< February 8	Deletion review archives: 2009 February	February 10 >

9 February 2009

Timothy D. Naegele – Firing off legal threats is a sure-fire way to have a DRV closed. seicer \| talk \| contribs 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Timothy D. Naegele (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` MULTIPLE REASONS As mentioned below, I first tried discussing the matter with the admininstrator who deleted the page, but there has been no response. It is respectfully submitted that what has been done by KillerChihuahua is arbitrary and capricious. Equally serious is the deletion note created by KillerChihuahua, which states in pertinent part: “author was contacted but ignored attempts to discuss issues with him.” That is totally false and may constitute defamation, inter alia, because it was published on the Web at “15:26, 7 February 2009,” and Google and other search engines are showing that note now. Also, important is the exchange of messages between KillerChihuahua and User:Crohnie. Having responded to these arbitrary and capricious actions and statements at KillerChihuahua’s Wiki page (see response below), no response has been forthcoming from KillerChihuahua. Granted the person may be genuinely ill, and we are sorry about that; however, it does not excuse the last action taken by KillerChihuahua, namely to delete the Web page at issue. We have to assume that other similar actions are taken on a routine basis, which does not reflect well on Wikipedia, regrettably. Indeed, if the same criteria and actions were applied to and taken with respect to others (e.g., Wiki page deletions, without notice), and if my law firm gave the task to one or more young lawyers or law clerks of ferreting out all of the Wikipedia pages that are “self-serving”—and are put up or changed by people who are the direct beneficiaries of such pages—it is respectfully submitted that Wikipedia would be “gutted.” I have great respect for Wikipedia and all that is done by its volunteers, including KillerChihuahua and User:Crohnie. However, as each of us knows, there are enormous “deficiencies” in what is set forth on its pages, and I have endeavored to add to the knowledge base. For example, the failure to mention (1) the largest mass rape in history (i.e., the Soviets raped at least 2 million women in what is now acknowledged as the largest case of mass rape in history), and (2) the largest mass murders in history by Stalin (i.e., more than 30 million men, women and children) and Mao (i.e., an estimated 30-40 million deaths between 1958 and 1960, as a result of what his regime hailed as the "Great Leap Forward"), are not simply minor inconsequential oversights. Last but not least, we are lawyers and we take very seriously what KillerChihuahua has done. As stated in the posts made at KillerChihuahua’s Wiki page: (1) “I respectfully request that you promptly reinstate the page as written,” and (2) “we assume that the page has been saved by you.” Needless to say, we sincerely hope this matter can be resolved amicably. Indeed, these comments were not posted until now, out of respect for KillerChihuahua who may be ill. Ample time has been given, however, to reinstate the page as written. Thank you for reading these comments, and addressing the concerns stated herein. Time is of the essence. naegele's response to discussion between KillerChihuahua and User:Crohnie: First, I too am sorry that you are not feeling well, and hope that you feel better. Second, I have read the comments of User:Crohnie above, and they need to be addressed, respectfully. The changes to the following pages were made to insure their accuracy, completeness and to reflect what actually happened in history: an article he wrote, here is an article Naelgele wrote but then he also adds his own personal website to it, contibutions. Third, nowhere on the "Violence against women" page does it reflect that approximately 2 million women were raped by the Soviets at the end of WWII, in the largest mass rape in history. Fourth, nowhere on the "Violence" and "Mass murder" pages do they reflect the fact that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more than 30 million men, women and children—his own countrymen; and that Mao Tse-tung was directly responsible for an estimated 30-40 million deaths between 1958 and 1960. These are colossal omissions; they are not merely minor oversights. Fifth, you or User:Crohnie might argue that I should provide the original sourcing for my article; however, with due respect for both of you, I do not have the time to go back and do so, because the files are in dead storage. I assure both of you that it is totally accurate, inter alia, because one group representing the victims contacted me and praised me for writing the article. Sixth, the changes to the Greenspan page involved another article of mine in the American Banker, which is also cited to give readers an accurate description of what has been happening as the economic tsunami takes its toll globally, which is the result of Greenspan's policies at the Fed that are producing economic chaos and hurting millions of people globally. Seventh, the page in my name is thoroughly sourced; and notwithstanding your comments, we have never been contacted by anyone from Wiki, ever, except with respect to (1) some minor edits that we agreed with, and (2) the requirement for better sourcing/backup to substantiate the entries at the page, which was accomplished by more than 20 footnotes. Thus, I respectfully request that you promptly reinstate the page as written. Thank you for your attention to this matter; and again, I hope you feel better. Also, the deletion does not show up on either of the following pages: "Wikipedia:Deletion today" or "Wikipedia:Deletion yesterday," however, we assume that the page has been saved by you. naegele (talk support close. No valid reason given to even hint at why it should be overturned. As for the legal bullying/posturing embedded in generally meandering and incomprehensible text? Good luck with that.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Close. We are talking about the puff-piece you wrote about yourself, right? What on earth has that got to do with WW2? If you want to correct perceived inaccuracies on the site, feel free. You don't need to have an article about yourself to do it, though. yandman 14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Looks like Gastroturfing. Endorse deletion and support ban of author. --B (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close and ban the nominator as per WP:NLT. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fyi, this entry has been reported to the administrators noticeboard as a breach of policy on legal threats Usrnme h8er (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, close, and indef block user for making legal threats, a big Wiki no-no. Oh, while we're at it, DON'T ABBREVIATE AS WIKI!!!! Thank you, MuZemike 15:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Timothy D. Naegele – Firing off legal threats is a sure-fire way to have a DRV closed. seicer | talk | contribs 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

MULTIPLE REASONS

As mentioned below, I first tried discussing the matter with the admininstrator who deleted the page, but there has been no response.

It is respectfully submitted that what has been done by KillerChihuahua is arbitrary and capricious. Equally serious is the deletion note created by KillerChihuahua, which states in pertinent part: “author was contacted but ignored attempts to discuss issues with him.” That is totally false and may constitute defamation, inter alia, because it was published on the Web at “15:26, 7 February 2009,” and Google and other search engines are showing that note now.

