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

Brian Valentine is notable business person in the computer industry. He is a senior vice president at Amazon.com and was lead the developement of the micrsoft windows operation system for 15 years. Tag420 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable opponents of PETA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Restore: Deleted as per CSD G6 - this really looks to be in error. CSD G6 is for non-controversial deletions such as maintenance, and there is no trace as to where the information went.--Ramdrake 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was moved to List of opponents of PETA (AfD discussion); content at time of deletion was a historyless redirect to a non-existing page. —Cryptic 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - List of notable opponents of PETA was created 30 April 2007. On 4 November 2007, UnitedStatesian moved List of notable opponents of PETA to List of opponents of PETA citing "Per WP:MOSLIST guideline, lists should not have "notable" in their titles." List of notable opponents of PETA was made into a redirect on 4 November 2007. List of opponents of PETA was deleted 14 November 2007 at AfD. Redirect List of notable opponents of PETA was deleted 15 November 2007 per (CSD G6), non-controversial housekeeping deletion. However, it should have been CSD R1 Redirect to a deleted pages. This DRV probably can be closed. -- Jreferee t/c 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination and thanks for the info.--Ramdrake 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issaquah Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notability. I did not find the article Issaquah Middle School as a unnotable article because the school does exist as part of the Issaquah School District in Issaquah, WA. The proof is as followed http://www.ims.issaquah.wednet.edu/ . Just recently, the article was deleted for recreational deletation, however this is untrue because it was deleted multiple times regarding is un-nobility which is an incorrect statment. The school does exist. -- Brmuchim 02:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I don't think anyone was under the impression that the school didn't exist, just that it was not sufficiently notable to merit an article on Wikipedia, which is a reasonable assertion. If you haven't already, please read the general notability guideline (I really wish there were a more specific guideline I could point to, but so far all attempts to create one have failed). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Then there is common AfD outcomes for schools. However, there is plenty of reliable source material for the topic, such as * Forbes. (June 7, 1993) "The Issaquah miracle." Volume 151; Issue 12; Pg 114. * Lindblom, Mike. (February 6, 2001) Seattle Times. "Death" event upsets some parents. Anti-violence dramatization planned today at Issaquah school." Section: ROP Local News; Page B1. Feel free to develop a draft article to present to DRV in a request to recreate the article using your draft. -- Jreferee t/c 07:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the apparent working compromise is that all high schools get kept, all primary schools don't. Not written, not firm but rare to see an outcome otherwise. Every elementary school will have reliable 3rd party sources to their existence: the phone book, the district's website, probably some school board resolutions, local press coverage, but no cumulative collection of those establishes notability - because nearly every person mentioned in such sources would have the same claim to notability. A line must be drawn, and here de facto elementary schools fall on the non-notable side of that line, barring something exceptional. Carlossuarez46 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). As others have already said, the issue was never the existence of the school, only it's lack of notability. Recommend replacing the page with a redirect to the "Education" section of the page on the local community. Rossami (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Deleted as part of a catch-all of dietary subtypes for user categories on 5 Nov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2007#November_5 closing Admin stated no prejudice against creating interested in Vegetarian categories. Having only ever found out that my user categories were being deleted when a bot removed them from my page, the deletion does seem to end the category's useful purpose. There appears to be nothing contentious about having a category to do with interest in Vegetarianism though apparently it is related to sexual preference and factionalism in a way that I can't see. Not a great deal of discussion at the CFD and some was directed towards other elements of the group for deletion. I'll admit that I don't know whether a successful DRV would solve anything as the category will have been removed from it's users and so a revived one will be empty but I would have hoped for an outcome that merged/renamed it into something that conforms to the latest policies. MLA 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Consensus was that Category:Wikipedians interested in vegetarianism would be allowed as an expressed Wikipedia topic interest but Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians is not allowed because it is an expressed lifestyle choice. Wow. Talk about slicing hairs. However, that seems to make sense. I've always been bothered by these user categories being deleted because they fail to discuss Wikipedia:User page, which gives people a lot of latitude to do what they want. However, now I've seen the light. Wikipedian category directly expressing interest in certain Wikipedia topic(s) - good. Wikipedian category expressing interest something not directly tied to the encyclopedia or its topics - bad. Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians may have indirectly implied an interest in a Wikipedia topic. However, it's direct message was towards something not related to the encyclopedia - a personal choice, a dietary interest, a lifestyle interest. On one hand, this seemed like a disagreement over the category name. However, the CfD discussion was correct in that compiling into a category an expressing who you are along with other usernames compiled in that category does not necessarily mean that you are interested in writing about such topics. And when the Wikipedian Category additionally serves to form cliques (an informal and restricted social group formed by people who share common interests or patterns of behavior) that works against operating our Wikipedia:Consensus policy. -- Jreferee t/c 14:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And I'll renew my complaint. We delete user categories at something called Wikipedia:User categories for discussion but we have no guideline titled "User categories". They use the information in Wikipedia:Userboxes. Userboxes are vastly different from user categories. There was Wikipedia:User categorisation, but that tried to impose new ideas. Would someone please develop a guideline for Wikipedia:User categories using existing standards. