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

At Last (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Also At Last (band). Same reasons as for my DRV request yesterday on The Duttons and some other America's Got Talent Season 2 top ten competitors, except I had missed that these two top ten from season 1 had also been speedy deleted. Invalid speedy deletion. Making the top ten on America's Got Talent gives at *least* an assertion of notability. Whether that is enough notability for the article to remain is an issue for AFD, but IMHO it is definitely enough to invalidate speedy deletion. The Millers survived one AFD already as a Keep, further invalidating speedy deletion. The deletion of At Last mentioned it being advertising SPAM, which I fully dispute. It was a fairly typical stub article on a reality TV show participant group, assembled by a number of editors over the course of a year. If POV stuff had crept in, that is reason for cleaning it up, not for speedy deletion. It simply is not SPAM. The remaining reasons given for speedy of them both, lack of references and lack of secondary sources, are both once again issues for AFD, not valid criteria for speedy deletion. TexasAndroid 16:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and (optionally) list at AfD per TA, who very well explains why speedy deletion was inappropriate here (especially relative to The Millers), and consistent with the DRV on The Duttons infra, which seems to be on all fours with this one. Joe 19:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and List view - I don't see either article being an A7 nor a G11. Bridgeplayer 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion per above. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore Not spam, not a speedy. Notability implied, even if disputable. Golfcam 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per nom. Abberley2 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

sources Danjdoyle 15:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Now home from university, I have access to my sources on this. The letter recieved from Éamonn Ó Cuív, Irish minister for Rural and Gaeltacht affairs states: "29 May 2007 Dear Friends, I would like to congratulate the Canadian people for establishing a Gaeltacht in Canada, the first outside of Ireland. I wish every success to your work and I hope that it will grow and develop." (found in "Searmanas Oscáilte Cumann na Gaeltachta" page 7, given out on the official opening). I feel this is all the confirmation needed, as he is the person in charge of Irish Gaeltachts, and even he states firstly that the Canadian one is a Gaeltacht, and secondly, that it is the first of its kind outside of Ireland. I move to have this page re-instated.[reply]

• Speedy close. This was closed on Wikipedia:Deletion_review#17_August_2007. A letter is not a reliable source. Corvus cornix 15:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Angellp, as you are the one creating the article, and presumably know about this product, you are the best person to find reliable sources on this article. We require articles to assert why they should be in Wikipedia, this means make a claim, this software is the number one or number two out of 20 solutions... and then back up you claims with reliable sources. This is not an unreasonable request, otherwise Wikipedia would be filled with all sorts of garbage. For example, the IRC bot I just programmed yesterday does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of how interesting and useful I think it is. A one line article with a link to the (your company's?) site is not up to what we want to have in Wikipedia, we have a goal to write the best Free encyclopedia. In short, even if its undeleted here, it will be undeleted based on process, not on the value of the article, therefor if you really want this page in Wikipedia, please supply a few secondary sources, that are not related to the company website.

Another note: CAPS AND BOLD do not make a good argument either ;). I have no real opinion on the value of the software, but by whats up now, it does not seem to be all that important. (I'm judging by information that has been verified by reliable sources.