Also, important is the exchange of messages between KillerChihuahua and User:Crohnie. Having responded to these arbitrary and capricious actions and statements at KillerChihuahua’s Wiki page (see response below), no response has been forthcoming from KillerChihuahua. Granted the person may be genuinely ill, and we are sorry about that; however, it does not excuse the last action taken by KillerChihuahua, namely to delete the Web page at issue.

We have to assume that other similar actions are taken on a routine basis, which does not reflect well on Wikipedia, regrettably. Indeed, if the same criteria and actions were applied to and taken with respect to others (e.g., Wiki page deletions, without notice), and if my law firm gave the task to one or more young lawyers or law clerks of ferreting out all of the Wikipedia pages that are “self-serving”—and are put up or changed by people who are the direct beneficiaries of such pages—it is respectfully submitted that Wikipedia would be “gutted.”

I have great respect for Wikipedia and all that is done by its volunteers, including KillerChihuahua and User:Crohnie. However, as each of us knows, there are enormous “deficiencies” in what is set forth on its pages, and I have endeavored to add to the knowledge base. For example, the failure to mention (1) the largest mass rape in history (i.e., the Soviets raped at least 2 million women in what is now acknowledged as the largest case of mass rape in history), and (2) the largest mass murders in history by Stalin (i.e., more than 30 million men, women and children) and Mao (i.e., an estimated 30-40 million deaths between 1958 and 1960, as a result of what his regime hailed as the "Great Leap Forward"), are not simply minor inconsequential oversights.

Last but not least, we are lawyers and we take very seriously what KillerChihuahua has done. As stated in the posts made at KillerChihuahua’s Wiki page: (1) “I respectfully request that you promptly reinstate the page as written,” and (2) “we assume that the page has been saved by you.”

Needless to say, we sincerely hope this matter can be resolved amicably. Indeed, these comments were not posted until now, out of respect for KillerChihuahua who may be ill. Ample time has been given, however, to reinstate the page as written. Thank you for reading these comments, and addressing the concerns stated herein. Time is of the essence.

naegele's response to discussion between KillerChihuahua and User:Crohnie:

First, I too am sorry that you are not feeling well, and hope that you feel better. Second, I have read the comments of User:Crohnie above, and they need to be addressed, respectfully. The changes to the following pages were made to insure their accuracy, completeness and to reflect what actually happened in history: an article he wrote, here is an article Naelgele wrote but then he also adds his own personal website to it, contibutions. Third, nowhere on the "Violence against women" page does it reflect that approximately 2 million women were raped by the Soviets at the end of WWII, in the largest mass rape in history. Fourth, nowhere on the "Violence" and "Mass murder" pages do they reflect the fact that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more than 30 million men, women and children—his own countrymen; and that Mao Tse-tung was directly responsible for an estimated 30-40 million deaths between 1958 and 1960. These are colossal omissions; they are not merely minor oversights. Fifth, you or User:Crohnie might argue that I should provide the original sourcing for my article; however, with due respect for both of you, I do not have the time to go back and do so, because the files are in dead storage. I assure both of you that it is totally accurate, inter alia, because one group representing the victims contacted me and praised me for writing the article. Sixth, the changes to the Greenspan page involved another article of mine in the American Banker, which is also cited to give readers an accurate description of what has been happening as the economic tsunami takes its toll globally, which is the result of Greenspan's policies at the Fed that are producing economic chaos and hurting millions of people globally. Seventh, the page in my name is thoroughly sourced; and notwithstanding your comments, we have never been contacted by anyone from Wiki, ever, except with respect to (1) some minor edits that we agreed with, and (2) the requirement for better sourcing/backup to substantiate the entries at the page, which was accomplished by more than 20 footnotes.

Thus, I respectfully request that you promptly reinstate the page as written. Thank you for your attention to this matter; and again, I hope you feel better. Also, the deletion does not show up on either of the following pages: "Wikipedia:Deletion today" or "Wikipedia:Deletion yesterday," however, we assume that the page has been saved by you.

naegele (talk

support close. No valid reason given to even hint at why it should be overturned. As for the legal bullying/posturing embedded in generally meandering and incomprehensible text? Good luck with that.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close. We are talking about the puff-piece you wrote about yourself, right? What on earth has that got to do with WW2? If you want to correct perceived inaccuracies on the site, feel free. You don't need to have an article about yourself to do it, though. yandman 14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Gastroturfing. Endorse deletion and support ban of author. --B (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and ban the nominator as per WP:NLT. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi, this entry has been reported to the administrators noticeboard as a breach of policy on legal threats Usrnme h8er (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, close, and indef block user for making legal threats, a big Wiki no-no. Oh, while we're at it, DON'T ABBREVIATE AS WIKI!!!! Thank you, MuZemike 15:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

