Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 16

< March 15	Deletion review archives: 2008 March	March 17 >

16 March 2008

STARS methodology – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The article was speedily deleted without allowing me to reply (see my user page for my reply). In view of this, I consider that the deletion was not made in good faith and lacked fairness. So I request that STARS methodology page be restored and I can address the issues raised. Thank you --Isabel de pablo (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Actually, upon review of your userpage, it is apparent that you have had several editors leave you messages about this article over the course of a full month. Some have asked questions about your potential conflict of interest, which you have not answered. The article was deleted under ~~WP:CSD#A3, which implies that it lacked encyclopedic content.~~CSD-G11, which implies blatant advertising. You should attempt to create a version in your userspace, for example at User:Isabel de pablo/STARS methodology, and then come back to deletion review to ask for it to be put into mainspace. Failing that, there seems very little we can review here in order to justify overturning the deletion. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, this was spam, plain and simple. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was deleted as G11 (advertising). I think this is a reasonable interpretation of that CSD criterion after reading the cached version here (for the time being at least). All the article and references in the article appear to be of the same person (van Loon), and there are no independent references or other pages which discuss this idea. Moreover, there is no evidence in the article that this methodology has actually been used anywhere. The entire page looks like promotional/descriptive/prospective material for one person's idea, so I will endorse speedy deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per Sjakkale. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per Sjakkale. XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Murloc – Request withdrawn with no substantial support from others. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

It appears this article was merged into another article, Playable races in the Warcraft series, that was subsequently deleted. Given that the previous AfD discussion resulted in a pretty-overwhelming "Keep," restoring the original "Murloc" article seems appropriate. DegreeAbsolute (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - Consensus can change, the fact that the article was a merge target was brought up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playable races in the Warcraft series and there was still a consensus to delete. Guest9999 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this argument is misleading. You're talking about consensuses on two different articles. In legislation, this technique is used in reverse--you propose an amendment to a proposed bill that is completely unacceptable, thereby killing the bill. Here, after an adverse AfD decision, the article is then unilaterally merged with other material, and the whole omnibus package is thereby rejected. I don't think the second consensus at all reflects a change in the first, policy or no policy. Indeed, the original article is never mentioned. The fact that murlocs aren't even a playable race further undermines the credibility of the merger. If the solution is challenge the original merger, then I am perfectly prepared to do so. DegreeAbsolute (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elected to withdraw after reviewing discussion of deletion of omnibus article. I note, for the record, that I assume good faith here.DegreeAbsolute (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comparision_of_desktop_search_software – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Lack of fairness and good faith. There are other comparison articles in worse (i.e. without any or very few references) condition than this article was. It's unfortunate that the value of this type of comparison articles is largely underestimated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparision_of_desktop_search_software The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. An outstanding call by Keeper76, whose closing rationale clearly explains his valid reasoning. This article was pure synthesis, and has no place in wikipedia. The fact that other stuff exists is entirely irrelevant. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion nobody at the discussion addressed the fact that this topic has not been covered in any reliable sources and the article just consisted of synthesis of information published by the software manufacturers. The only argument that was made to keep the article was that there are other comparison lists on Wikipedia lacking references. This is a flawed argument - if there are references available but the article does not cite any then go and reference the article, if there are no references available then the article should be nominated for deletion. Hut 8.5 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion as per commentzzzz above XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Illyria – Speedy close as non-valid request. This was a request to review removal of content from an article. This is beyond the remit of DRV. In DRV we only consider overturning speedy deletions, deletions of expired PROD's, or closing decisions at XfD. What is described in this request is a content dispute, which is not appropriate for deletion review. Users are encouraged to utilize article or user talk pages to amicably discuss the issue, and if this fails, to use RFC and ARBCOM as next steps. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deleted my largely sourced material PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Cat_and_the_Owl deleted without a valid reason my sourced&referenced material considering it irrilevant

for the examination of the issue it can be read the last post i opened in the talk page of "illyria" called "Illyrians as Albanians"

as it can be noticed in my post, what i added is largely sourced, but the 2 users Megistias and The_Cat_and_the_Owl consider this irrilevant.

i consider it rilevant, related and sourced, and i remember this is a enrichment of the article, and i did not found a rule of wikipedia that denie me to enrich an article.

theyr behaviour makes me think what they done is intentional.

"If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the Talk page in the first instance." taken from the rules of wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#What_is_tendentious_editing.3F

thanks for the attention, PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that the section was removed exactly because it's irrelevant to the article. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Illyria#Illyrians_as_Albanians Pelasgicmoon is wrong to say the least among other things.Megistias (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Banishment_in_the_Bible – Restore as contested Prod, noting that it should not have been deleted per prod a second time. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

On 2008-03-05, discovered that the page was deleted on 2008-02-02 due to a Prod placed on 2008-01-28, but could not find the reason behind that Prod. On 2008-03-05, inquired the nature of the Prod from the editor who made that deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deb&oldid=195977449) So far received no explanation back from the editor. Since the nature of the Prod has not been specified, I would like to contest the deletion. Rpdant767 (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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