To whoever closes this, I understand the arguments I'm making here are not really fit for DRV, but if the improvement to the page can be made now, rather then waiting for us all to take it to yet another hoop process, why not ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure, but you have no sources asserting that its notable or that those facts are true. Look at your second fact, how many companys are recognized by the US government? Do you even have proof somewhere that this is true, or do I have to trust the company website? The third fact is also unsourced, though I'm sure its very easy to look up. In any case just because someone took a copyright on something does note make it encyclopaedic. Do you have any clue how many copyrights are granted by the US government yearly, if we had an article on every copyrighted product we would have 10 times the size of the current encyclopedia, and the vast majority would not even be that notable Finally just because the US government "recognizes" a software product does not make worthwhile of entry, and in any case its not sourced. Is this even notable enough to show up in say a trade magazine? How about an online review by a reputable reviewer? Usage statistics from someone other then the company that makes it? That is what I'm asking for. Even just one of those. So lets look at this... you have asserted 4 facts, I'm willing to take the company's word that its an 'Excel based Project Plan', but the other 3.... can we have some external references? You need to establish a claim that this is a widely used product, or has garnered sufficient attention. Again not every product distributed by every company is put in Wikipedia. I look forward to some sources asserting usage and reviews, along with secondary sources, or even primary sources on the last 3 facts. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note to author: discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_23#EasyProjectPlan —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AngellpPezzullo 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, there is no reference to anything but the company site and that is not a sufficient reliable source. Second, there is nothing wrong with having a link to your site and I never said otherwise. The problem is that it is the only link. Third, the Microsoft Project article is irrelevant -- see Other Stuff Exists. Fourth, there is no claim in the article that it is number 1 in the world. Such a claim might cause it to survive speedy but would have to be backed up by sources. Again, not WP:RS and WP:V. Fifth, there is no argument that the software is trivial and I never said as much; only the sources that seem to exist on Google are trivial. Sixth, a mere listing on Amazon does not make the product notable. Seventh, a copyright has nothing to do with notability. If the author had provided even a claim (assertion) of notability I would not have deleted in the first place. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion. This article was tagged by another editor and I speedied it. It was then recreated in essentially the same condition by User:AngellpPezzullo. Another user tagged it again and I deleted it again and this time salted it. The article bears no resemblance to Microsoft Project. I am unsure what he means by it being in the exact format. The listings on Google were all trivial additions at shareware sites. This article had no assertion of any notability and possessed only one reference which was a link to the company website. I stand by my decision that this is nothing but a spam entry. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overthrow and list at AfD The full content was "'EasyProjectPlan (or EPP) is an Excel based project management software program developed and sold by EasyProjectPlan LLC which is designed to assist project managers in developing plans, assigning resources to tasks, and tracking progress. EasyProjectPlan v1.0 was released and copyrighted in 2006." The reasons given was only db-corp. This is a clear error, as A7 does not apply to computer programs, & this is an article for the product not the company. As for G11, it seems to be s straightforward listing, without any of the praise of the product that characterises spam. I don't think it fits. I don;t think the product is notable on the information given, but Speedy does not mean "non-notable" it's time my colleague admins learned to use correct reasons. If it is suggested that the scope of speedy should be expanded, that's another matter but i expect us all to follow the existing rules. DGG (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: It's quite a technical reading to say that programs are not including in A7. The point to A7 was anything, biography, song, etc., with no assertion of notability, but computer programs were not explicitly mentioned. This is the "WPNOT Freshmeat.org" principle. Think of all those game mods and shareware programs that are routinely deleted at birth. Surely all of those do not need to go to AfD? The article conveys little information, and the fact that a company made their HelloWorld front end with Excel is really not close to a questionable case, unless we have some indication that this is the first, the most popular, or infamous ... something than merely being for sale. Geogre 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation It is not by accident that software isn't included--the proposal has been made several times and always rejected by the community. The reason is that the notability or non-notability of software is often not at all evident to non-specialists, and it is therefore not safe in having a single admin delete it--even with the best will in the world. In this case it seems obvious to anyone who has worked with project software or Excel that this product is highly unlikely to be notable, but if we made a general rule for programs, it would be applied wrongly as well. On the other hand, for people there are about 100 articles a day saying things like "Kristina is the most beautiful girl in the whole world. Period." (real instance from today's list)--and there can be no doubt at all about deleting something like that.DGG (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my practice, I believe that discretion is necessary in these cases and DRV is the appeal. With this one, the fact that it was an LLC's front end to Excel was a pretty clear giveaway that this is not actually an application but rather an adaptation. It is like creating a db off Access and selling it -- there are tens of thousands -- because Access allows you to do that. A first order versus second order software is an easy distinction in the absence of an assertion of notability. Thus, if any of the popular (?!?) roll outs were listed, the article would surely say something like "most popular back office in the financial industry" or something else that would be an assertion of notability. Thus, if I see "modification of an application" and "no assertion of notability," I don't think it's a stretch at all to say, "Not much different from Kyle is the Greatest." Geogre 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, I've used such software & developed such macros myself, & I agree with your evaluation. But that's not the point. DGG (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and AFD. Software isn't covered under A7 and it is not an advert, therefore there hasn't been a valid deletion. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and List view - I think that it is fully correct to take make a "technical reading" of the A7 criteria. Speedies are deletion without consensus and therefore should be confined to pages that clearly fall within the criteria that the Community have decided upon. Bridgeplayer 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. CSD A7 only has consensus in its strict form. Evouga 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Question Since the general consensus here and at this point is that it should not have been deleted as A7, is there any reason why I cannot un-delete now and list at AfD? --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 22:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I know how to program, I understand this space, and also the problem of spam. There are two issues here, 1) Is this a legit product that can substantitate it claims by references other then its own link? If its not I would say that JodyB did a great heads up deletion of advertising, though if I were JodyB I would have explained to the author what is expected as far as reliable sources. Microsoft has a page because that product has been reviewed and has had 3rd party commentary by folks not affiliated with microsoft. That should be the standard for any company service or product, we should be able to find that a) its actually used, and that there are multiple reliable sources asserting its merit, otherwise its potentially false information and claims and at worst just a promo piece. (The link goes to the promotion). JodyB, you did well I think, but you might want to contact the authors of these types of pages and explain to them what is actually required, in this case the author *really* wants this article in, and as such it should be checked for conflict of interest issues, and the overall use of the contribution to the encyclopedoa. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary note to the author: Generally in this forum and any other wikipedia page, ALL CAPS is discouraged, and does not help your argument, just a heads up. Just so you know the main problem with this article as it stands is the lack of sources. The company website is not a source. See our guidelines on reliable sources. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I have un-deleted the article and listed it at AfD for community wide discussion. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 19:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:MargaretWilson.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The image was deleted while a discussion on whether it met fair use criteria was ongoing on the talk page. gadfium 05:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. This image was replaceable under WP:NFCC#1, in that it depicted three living individuals. I understand the original argument that the image was historic, but the people weren't doing anything historic in the photo - they were standing in an office looking at a camera. The photo is replaceable for encyclopedic purposes by free images of the three people depicted. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. A strong case has been made on the image talk page that this image captures a unique moment in New Zealand political history, which cannot now be recaptured with a free image. Tyrenius 07:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for clarification, what information was contained in the image that can't be conveyed with text or with free images? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Tyrenius. Dominictimms 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The real question here is whether or not its use met our policies on non-free content. This involves checking its usage on articles. If this really is a unique moment, and is explained as such in the article its in, please by all means consider keeping this non-free image, if it is not being used in the article to significantly enhance the article then it should remain deleted. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion Image should not have been deleted. Deleting admin closed debate in which consensus to delete had not been reached by announcing that there was no "compelling need" to show the three people in the photo together. As gadfium had clearly explained at the beginning of the debate, the image is crucial because "it shows three of the key figures of the Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand together, at a unique time in New Zealand's history when all three positions were occupied by women." What makes this moment in history unique and notable is precisely the fact that those three people could all appear in one photo together, all while they held powerful positions. Individual photos of the three people would not come close to conveying the exceptional nature of that historical moment.—DCGeist 17:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - given the opinions of the users above who debate the image's replacability per WP:NFCC#1, I think it might be worthwhile to undelete for relisting at IfD for wider consensus. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would be free to re-list when and if its undeleted. Again the core question is not the image itself but the use of the non-free content. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously I felt the image was replaceable or I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as deletor. I followed proper policy in deleting the image. I believe that this image shows no important encyclopedic content that could not be adequately portrayed with a combination of free images and text. A few people disagree with the outcome of the decision, but that's not a valid reason for DRV according to the instructions on this page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

