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

This article underwent a speedy deletion on an unfounded basis. The numerousness of articles that link to it is itself already sufficient testament to the person's noteworthiness, to say nothing of the fact that it should have made any possible deletion subject to a discussion. An appeal to the responsible administrator went unanswered. -- Dissident (Talk) 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources within the article at time of deletion included his personal webpage, a company he used to work for and a company he currently works for, none of which demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted [[WP:BIO|inclusion criteria forThe page has been around since 2003 but even after all that time, it still read more like a resume than a biography. There are only 7 inbound links from the articlespace and all of them refer to the concept of Solved games (the other links are examples of the concept). Given the ever-increasing power of computers, it is unsurprising that more and more games are being solved and steadily less notable that they have been. Considering the age of the article, it probably should have gone to AfD instead of speedy-deletion. I don't think it would survive the discussion, though. Rossami (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The article didn't technically assert importance in any real way, at least not in the cached versions I can see. Inbound links are useful to consider but don't really prove anything. What is the actual claim of importance, and are there sources to back it up? If there's a decent answer to that question, this article should either be restored or userfied for improvements. --Rividian (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I see multiple possible claims, reproduced with intact red links. "he is CEO of Quintiq, a Dutch software company that..." "His dissertation introduced two new game search techniques: proof-number search and dependency-based search. Proof-number search has seen further successful application in computer Go tactical search and many other games". Quintiq was deleted almost 2 hours later by a different admin under A7, and I'd definitely have deleted it myself under A7. If the article on the company fails to assert importance, than being its CEO is at best a tenuous assertion of importance. So I think the real claims are the new game search techniques, neither of which has ever had an article, but might be important anyway. GRBerry 03:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore indicated some plausible reason for importance and that is sufficient. It does not have to show enough to pass afd -- in fact, it probably wouldnt pass at this point, but any indication of notability deserves a group view to see if either the editor or others can source it. But to pass speedy, it doesnt have to "prove anything" or have reliable "sources to back it up". DGG (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For AFD to be anything but an exercise in process, it would be nice to see that evidence at DRV, if it exists. --Rividian (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD. There is enough of an assertion of notability there to defeat an A7 speedy. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and list at AfD. Evidence can be provided in the article during the AfD. If Dissident wants more time, userfy it for him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closer seems to have read only the bolded words, not the actual discussion. Had he done the latter, he would have seen that, of the only two users wishing to keep this article, the first had repudiated his opinion, and the second - the article's primary author - had been refuted. —Cryptic 04:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (delete). The keep arguments were clearly unfounded because of misstatement by the 'keep' voters, and it would appear the closer was 'blinded by their science'. There is nothing to suggest that this band meets any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Only three people actually stated whether the article merited being kept or being deleted. Ironically, the person who brought this to DRV made two posts without stating whether he/she was recommending keeping, deleting, or something else. Neither did the IP who made a comment (and in terms of determining consensus, !votes by IPs tend to be discounted in this process). So, depending on the interpretation of Cryptic's comments, there was either a consensus to keep or no consensus. Either way, the seven days passed and there was no consensus to delete. B.Wind (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if Esradekan had put magic <s> marks around his keep, to more explicitly indicate his backpedalling, that would make it ok? If I'd put delete delete delete in my comments, would I then have been counted thrice? There is nothing ironic in me not making a bolded incantation; I was trying to form a consensus, not to vote. And I succeeded; nobody thought this band meets WP:MUSIC except the article's creator. Utter disgust. —Cryptic 07:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Conventionally, it's taken as read that a proposer recommends deletion, except when it is stated otherwise. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we ignore !votes from IPs because they're from IPs. Usually they're ignored because IPs aren't familiar with the AfD process and the WP:ATA, and so make arguements that should be ignored. We don't ignore any arguements except by the merits of the arguement. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse (or change to "no consensus") — there was not a consensus to delete. Also to Cryptic: It's customary to discuss the closure with the closing admin before listing here. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Change to Overturn and delete as the first keep "voter" had withdrawn his opinion. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reopen AfD. I don't read any consensus there, and with the low participation I think it'd be better to reopen and relist it rather than closing it as no consensus. I'd agree that the closure was incorect regardless of what it gets overturned to. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist with more participation hopefully some kind of clear consensus will be reached. RMHED (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, needs more opinions. --Stormie (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Take back to AfD discussion could benefit from increased participation, possibility of a consensus being found. Guest9999 (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen, Relist Despite the apparent simplicity of the issue, seems the discussion was closed before a consensus either way took hold. Townlake (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Sloppy close. Relist for more participation. It seems to me that none of the sources are reliable/reputable and independent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Delete. No need to relist. The two delete arguments are pretty much irrefutable. --Smashville^BONK! 13:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist there wasn't a consensus to keep there, and the discussion was leaning towards a delete result. More opinions needed. Hut 8.5 15:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist and get some more eyes on it. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Should have been relisted prior to closing. MrPrada (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Needs more input on whether the article should be deleted. Chadpriddle (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]