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 14:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'm not done. If you want a questionably titled category to survive CfD, add consider adding a membership criteria to the top of the category that says something like "The usernames listed in this category are Wikipedians who are interested in developing articles on Vegetarianism." It might (or might not) help. -- Jreferee t/c 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BEANS, please... :) It would probably be better to create a less-questionable category rather than changing the inclusion criteria of an already-populated one. Also, user category discussions are guided primarily not by Wikipedia:Userboxes but by WP:NOT, as well as practical considerations of naming consistency, redundance, and so on. I think a guideline is unnecessary, but I believe that an informal description of standards and a listing of prior precedents is in the works. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I attempted to remove a few beans with my above edits. : ) -- Jreferee t/c 19:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Simply renaming a category for editors who self-identify as vegetarians to 'Category:Wikipedians interested in vegetarianism' would have been miscategorisation. The fact that I eat fruit does not mean I'm interested in fruit. Any editors who has an actual interest in vegetarianism is free to simply create Category:Wikipedians interested in vegetarianism and to allow it to populate naturally (that is, without making assumptions about the interests of editors and renaming the category, modifying the text of the userbox, and so on). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Bring to a community discussion I am personally not interested in listing myself in such categories, but I know that thousands of other wikipedians are. I have seen no indication of any event where they have ever harmed the encyclopedia--the possible cabal formation is entirely hypothetical. I do not intend to decide myself what other people can have on their user pages, or what categories they can list themselves in, as long as it does not harm the encyclopedia either directly, or by giving an impression of divisiveness or lack of seriousness. The encyclopedia is edited by humans, and I think all readers know it. I think the way some user make use of user pages are quite frankly silly, but i have learned that such silliness does not correlate with lack of serious positive contributions. Let people organize and list their interests as they care to, in any open nondestructive way. Possibly the community as a whole would prefer otherwise, but a few people at UCfD or here should not decide for the community. DGG (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few issues with the above comment that I feel compelled to point out. First, we do not know that "thousands of other Wikipedians" are interested in placing themselves in such categories. What we do know is that thousands are interested in adding userboxes to their userpages, and it takes only one editor to categorise all transclusions of a userbox by making a small modification to the userbox. Moreover, no one is out to delete all user categories, so there is no inherent conflict with the desires of thousands of editors. Second, the argument against frivolous user categories is mostly unrelated to "possible cabal formation" – the main argument is derived from WP:NOT. Third, the existence of certain user categories is not an issue of how users "make use of user pages". No one objects to personal notices typed on userpages, via text or a userbox; it is only an issue when categories are created to group users on the basis of these characteristics. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the "thousands"--if they actually do not care, then the wider discussion will so demonstrate, which will I hope settle this once and for all. I meant to say that, in fact. As for NOT, this and other content without direct relevance serves to make this a community in which people are comfortable. The environment is for the community, as long as the community is for the encyclopedia. If the personal statements help, why is the grouping any the worse--the only worse aspect I can see is the possibility of cabals. DGG (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure we've gotten rid of sexuality cats, now the diet ones, and the march goes on and on. To restore this would seem to indicate that WP's determination that one's diet is more important than one's sexuality - despite laws in many jurisdictions that demonstrate (for better or worse) that that's the wrong way round. Carlossuarez46 23:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is this an argument to endorse this, or reverse this and the other decisions too.? I would most certainly support the latter. DGG (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close and decide by tossing a coin. Once again, a huge row over next-to-nothing. On the one hand, no evidence that these categories have been abused, and on the other hand no evidence that these categories do much to help build the encyclopedia. And whatever harm there is on either side, it doesn't seem to be half as great as the ill-feeling generated by these debates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I can barely understand what the nominator is looking for here, but the closing rationale was clear and there seems to be no challenge to the process of my decision, which is consistent with precedent. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - useless --Doc^g 09:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Facebook (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Facebook|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