new article - Have been editing an article for the fring page on my user page, please provide help getting it listed. Let me know what I need to add or remove so the page is useful for users. Goplett 09:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Actually, it's been deleted 8 times in the past although I am not sure they were all identical. This one was deleted in March and is just now coming here? The deletion was appropriate as it was spam.--JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 15:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• List at AfD the first paragraph of content was:" "fring" is a native mVoIP (mobile VoIP) network founded by veterans from the mobile and internet industries. It is the first peer-to-peer voice over Internet Protocol solution specifically conceived and designed for the mobile domain "Mobile VoIP means business". ZDNet. Retrieved 2007-03-12.. fring provides peer-to-peer mVoIP allowing users to make free calls over mobile and cellular networks." The rest of the article contains some spam but it could easily have been truncated, and thus not a valid G11. DGG (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• AfD: Yet another program, but it makes claims for being important, and it has references to discussion, although that discussion doesn't seem very substantial. I wouldn't take a bet on the AfD outcome, but it's not a CSD. Geogre 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD, per Geogre. Doesn't seem to meet A7 or G11, which are the only two obvious CSDs (CsSD?) relevant here. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: My suggestion here is to simply restore and remove the content considered spam. If someone really wishes to AFD the page they can do it themselves. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD G11 is used for articles which are used to exclusively promote an entity (ie it is ad copy); having a neutral third-party reference, IMO, disqualifies it. The spam can be cut from the article. ColourBurst 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]