article still failed A7 and borderline A1 so could have been speedied anyway with a different rationale. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see where software fits the A7 criteria. It's not one of the categories listed. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There was also an external link: [1] --Stormie (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Recreate. If this gets undeleted its just going to get redeleted under A7. Why don't you just write a proper article that actually says something instead of wasting our time with a deletion review? Also, have you discussed this with the deleting admin in advance or notified them of this review? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC) - Oh I see you went stright to DRV without the discussion with the admin. Gah. can someone close this as recreation allowed? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was clearly a short stub, but it was in progress and the deletion was inappropriate. I did notify the admin, though I didn't have a separate discussion, as discussion here seems to be fine. Superm401 - Talk 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Permit recreation - completely invalid G4 deletion, as G4 does not apply to speedy deletions, and additionally, the article deleted per G4 was a completely different article on a completely different Glitz. But yes, as above, no point undeleting, just create a new article which asserts notability, the version deleted certainly does not. --Stormie (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• The wonk in me is aghast at this being deleted as a G4; previous deletions at this title were a copyvio (deleted as such) and somebody's Audition Online persona (A7ed), so have zero bearing on any other possible article here. Trying to justify this as an A1 or A7 after-the-fact isn't on, either; there was more than enough context, and doublethink like considering software (libre software, at that) articles to qualify as company articles just so they can speedied is one of the main reasons why getting a real consensus to expand speedy deletion criteria is so difficult. Overall, though, I agree with Trialsanderrors - this single-sentence substub wasn't worth bringing to DRV; I'd be able to bring myself to care more if, y'know, there had been some meat here.
  
  As an aside, I looked at the copyvio versions. While that text does appear at http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/glitz, the history there shows it predates our version, and there's no apparent license grant on that wiki, much of the same text also appears in e.g. SuSE package descriptions; that wiki page may have in turn been culled from free documentation. —Cryptic 01:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware the previous article was a copyvio, as I tagged it as such (part of the reason I felt obligated to start a new article). That has no bearing on my stub, though. Of course, I will help expand the article as soon as deletion is overturned (or recreation is allowed). Superm401 - Talk 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)