This MFD was closed in an hour and a half with only one comment aside from the nominator's. Other users have expressed that they would have participated in the MFD if it had been kept open. Nothing I can see here leads this to be a candidate for speedy keeping per deletion guidelines. It is my belief that this should be reopened and allowed to run the full course of the MFD. Remember, this is a discussion of the MFD process, not the actual merits of the page, so please keep comments focused on that idea. I personally have no opinion on the page one way or the other. Metros 11:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Overturn – Re-listing the article on MfD would be in conformance with the process, but personally, I would like this page to exist, simply because "anonymity impedes communication and fuels misapprehensions". If a group of users are willingly posting their photographs on Wikipedia, it should be considered a part of a community-building process and should not be discouraged in any way. Having this page is not taxing on our resources any way, since the images themselves are not going to get removed. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Early closure was not appropriate or in keeping with speedy keep guidelines. Leave it for the five days. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - Personal preference does not override policy process.--WaltCip 13:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist discussions run for 5 days, not 1 hour and 34 minutes. Nominator clearly wanted it deleted, so no speedy keep reason applies. GRBerry 14:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - per WaltCip, Stifle, and GRBerry. I MFDed this originally, and the closing admin clearly closed this out of process. Not to mention the nonsense that took place at AN/I afterwards. Nobody of consequence 14:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Parsnip!, I hardly call your signing as [[User:The Parsnip!|Nobody of consequence]] nonsense. Once you started using a name different from your user name, you should have created a Doppelganger account. Apparently, a sock took advantage of that, created the user account Nobody of consequence, and then posted an AN/I request.[1] You should have a checkuser run on Nobody of consequence. -- Jreferee t/c 15:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No checkuser should be necessary. Ta bu shi da yu already said he created it. --Onorem♠Dil 15:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My signature is not nonsense, but the ensuing complaint about it is PATENT nonsense, Jreferee. There is no rule saying people have to create doppelganger accounts when they choose to use a pseudonym in their signature, or at least none that I've found. And the sock was created by the same admin who speedy closed the MFD. In any case, I like my signature so I'll just move my account to a similar signature, but with a small difference. Okay? Seems I don't have a good reason for that... nevermind. Nobody of consequence 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, signature issue is now resolved. Nobody of Consequence 18:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist Your personal opinion on the page should be a comment in the XFD, not the closing statement. --W.marsh 15:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - Wikipedia:Facebook/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians has never been through MfD. Somone thought that it should be deleted and posted a reasonable request for review. Overpowering the nominator by speedy closing a legitimate MfD and then creating a redirect out of Wikipedia:Facebook so that it directs to Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians[2] is not the wikiway. Comment - Wikipedia:Facebook was mentioned at This IMfD because someone photoshopped a Wikipedia:Facebook image of Jimbo into Image:Creation of jimbo.jpg (it's a funny photo). Comment - Redirect Wiki faces → Wikipedia:Facebook was listed for deletion today as well. -- Jreferee t/c 15:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per the above, inappropriate speedy. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Closing admin allowed no time for discussion, looks like they applied their own personal preference in the close. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist-I've seen some fairly inappropriate early closures from time to time, but this is by far the worst example. Regardless of how one feels about the page, refusing to even allow a discussion on the subject is ludicrous.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist I'd love to see this page kept, but the attempted circumvention of process exhibited by the closing admin is baffling.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per all of the above. The closing admin used just about every argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notability Msr iaidoka 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I understand that, in the past, many articles have been made about Dr. Steel that were of questionable veracity. I am proposing that the block on creating a Dr. Steel article be removed so that I may create an article well within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I have a draft drawn up for a Dr. Steel article at User:Msr iaidoka/Dr. Steel. One administrator stated the the sources cited were not reliable, independent sources. Since the links came from the individual interviewer websites then I propose that there is a fallacy in that contention. Also, there is a belief that the Jay Leno appearance by Dr. Steel was conjectural. A clip of the Jay Leno appearance can be found here: http://worlddominationtoys.com/drsteel/show.html : Slide Show/Live Clips -> Live Clips -> Second video file. (A direct link is not possible since it is embedded within a Flash file). Further information supporting the notability of Dr. Steel can be provided upon request. Msr iaidoka 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As you can see, our definition of a reliable source is not just independence from the subject described, it includes "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Chick Bowen 04:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's been anything new made available since the last time this article was discussed. The Leno appearance was available back then, and was (IIRC) generally considered to be a passing reference; it certainly looked that way to me, being about 30 seconds or so and with no actual explanation as to who he was involved. The references provided don't look to be good reliable sources. Basically, there needs to be some mainstream (or at least more notable alternative press) coverage specifically focusing on Dr. Steel for him