TurnKey Linux – Deletion Endorsed Once nominators resort to personal attacks on good faith users contributing to the discussion we close them because DRV is not a platform to attack other users. There is a clear consensus supporting this deletion and, if you want to bring this back, you will need much better sourcing then what you have come up with here. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TurnKey Linux (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` This is an unusual deletion review in that I am not requesting that the article be restored / undeleted. I request that the reviewers indicate, as described in the deletion review instructions, whether or not the TurnKey Linux article should be listed in the AfD process. This article was previously reviewed. The author of the article, LirazSiri, who initiated the review, withdrew the request for it. However I think that it is clear that LirazSiri felt under duress at that point; also he or she has persisted in criticizing the deletion along with myself at VPP. I fully expect that the result of an AfD would be consensus for deletion, which I personally would probably agree with. My concerns here relate to the fact that the deletion appears to have occurred out of process. My only interest is to rectify that and ensure that a properly-documented community consensus exists to properly validate the deletion. In my opinion and that of the author the article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion; the initial deleter's behavior was not consistent with the removal of G11 / spam and the subsequent CSD offered, A7 that no evidence of notability was given, also appears faulty in that the article provided cited positive mention of TurnKey Linux within the newsletter of Ubuntu Linux, the parent distribution. (So whether or not that is valid criteria for notability, I do not believe the article qualified for A7 speedy deletion because it at least attempted to provide evidence of its subject's notability.) I have elaborated on these points extensively in the VPP thread. Hence the justifications presented for speedy deletion have begun to take on the appearance of policy shopping and a number of comments that have come up in discussion indicate that many administrators would endorse an out-of-process deletion based upon the deleter's cognizance alone, an usurpation of the normal standard of community consensus for deciding notability. This deletion review is not a WP:POINT; I thoroughly agree with the principles articulated in the essay WP:PROCESS and so I believe that even if this has occurred entirely in good faith it is essential that policy and process be complied with and that the greater community's faith in the integrity of the project administrators be maintained. Also, LirazSiri has indicated that a substantial portion of the frustration stemming from the deletion would be assuaged by a show that it is consensus-backed - so I also think that the AfD process should be followed out of respect for LirazSiri, a token of the respect that the project has towards all good faith editors. Although LirazSiri has a WP:COI with the topic IMO the article was created in good faith. I intend to accept community consensus over whether or not Wikipedia policy indicates that in this instance the article should be listed in an AfD to validate the deletion. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] What? The article was advertorial created by the project's co-founder, deleted twice as spam / non-notable, the project's co-founder then created and later withdrew a DRV request after some slightly acrimonious debate during which it became clear that no reliable independent sources were available. Where debate rose above the level of name calling, the view seems to me to be that the article was spammy, whatever the merits or otherwise of the topic itself. It was an absolutely standard WP:COI/WP:CSD#G11/WP:CSD#A7 deletion, albeit for a garage distro rather than a garage band. It's not at all clear to me what you want to change, indeed it sounds as if you are quite happy for nothing to change. Why on earth would we want to go through process just for the sake of it? If you think the article potentially has merit then just create a new version with reliable independent sources. If you don't, then walk away. otherwise this is just process for the sake of process, which does not sound to me like a good idea at all. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think I have explained my purpose here pretty extensively, plus linked to WP:PROCESS if you can't imagine the point of making sure things like this are done in-process instead of out-of-process. Couldn't you just try to show some respect for me by responding to all that instead of re-using arguments I've already extensively replied to? The article was not spam and was not non-notable, at least not to the degree that's necessary to justify speedy deleting. Speedy deleting isn't some mechanism for allowing admins to override community-based and process-based assessment of notability. I still just do not get why, if this is such a slam-dunk notability issue, anyone would be opposed to having that documented with community consensus and within process. This is what's setting off alarm bells for me here. The whole idea of speedy deletion is that it's for situations where it's expected that consensus is going to be overwhelmingly in favor of deletion; so why try to stop that from being demonstrated? It seems to me that even if it is notable you'd still be able to get it deleted because from the sound of it LirazSiri is the only editor who would think it's notable. So you've got overwhelming numbers against him and you're all admins against a single non-admin editor... what need is there to tip the scales even more by preventing it from being openly discussed? The effort expended in forcing this into a speedy deletion could have accomplished a transparent and process-compliant deletion many times over. Why so much arm-twisting and evasion? P.S. I'm out of it, going offline now and I probably won't be back until it's all over and done with, so do as you please I guess. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse CSD - this appears to have been an in process CSD and I see no reason to further strain the deletion process when a deletion is essentially undisputed. Process for process sake alone is often a bad idea - and I think this, if in AfD, would be likely to WP:SNOW. If someone feels now that the subject is encyclopaedic, recreate the article in user space and WP:RfC or contact involved contributors directly for comments. If needed, a userfication of the deleted material can probably be requested from an Admin without the drama of DRV. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Here we go again. Hi everyone! Let's try to have a calm, cool discussion this time and avoid threatening language and abrasive personal attacks. As I've stated before [1]: "I created the article in the image of the other articles on Ubuntu derivatives covered in Wikipedia. In this form it existed for months without any objections being raised. Sure there was room for improvement, there always is. Perhaps as you mention the article didn't emphasize the notable aspects of the project it described sufficiently. I would have welcomed friendly collaboration with other editors to improve the article (or any feedback really). Unfortunately, instead of a peaceful discussion that would have perhaps led to the necessary improvements, I suddenly found myself thrust into a battlefield, with much of the fire directed against me personally.". Please note that it is not unanimously agreed that the article was an advertisement, that TurnKey Linux is not notable or that it should be deleted (via whatever process). (e.g., [2], [3], [4]). Guy, I distinctly remember you agreed to walk away and hand off your crusade against this article to someone else after it had become clear you had lost your cool and were no longer acting in a neutral manner ([5] [6] [7]). If you think you have cooled down enough to rejoin the discussion that's fine, but please try to keep your cool this time and maintain neutrality. Here's a question for you: did you at any point actually try searching for reliable independent sources before forming the opinion that TurnKey Linux is a non-notable free software project and supporting deletion? For example, would any of the following qualify in your opinion as notable references for an Ubuntu derivative or free software project and if not, could you please explain your reasoning (e.g., what does qualify) and provide me with just one reference from the many unofficial Ubuntu derivatives listed on Wikipedia that does meet your criteria for notability in this area? (for comparison) PostgreSQL downloads (postgresql.org) Issue 108 Ubuntu Newsletter Issue 115 Ubuntu Newsletter PostgreSQL Weekly News - December 15 2008 (postgresql.org) TurnKey Rails on VirtualBox New Distributions (lwn.net) Ruby on Rails is running on the Ubuntu box (fromjumpstreet.com) New TurnKey Linux releases feature dramatic usability improvements (livedistro.org) ODP Live CD category VirtualBox Multiple TCP port forwarding (blog.nixternal.com) TurnKey MediaWiki (mediawiki.org) linked to from software appliances (mediawiki.org), which is linked to from (mediawiki.org main Installation page ("Alternative to manual installation") New PostgreSQL appliances (ghidinelli.com) LirazSiri (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Process for its own sake is a waste of everyone's time. And funny, I thought that YOU had agreed to walk away from promoting yourself when you withdrew your original DRV request, LirazSiri, so lecturing others for what you're unwilling to do yourself and making unfounded claims about others's supposed lack of neutrality--ESPECIALLY given your built-in conflict of interest--does you no credit. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I made my relationship with the article public from the beginning. The reasons for Guy's lack of neutrality are not public knowledge. I use my real identity to edit Wikipedia and make all possible reasons for WP:COI known. That should work in my favor. Instead, it is used to ram me by a rogue administrator in a systematic pattern of WP:NPA, WP:Civility and WP:AGF violations. This from an administrator who hides behind a pseudonym and has had his user page deleted for reasons unknown. Maybe if everyone was half as transparent as I am we might discover that there is more to this abuse of process than meets the eye. "Process for its own sake is a waste of everyone's time" This is misdirection. I find it hard to believe that you are concerned with wasting time, considering how much time has already been wasted discussing this issue on multiple venues (e.g., WP:VPP). I think you are violating WP:HONESTY. Rectifying the abuse of process is the best way for us to sort through this mess as quickly as possible, but I'm skeptical whether that will be allowed to happen because the real issue here is abuse of administrator power and the administrators are much more likely to support each other than give credence to any wrongdoing. "I thought YOU had agreed to walk away from promoting yourself" - This is blatant nonsense. You are setting up a straw man (I stated the reasons for walking away from the previous deletion review very clearly) and attacking me personally against WP:NPA instead of addressing the issue at hand. Please address the issue, not the people. LirazSiri (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Revealing that you have a conflict of interest still means that you have a conflict of interest, full stop. Imagining that someone else, uninvolved, has a conflict of interest means precisely nothing. The rest of your paranoid piffle and personal attacks are not worth responding to except the last: the issue has been addressed--no flaws in the process or new information other than a result not to your personal liking have been brought forth--and your increasingly hypocritical meanderings, such as attacking anyone contradicting you whilst crying 'Help! Help! I'm bein' oppressed' isn't helping your credibility one iota. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Paranoid piffle" and "hypocritical meanderings" - now your just making words up! Anyhow, It's still a violation of WP:NPA. Let's keep this WP:CIVIL. I admit I do find it rather strange that the article has been singled out in defiance of prevailing standards on Wikipedia, and my imagination is working overtime. Guess what? Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks there is some funny business going on. I'd like to remind you that I did not open this deletion review. I am merely making my opinions heard. Or has my involvement stripped me of my right to have an opinion as well? So far instead of replying directly to any of the valid points I have raised most of those supporting deletions have attacked me personally rather than actually contradicted anything I have said. Here let me spell this out for you so you don't have to fish around for it and default to more personal attacks: 1. Why are we having this discussion on DR rather than through the normal WP:AFD / WP:PROD process. What is so terrifying about letting regular Wikipedians plebs (who may know more about the subject matter) discuss the article and reach consensus instead of effectively limiting the discussion to Administrators and their buddies? This is not deletion is supposed to work. How do you justify this abuse of process? 2. Why don't you take up on the challenge I extended to Guy and Tony. Find me just one unofficial Ubuntu derivative of the many listed on Wikipedia that satisfies your definition of what is notable for an article in this category so I have a comparable benchmark and can work towards that. Pretty please?. If instead of a direct and relevant response to these issues you resort to further poisoning the well and ad hominem attacks that will be evidence for lack of good faith on your part. LirazSiri (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] If you don't want the article restored, that means you do want the article to stay deleted, and that means the same result would be accomplished by not having a DRV at all. Am I missing anything? Stifle (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Here we go again... Article was restored to user space, then was redeleted out of bad faith (tends to happen with the deletionists around here). Ask LirazSiri for more. Rfwoolf (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's still early days here, but I'm not hearing any sense from our admins yet. The burden here is for all of you to demonstrate that this is spam and should be deleted as such. All the "Endorse Deletions" thus far say nothing about this (and instead attack LirazSiri). It would be SO wonderful if this deletion could be upheld by sticking to what's relevant. Such a pitty that's not likely to happen. Rfwoolf (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Actually, the burden of proof in relation to deletion discussions lies with the article creator/defender to show the notability. In this case, I still haven't seen much of anything that proves the article was deleted against policy. There were no references or claims of notability, the article creator has an admitted conflict of interest. If someone can show a policy violation here, I'd be happy to reconsider; otherwise endorse deletion. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] "There were no references or claims of notability?". This is plainly untrue, though I should probably let someone else call you out for ignoring the evidence I have submitted to the contrary. My voice doesn't seem to count for much here. On one hand you claim the burden on proof is on the article creator. On the other hand you feel perfectly comfortable dismissing everything the article creator says, regardless of merit on the basis of WP:COI. That's a Catch 22 if I ever saw one. Administrators are not intended to have the authority to circumvent the normal deletion process (WP:AFD, WP:PROD) at their pleasure by abusing WP:CSD. It seems to be widely agreed that the article doesn't qualify for WP:CSD as WP:SPAM (G11). The normal deletion process involves reaching consensus about the notability or non-notability of an article at the community-level where regular WP:Wikipedians have a voice and Administrators have no special advantage. On the other hand, here at deletion review administrators hold all the cards. This is an abuse of process. There are nearly 9 million editors and only 1,300 administrators. We plebeian Wikipedians outnumber administrators nearly 10,000 to 1. Being an administrator is supposed to be WP:NOBIGDEAL, but some of you seem to regard yourselves as some kind of elite aristocracy that has the right to abuse its power to impose its will on the rest of us. LirazSiri (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think nothing of the sort, feel that's bordering on a personal attack, and would request that you redact that statement. Notability on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources that are non-trivial, neutral, and preferably based off of an outlet that has a level of editorial control. Going through the list of sources you provide above, a couple of which I see in the article, they are almost entirely blogs, trivial mentions, or sites based on user submission - there is none of what we would define as independent coverage in a reliable source. One of them is based on a post by you. That definitely doesn't meet the guidelines. The final version of the article as it was deleted included a number of features that I, had I seen it, would have immediately considered to be promotional - and believe me, I get dozens of promo releases a day, so I can recognize it - and it had no assertion of notability. In my opinion, as a person who has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever, there was no issue with the deletion. I hope this clears up my view and how my opinion is, in fact, based in the guidelines regarding deletions. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] That's not a personal attack, unless you include yourself in the group I describe (administrators who seem to view regular Wikipedians as plebs and themselves as part of separate, elite aristocracy), in which case it most definitely is. lwn.net is notable and they have editorial control over who gets listed in the "new distributions" report. Sure they linked to a post I wrote, but they do that all the time. I shouldn't be punished for doing a good job describing a release. Postgresql.org's official website linked to our TurnKey PostgreSQL appliance after a discussion on their mailing list. postgresql is notable. So is it's official web site. Many sites that are based on user-submissions still exercise editorial control (e.g., livedistro.org). In an nascent niche category such as software appliances getting over 10,000 downloads in a few months, while being covered by multiple independent blogs, the Ubuntu newsletter, lwn.net, livedistro.org (the top site covering Live CDs) and the Open Directory Project might just be interpreted by some as showing the project is notable for its category. You can't reasonably expect the New York Times to cover a distribution of software appliances or any technical development in a non-mainstream field. OK, maybe you don't think that is enough to show that the project is notable, but that's not your decision to make. That should be our decision to make. We should let Wikipedians with the proper technical background chip in, and most of those don't hang around in deletion review. I challenge you to find just one unofficial Ubuntu derivative of the many covered on Wikipedia that exceeds TurnKey Linux's notability (or satisfies your criteria of notability, which seems to be higher) LirazSiri (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] If you feel other articles shouldn't be here, Articles for Deletion is over there. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Don't change the subject. Instead of reframing my question in a way that allows you to avoid it, why don't you actually try and spend a few minutes of your time and prove me wrong? LirazSiri (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] From your link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "But such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same."LirazSiri (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] You know what? I know fuck all about software, so I'm not about to go about that, when the fact is that this is not a debate over the other articles, it is a debate about whether the article was deleted in process. I see your article, I see spam, I see no good references, I see no reason for the deletion to be overturned. My opinion has been registered. Good day. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] "I see spam" That's interesting. Do you see spam when you look at articles about other Ubuntu derivatives/free software projects or is it just the TurnKey Linux article that offends you? And really, why do you keep avoiding my question? Is it that difficult for you to give me just one example from this category that satisfies your criteria for notability for the purpose of comparison? If you can't do that how can we trust your judgment and why should we have to when there are many Wikipedians who do understand software and might be more capable of arriving at an informed opinion regarding this matter? How can your integrity be trusted when you are so firmly insistent on usurping power for yourself and your fellow administrators by circumventing the intended system of checks and balances? Let me reiterate once again: being an administrator does not not give you any special authority here. If anything your opinion should weigh less because you have admitted you do not understand the subject matter.LirazSiri (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] You know, I wasn't going to allow myself to be baited into further comment, but you know what? I know our guidelines. I know our policies. I have worked deletion debates many, many times, and based on that knowledge, I feel that the article in question was correctly deleted as a G11 - advertisement. Personal knowledge is not important here. Deletion debates are about whether our guidelines and policies have been followed correctly; I feel that in this case, they have. I am also personally insulted by your attack on my integrity. I demand a retraction immediately. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Has anyone else noticed how, for the purpose of this discussion, notable has been redefined to mean "very important"? I never claimed this free software project is very important, merely notable, as in, you would want to make note of it if you were trying to learn more about the field of software appliances, an emerging development only a couple of years old, who's main article (Software appliance) does not contain any sources. Neither does the article on the main commercial vendor in this field RPath. LirazSiri (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I suspect that no-one else has noticed because it's a product of your imagination. Which is the charitable interpretation. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Speaking as an uninvolved user, I am surprised at the incivility of a number of the people arguing for deletion. This thing appears to have some valid sources and references that could be used, and thus, cannot be deleted under CSD. Thus, Overturn and list at AFD. Jtrainor (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted There is a cached version of the userspace page still available here. Those advocating for inclusion above assert that the user sub-page version was fundamentally identical to the article space version, so will be analyzed on that basis. This was promotional material needing to be completely rewritten to become acceptable. As it was clearly promotional, it qualified for WP:CSD#A7 deletion. An acceptable article is written primarily from independent and reliable sources. Having looked at the sources listed above, I see only three that may qualify as independent and reliable. Those are UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter Issue #108, UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter Issue #115, and the paragraph at lwn.net. The article was not written primarily from those sources, so clearly qualified for WP:CSD#G11 deletion. Accordingly, endorse deletion. Our nominator is also asking if it merits an AFD discussion. The two UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter sources would not meet our test for being reliable sources if tested at the noticeboard or AFD, given the fact that the newsletter says "If you'd like to contribute to a future issue of the Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter, please feel free to edit the appropriate wiki page." I can't quickly tell whether the lwn.net page would pass muster, but the article can't stand with only it. There is thus not enough evidence to merit an AFD discussion. I also can't encourage anyone to recreate this article, because I don't believe there are enough usable sources for a rewrite to pass muster. If better sourcing becomes available in the future, that can be handled then - but as always better if by an editor not personally involved in the project. GRBerry 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion The closing admin made a correct assesment on the lack of reliable sources. Those sources wouldn't qualify as WP:RS on a AFD, it would be a waste of time, process for the sake of process, WP:BURO, etc. The interesed editors should wait until they have better sources, then make a userspace draft and send it to DRV, or, if the sources are clearly RS this time, recreate directly and put up for AFD. lwn.net[8] is making a namecheck of all new distros, the ubuntu newsletters are doing namechecks of all new Ubuntu software, and postgresql[9][10] is listing all products using postgresql. Rest of sources are newsletters and blogs. There is an argument that it's notable because of having a certain component, but there is no secondary source anywhere saying that this has any relevance at all (hint:find a good one, and chances for recreation will increase a lot). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - There's virtually no chance that the article in its last state would survive an AFD. I would recommend that those advocating the restoration of the article again, after a previous DRV, an attempt to change the notability policy to allow restoration, and several other discussions on other pages, do something productive rather than trying to continue wasting people's time with long repetitive arguments. [11] Its getting rather tedious. Mr.Z-man 22:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