to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Keep deleted Tony Fox (arf!) 05:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dr. Steel appearance was an interview in the segment "You Learn Something New Every Day" with John Melendez. As for the reliability of sources, it seems like the definition is subjective. I would count the SuicideGirls as a highly reliable source since they are quite popular and have a substantial following. Also, VM Underground is a respectable interviewing group and radio show, currently being broadcast on numerous major radio stations (WIRN, WFLM, CAYA) as well as on many internet radio stations. Aside from the two released albums, what else will it take for the notability of this artist to be verified? Msr iaidoka 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse/keep deleted - It takes sufficient reliable source material for the notability of this artist to be verified. He appeared on Jay Leno yet no news outlet covered this appearance. How does that make him notable? In fact, it seems to work against a claim of notability. Even if the SuicideGirls interview is a Wikipedia reliable source, you can't use anything Dr. Steel says in the interview since that information is not independent of Dr. Steel. That really doesn't leave much content available for the Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee t/c 06:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • News outlets do not cover every segment of variety/talk shows. At most they mention who the main stage people will be and ignore everything else which does not discredit the rest of the people to appear on the show. Also, why would Dr. Steel talk about anything other than himself in the interview? I feel I must be missing something here. Msr iaidoka 06:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See General notability guideline. There are two requirements in that statement. 1. Reliable source and 2. independent of the subject. If Dr. Steel says it, then that information is not independent of Dr. Steel. -- Jreferee t/c 06:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I think we are talking in circles here, either that or we are missing each others points. Dr. Steel will, of course, talk about himself as will the interviewers, thus the reason for the interview. Am I mistaken? Msr iaidoka 06:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your point is that the SuicideGirls source is 1. a reliable source. My point is that it still needs to be 2. independent of Dr. Steel to be usable in the article. -- Jreferee t/c 07:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • They are independent of Dr. Steel. They are their own organization and exist for their own purposes and their interview is hosted on their site. Msr iaidoka 07:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think what Jreferee is saying is that there needs to be more coverage of a serious nature - articles, rather than in-character interviews such as the Suicide Girls one, done by publications with actual editorial oversight policies. Magazines, newspapers, websites of a similar nature. I don't personally feel Suicide Girls fits that bill, and that seems to be the general consensus. If there have been articles in actual media outlets, mainstream or music, then those are the references you need for this article to fly. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • • Mr. Fox, thank you for actually taking the time to give an explanation instead of merely referencing a subjective rule set. So, despite the site having an official editor-in-chief (since they do actually do more than merely take pictures), they do not fit in with the ideals of a "respectable" website? If I am misinterpreting your statement, please correct me.. Msr iaidoka (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's not respectability, it's usefulness as a reliable source; as I say, it doesn't really fit as a news/reporting type of website, so it's a bit questionable as to whether it's a reliable source. That's the question here. My opinion is that it's not. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So the only sources that would be acceptable would be those provided by "pure" news outlets?Msr iaidoka (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • SuicideGirls is independent of Dr. Steel. If they wrote an article summarizing what he said, that written material would be independent of Dr. Steel. In reprinting verbatim comments by Dr. Steel, the reprinting might be independent, but the verbatim comments by Dr. Steel are not independent of Dr. Steel. Dr. Steel's verbatim comments do not count towards meeting WP:N because Dr. Steel's verbatim comments are not independent of Dr. Steel. -- Jreferee t/c 19:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • So, if I understand you correctly, an article wherein the subject is paraphrased is legitimate but a transcript of an interview is not? Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken. Msr iaidoka (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Info from an article wherein the subject is paraphrased can be used but the transcript of the subject's interview statements cannot be used. It seems backwards, but that's the Wikiway. -- Jreferee t/c 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh no, not again. Endorse all the dozens of deleitons and reviews at various different titles. Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You jump to a conclusion that I intend to misuse Wikipedia. If you check my user history you will notice that I have never misused the site and that every edit that I have submitted has been appropriate. I am not out to turn an article into a "viral marketing" tool which I am sure you would notice if you were not allowing prior, unrelated, actions to bias your opinion. Msr iaidoka 06:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and add to WP:DRPR. Sources are nowhere near reliable/independent enough. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The last review I find is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22. Anything more recent or referencing other titles? GRBerry 22:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitachi Data Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as a copyvio by User:The-G-Unit-Boss, but there was a revision from March 2007 before the copyvio which was worth keeping, although not a wonderful article. I raised this with the deleting admin at User talk:The-G-Unit-Boss/Archive 15#Hitachi Data Systems, and got a reply at User talk:Gadfium#Re:Hitachi Data Systems which I don't consider adequately addresses the March 2007 version. gadfium 02:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concede as the version I thought worth reverting to is also a copyvio. This deletion review can be speedy closed.-gadfium 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If the revision you mentioned was the only one in the history I would speedy delete it right away as not asserting the company's notability. (A diverse product range doesn't count.) No objection to having a clean, non-ad version written from scratch, but nothing in the deleted history's worth restoring IMO. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, that version is a copyvio of this. See google. It has advertising problems, too. The topic has endless relaible source material available for it, it would be much easier to write a sourced article then to spend so much time asking for the deleted material to be restored. -- Jreferee t/c 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, blatant copyright infringement. Write a new one if you like. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, without prejudice for recreation. henrik•talk 18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The administrator stated that the article was on a band that had no significance. The Wikipedia rules clearly state that to have musical significance the band in question must have had a charted musical work or have performed on national radio or television. Easyworld as a band had 6 singles from 3 albums, 5 of which charted in the UK, the highest chart placement being #24 in January 2004. The band also had a #14 Indie-Chart album in the UK. In addition, the band satisfy the performance on radio and television. Easyworld made a total of no less than 32 radio perfomances over 30 minutes in length, and 3 television performances, one of which was a documentary aired nationally on UKTV lasting 45 minutes. Please undelete. 82.45.227.205 02:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like they have made the charts which would certainly help them move towards meeting WP:MUSIC (I find two songs that charted, though not the #24 mentioned above), but I can't see the last version of the article to say whether it asserted notability or not. Might I suggest that your better bet would be to register for an account and create a draft in userspace, with the sources proving that they meet the guidelines well placed, then come back for consideration? Tony Fox (arf!) 05:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Claims charted singles which would meet WP:MUSIC so it is worth a full evaluation on AfD. Eluchil404 05:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The only importance claim "releasing two albums on major label Jive Records" is not so clear cut important that I can fault the CSD A7 deleting admin. Just because they are released does not mean something happened to them. That something needs to have been in the article for it to count towards A7. Also, the deleted article also appears to be a copyvio of this.. I did a search and there is more than enought reliable source material for Easyworld to meet WP:N. Feel free to recreate a footnoted article. -- Jreferee t/c 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What Jreferee said. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not strictly speediable but no real point in overturning and sending to AFD where it'll undoubtedly be deleted anyway. Endorse without prejudice to a proper article being created. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion as the article contains claims of importance. While WP:MUSIC is not a criteria for speedy deletion, this band probably meets it anyway... it has reviews on AMG and 115 other media sources. Lack of inline citations is also not a criteria for speedy deletion. --W.marsh 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Disclosure: a friend working for Openbravo pointed out that this page was protected, but I took initiative in asking for review). The original reason for deletion (see [3]) doesn't (or no longer applies). Openbravo is one of the SF projects with highest activity (see stats here and notice that we have pages for all the other projects listed there (Audacity, Azureus, phpMyAdmin, Ares Galaxy...). A Google search also makes it evident that Openbravo is indeed quite popular. Considering we tolerate pages about much more obscure software, I believe this protection should be reviewed. Phils 00:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - The AfD was in June 2006, but the earilest info I found was a mention in August 2006 - two months after the AfD. The latest November 2007 Hindustan Times. Google books and Google scholar have some hits. There is a lot of press release coverage, but there still might be enough independent reliable source coverage for the topic to meet WP:N. I agree that the prior AfD does not apply. Also, there haven't been a whole lot of recent attempts to recreate the article and the DRV nominator provide an interest disclosure. I think relisting at AfD would be the best course of action since it would either give an up to date AfD deletion or reveal consensus in favor of the article. Undelete the article so that it may be edited and relist at AfD for five days. -- Jreferee t/c 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the spirit of Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, perhaps it would be best to temporarily restore the article, wait a week, then relist? Otherwise I fear it will will be piled with a lot of "sources haven't been added yet, and I don't want to see if they exist" !votes. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Jimfbleak 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If we have sources, a claim of notability, and a non-conflicted editor with some significant contributions outside of this subject (none of which appears to apply to the deleted version from May, which was a directory entry by a single-purpose account) than I don't see a problem with having another look at it. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• All this requestor wants is an unsalt. As per Guy, I see no reason not to. Unsalt. GRBerry 18:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt per GRBerry and Guy. The company's press page might be a good place to start looking for sources, and there may be some Spanish-language stuff out there as well. #1 Sourceforge activity isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:N, of course, but it's a reasonable claim of notability. JavaTenor 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]