TurnKey Linux – Deletion Endorsed Once nominators resort to personal attacks on good faith users contributing to the discussion we close them because DRV is not a platform to attack other users. There is a clear consensus supporting this deletion and, if you want to bring this back, you will need much better sourcing then what you have come up with here. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an unusual deletion review in that I am not requesting that the article be restored / undeleted. I request that the reviewers indicate, as described in the deletion review instructions, whether or not the TurnKey Linux article should be listed in the AfD process.

This article was previously reviewed. The author of the article, LirazSiri, who initiated the review, withdrew the request for it. However I think that it is clear that LirazSiri felt under duress at that point; also he or she has persisted in criticizing the deletion along with myself at VPP.

I fully expect that the result of an AfD would be consensus for deletion, which I personally would probably agree with. My concerns here relate to the fact that the deletion appears to have occurred out of process. My only interest is to rectify that and ensure that a properly-documented community consensus exists to properly validate the deletion.

In my opinion and that of the author the article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion; the initial deleter's behavior was not consistent with the removal of G11 / spam and the subsequent CSD offered, A7 that no evidence of notability was given, also appears faulty in that the article provided cited positive mention of TurnKey Linux within the newsletter of Ubuntu Linux, the parent distribution. (So whether or not that is valid criteria for notability, I do not believe the article qualified for A7 speedy deletion because it at least attempted to provide evidence of its subject's notability.) I have elaborated on these points extensively in the VPP thread.

Hence the justifications presented for speedy deletion have begun to take on the appearance of policy shopping and a number of comments that have come up in discussion indicate that many administrators would endorse an out-of-process deletion based upon the deleter's cognizance alone, an usurpation of the normal standard of community consensus for deciding notability.

This deletion review is not a WP:POINT; I thoroughly agree with the principles articulated in the essay WP:PROCESS and so I believe that even if this has occurred entirely in good faith it is essential that policy and process be complied with and that the greater community's faith in the integrity of the project administrators be maintained. Also, LirazSiri has indicated that a substantial portion of the frustration stemming from the deletion would be assuaged by a show that it is consensus-backed - so I also think that the AfD process should be followed out of respect for LirazSiri, a token of the respect that the project has towards all good faith editors. Although LirazSiri has a WP:COI with the topic IMO the article was created in good faith.

I intend to accept community consensus over whether or not Wikipedia policy indicates that in this instance the article should be listed in an AfD to validate the deletion. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? The article was advertorial created by the project's co-founder, deleted twice as spam / non-notable, the project's co-founder then created and later withdrew a DRV request after some slightly acrimonious debate during which it became clear that no reliable independent sources were available. Where debate rose above the level of name calling, the view seems to me to be that the article was spammy, whatever the merits or otherwise of the topic itself. It was an absolutely standard WP:COI/WP:CSD#G11/WP:CSD#A7 deletion, albeit for a garage distro rather than a garage band. It's not at all clear to me what you want to change, indeed it sounds as if you are quite happy for nothing to change. Why on earth would we want to go through process just for the sake of it? If you think the article potentially has merit then just create a new version with reliable independent sources. If you don't, then walk away. otherwise this is just process for the sake of process, which does not sound to me like a good idea at all. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have explained my purpose here pretty extensively, plus linked to WP:PROCESS if you can't imagine the point of making sure things like this are done in-process instead of out-of-process. Couldn't you just try to show some respect for me by responding to all that instead of re-using arguments I've already extensively replied to?

The article was not spam and was not non-notable, at least not to the degree that's necessary to justify speedy deleting. Speedy deleting isn't some mechanism for allowing admins to override community-based and process-based assessment of notability.

I still just do not get why, if this is such a slam-dunk notability issue, anyone would be opposed to having that documented with community consensus and within process. This is what's setting off alarm bells for me here. The whole idea of speedy deletion is that it's for situations where it's expected that consensus is going to be overwhelmingly in favor of deletion; so why try to stop that from being demonstrated? It seems to me that even if it is notable you'd still be able to get it deleted because from the sound of it LirazSiri is the only editor who would think it's notable.

So you've got overwhelming numbers against him and you're all admins against a single non-admin editor... what need is there to tip the scales even more by preventing it from being openly discussed? The effort expended in forcing this into a speedy deletion could have accomplished a transparent and process-compliant deletion many times over. Why so much arm-twisting and evasion?

P.S. I'm out of it, going offline now and I probably won't be back until it's all over and done with, so do as you please I guess. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse CSD - this appears to have been an in process CSD and I see no reason to further strain the deletion process when a deletion is essentially undisputed. Process for process sake alone is often a bad idea - and I think this, if in AfD, would be likely to WP:SNOW. If someone feels now that the subject is encyclopaedic, recreate the article in user space and WP:RfC or contact involved contributors directly for comments. If needed, a userfication of the deleted material can probably be requested from an Admin without the drama of DRV. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Hi everyone! Let's try to have a calm, cool discussion this time and avoid threatening language and abrasive personal attacks. As I've stated before [1]: "I created the article in the image of the other articles on Ubuntu derivatives covered in Wikipedia. In this form it existed for months without any objections being raised. Sure there was room for improvement, there always is. Perhaps as you mention the article didn't emphasize the notable aspects of the project it described sufficiently. I would have welcomed friendly collaboration with other editors to improve the article (or any feedback really). Unfortunately, instead of a peaceful discussion that would have perhaps led to the necessary improvements, I suddenly found myself thrust into a battlefield, with much of the fire directed against me personally.".

Please note that it is not unanimously agreed that the article was an advertisement, that TurnKey Linux is not notable or that it should be deleted (via whatever process). (e.g., [2], [3], [4]).

Guy, I distinctly remember you agreed to walk away and hand off your crusade against this article to someone else after it had become clear you had lost your cool and were no longer acting in a neutral manner ([5] [6] [7]). If you think you have cooled down enough to rejoin the discussion that's fine, but please try to keep your cool this time and maintain neutrality. Here's a question for you: did you at any point actually try searching for reliable independent sources before forming the opinion that TurnKey Linux is a non-notable free software project and supporting deletion? For example, would any of the following qualify in your opinion as notable references for an Ubuntu derivative or free software project and if not, could you please explain your reasoning (e.g., what does qualify) and provide me with just one reference from the many unofficial Ubuntu derivatives listed on Wikipedia that does meet your criteria for notability in this area? (for comparison)

PostgreSQL downloads (postgresql.org)
Issue 108 Ubuntu Newsletter
Issue 115 Ubuntu Newsletter
PostgreSQL Weekly News - December 15 2008 (postgresql.org)
TurnKey Rails on VirtualBox
New Distributions (lwn.net)
Ruby on Rails is running on the Ubuntu box (fromjumpstreet.com)
New TurnKey Linux releases feature dramatic usability improvements (livedistro.org)
ODP Live CD category
VirtualBox Multiple TCP port forwarding (blog.nixternal.com)
TurnKey MediaWiki (mediawiki.org) linked to from software appliances (mediawiki.org), which is linked to from (mediawiki.org main Installation page ("Alternative to manual installation")
New PostgreSQL appliances (ghidinelli.com)

LirazSiri (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Process for its own sake is a waste of everyone's time. And funny, I thought that YOU had agreed to walk away from promoting yourself when you withdrew your original DRV request, LirazSiri, so lecturing others for what you're unwilling to do yourself and making unfounded claims about others's supposed lack of neutrality--ESPECIALLY given your built-in conflict of interest--does you no credit. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made my relationship with the article public from the beginning. The reasons for Guy's lack of neutrality are not public knowledge. I use my real identity to edit Wikipedia and make all possible reasons for WP:COI known. That should work in my favor. Instead, it is used to ram me by a rogue administrator in a systematic pattern of WP:NPA, WP:Civility and WP:AGF violations. This from an administrator who hides behind a pseudonym and has had his user page deleted for reasons unknown. Maybe if everyone was half as transparent as I am we might discover that there is more to this abuse of process than meets the eye.

"Process for its own sake is a waste of everyone's time" This is misdirection. I find it hard to believe that you are concerned with wasting time, considering how much time has already been wasted discussing this issue on multiple venues (e.g., WP:VPP). I think you are violating WP:HONESTY. Rectifying the abuse of process is the best way for us to sort through this mess as quickly as possible, but I'm skeptical whether that will be allowed to happen because the real issue here is abuse of administrator power and the administrators are much more likely to support each other than give credence to any wrongdoing.

"I thought YOU had agreed to walk away from promoting yourself" - This is blatant nonsense. You are setting up a straw man (I stated the reasons for walking away from the previous deletion review very clearly) and attacking me personally against WP:NPA instead of addressing the issue at hand. Please address the issue, not the people. LirazSiri (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revealing that you have a conflict of interest still means that you have a conflict of interest, full stop. Imagining that someone else, uninvolved, has a conflict of interest means precisely nothing. The rest of your paranoid piffle and personal attacks are not worth responding to except the last: the issue has been addressed--no flaws in the process or new information other than a result not to your personal liking have been brought forth--and your increasingly hypocritical meanderings, such as attacking anyone contradicting you whilst crying 'Help! Help! I'm bein' oppressed' isn't helping your credibility one iota. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Paranoid piffle" and "hypocritical meanderings" - now your just making words up! Anyhow, It's still a violation of WP:NPA. Let's keep this WP:CIVIL. I admit I do find it rather strange that the article has been singled out in defiance of prevailing standards on Wikipedia, and my imagination is working overtime. Guess what? Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks there is some funny business going on. I'd like to remind you that I did not open this deletion review. I am merely making my opinions heard. Or has my involvement stripped me of my right to have an opinion as well? So far instead of replying directly to any of the valid points I have raised most of those supporting deletions have attacked me personally rather than actually contradicted anything I have said. Here let me spell this out for you so you don't have to fish around for it and default to more personal attacks:

1. Why are we having this discussion on DR rather than through the normal WP:AFD / WP:PROD process. What is so terrifying about letting regular Wikipedians plebs (who may know more about the subject matter) discuss the article and reach consensus instead of effectively limiting the discussion to Administrators and their buddies? This is not deletion is supposed to work. How do you justify this abuse of process?

2. Why don't you take up on the challenge I extended to Guy and Tony. Find me just one unofficial Ubuntu derivative of the many listed on Wikipedia that satisfies your definition of what is notable for an article in this category so I have a comparable benchmark and can work towards that. Pretty please?.

If instead of a direct and relevant response to these issues you resort to further poisoning the well and ad hominem attacks that will be evidence for lack of good faith on your part. LirazSiri (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want the article restored, that means you do want the article to stay deleted, and that means the same result would be accomplished by not having a DRV at all. Am I missing anything? Stifle (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again... Article was restored to user space, then was redeleted out of bad faith (tends to happen with the deletionists around here). Ask LirazSiri for more. Rfwoolf (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still early days here, but I'm not hearing any sense from our admins yet. The burden here is for all of you to demonstrate that this is spam and should be deleted as such. All the "Endorse Deletions" thus far say nothing about this (and instead attack LirazSiri). It would be SO wonderful if this deletion could be upheld by sticking to what's relevant. Such a pitty that's not likely to happen. Rfwoolf (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the burden of proof in relation to deletion discussions lies with the article creator/defender to show the notability. In this case, I still haven't seen much of anything that proves the article was deleted against policy. There were no references or claims of notability, the article creator has an admitted conflict of interest. If someone can show a policy violation here, I'd be happy to reconsider; otherwise endorse deletion. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There were no references or claims of notability?". This is plainly untrue, though I should probably let someone else call you out for ignoring the evidence I have submitted to the contrary. My voice doesn't seem to count for much here. On one hand you claim the burden on proof is on the article creator. On the other hand you feel perfectly comfortable dismissing everything the article creator says, regardless of merit on the basis of WP:COI. That's a Catch 22 if I ever saw one.

Administrators are not intended to have the authority to circumvent the normal deletion process (WP:AFD, WP:PROD) at their pleasure by abusing WP:CSD. It seems to be widely agreed that the article doesn't qualify for WP:CSD as WP:SPAM (G11). The normal deletion process involves reaching consensus about the notability or non-notability of an article at the community-level where regular WP:Wikipedians have a voice and Administrators have no special advantage. On the other hand, here at deletion review administrators hold all the cards. This is an abuse of process. There are nearly 9 million editors and only 1,300 administrators. We plebeian Wikipedians outnumber administrators nearly 10,000 to 1. Being an administrator is supposed to be WP:NOBIGDEAL, but some of you seem to regard yourselves as some kind of elite aristocracy that has the right to abuse its power to impose its will on the rest of us. LirazSiri (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think nothing of the sort, feel that's bordering on a personal attack, and would request that you redact that statement. Notability on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources that are non-trivial, neutral, and preferably based off of an outlet that has a level of editorial control. Going through the list of sources you provide above, a couple of which I see in the article, they are almost entirely blogs, trivial mentions, or sites based on user submission - there is none of what we would define as independent coverage in a reliable source. One of them is based on a post by you. That definitely doesn't meet the guidelines. The final version of the article as it was deleted included a number of features that I, had I seen it, would have immediately considered to be promotional - and believe me, I get dozens of promo releases a day, so I can recognize it - and it had no assertion of notability. In my opinion, as a person who has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever, there was no issue with the deletion. I hope this clears up my view and how my opinion is, in fact, based in the guidelines regarding deletions. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a personal attack, unless you include yourself in the group I describe (administrators who seem to view regular Wikipedians as plebs and themselves as part of separate, elite aristocracy), in which case it most definitely is.
lwn.net is notable and they have editorial control over who gets listed in the "new distributions" report. Sure they linked to a post I wrote, but they do that all the time. I shouldn't be punished for doing a good job describing a release.
Postgresql.org's official website linked to our TurnKey PostgreSQL appliance after a discussion on their mailing list. postgresql is notable. So is it's official web site.
Many sites that are based on user-submissions still exercise editorial control (e.g., livedistro.org).
In an nascent niche category such as software appliances getting over 10,000 downloads in a few months, while being covered by multiple independent blogs, the Ubuntu newsletter, lwn.net, livedistro.org (the top site covering Live CDs) and the Open Directory Project might just be interpreted by some as showing the project is notable for its category. You can't reasonably expect the New York Times to cover a distribution of software appliances or any technical development in a non-mainstream field. OK, maybe you don't think that is enough to show that the project is notable, but that's not your decision to make. That should be our decision to make. We should let Wikipedians with the proper technical background chip in, and most of those don't hang around in deletion review.
I challenge you to find just one unofficial Ubuntu derivative of the many covered on Wikipedia that exceeds TurnKey Linux's notability (or satisfies your criteria of notability, which seems to be higher) LirazSiri (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel other articles shouldn't be here, Articles for Deletion is over there. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change the subject. Instead of reframing my question in a way that allows you to avoid it, why don't you actually try and spend a few minutes of your time and prove me wrong? LirazSiri (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "But such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same."LirazSiri (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I know fuck all about software, so I'm not about to go about that, when the fact is that this is not a debate over the other articles, it is a debate about whether the article was deleted in process. I see your article, I see spam, I see no good references, I see no reason for the deletion to be overturned. My opinion has been registered. Good day. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I see spam" That's interesting. Do you see spam when you look at articles about other Ubuntu derivatives/free software projects or is it just the TurnKey Linux article that offends you? And really, why do you keep avoiding my question? Is it that difficult for you to give me just one example from this category that satisfies your criteria for notability for the purpose of comparison? If you can't do that how can we trust your judgment and why should we have to when there are many Wikipedians who do understand software and might be more capable of arriving at an informed opinion regarding this matter? How can your integrity be trusted when you are so firmly insistent on usurping power for yourself and your fellow administrators by circumventing the intended system of checks and balances? Let me reiterate once again: being an administrator does not not give you any special authority here. If anything your opinion should weigh less because you have admitted you do not understand the subject matter.LirazSiri (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I wasn't going to allow myself to be baited into further comment, but you know what? I know our guidelines. I know our policies. I have worked deletion debates many, many times, and based on that knowledge, I feel that the article in question was correctly deleted as a G11 - advertisement. Personal knowledge is not important here. Deletion debates are about whether our guidelines and policies have been followed correctly; I feel that in this case, they have. I am also personally insulted by your attack on my integrity. I demand a retraction immediately. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone else noticed how, for the purpose of this discussion, notable has been redefined to mean "very important"? I never claimed this free software project is very important, merely notable, as in, you would want to make note of it if you were trying to learn more about the field of software appliances, an emerging development only a couple of years old, who's main article (Software appliance) does not contain any sources. Neither does the article on the main commercial vendor in this field RPath. LirazSiri (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that no-one else has noticed because it's a product of your imagination. Which is the charitable interpretation. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an uninvolved user, I am surprised at the incivility of a number of the people arguing for deletion. This thing appears to have some valid sources and references that could be used, and thus, cannot be deleted under CSD. Thus, Overturn and list at AFD. Jtrainor (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted There is a cached version of the userspace page still available here. Those advocating for inclusion above assert that the user sub-page version was fundamentally identical to the article space version, so will be analyzed on that basis. This was promotional material needing to be completely rewritten to become acceptable. As it was clearly promotional, it qualified for WP:CSD#A7 deletion. An acceptable article is written primarily from independent and reliable sources. Having looked at the sources listed above, I see only three that may qualify as independent and reliable. Those are UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter Issue #108, UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter Issue #115, and the paragraph at lwn.net. The article was not written primarily from those sources, so clearly qualified for WP:CSD#G11 deletion. Accordingly, endorse deletion. Our nominator is also asking if it merits an AFD discussion. The two UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter sources would not meet our test for being reliable sources if tested at the noticeboard or AFD, given the fact that the newsletter says "If you'd like to contribute to a future issue of the Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter, please feel free to edit the appropriate wiki page." I can't quickly tell whether the lwn.net page would pass muster, but the article can't stand with only it. There is thus not enough evidence to merit an AFD discussion. I also can't encourage anyone to recreate this article, because I don't believe there are enough usable sources for a rewrite to pass muster. If better sourcing becomes available in the future, that can be handled then - but as always better if by an editor not personally involved in the project. GRBerry 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The closing admin made a correct assesment on the lack of reliable sources. Those sources wouldn't qualify as WP:RS on a AFD, it would be a waste of time, process for the sake of process, WP:BURO, etc. The interesed editors should wait until they have better sources, then make a userspace draft and send it to DRV, or, if the sources are clearly RS this time, recreate directly and put up for AFD.

lwn.net[8] is making a namecheck of all new distros, the ubuntu newsletters are doing namechecks of all new Ubuntu software, and postgresql[9][10] is listing all products using postgresql. Rest of sources are newsletters and blogs. There is an argument that it's notable because of having a certain component, but there is no secondary source anywhere saying that this has any relevance at all (hint:find a good one, and chances for recreation will increase a lot). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - There's virtually no chance that the article in its last state would survive an AFD. I would recommend that those advocating the restoration of the article again, after a previous DRV, an attempt to change the notability policy to allow restoration, and several other discussions on other pages, do something productive rather than trying to continue wasting people's time with long repetitive arguments. [11] Its getting rather tedious. Mr.Z-man 22:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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