Randy Rasputin Richards – Decline restoration. Consensus below is that the new draft does not address the basic problem (no notability verifiable from reliable, third-party sources) of the article deleted at DRV. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

A "return to mainspace" review of the proposed fixed version of User:Malakai_Joe/Randy_Rasputin_Richards has been requested for the following reason(s):

While local notability of the original article was achieved (barely), the article was requested to be cleaned up by editors.
Article was requested by editors to be reduced to a stub. I have re-edited it to a bare bones of information and citations. Most details were removed.
Original article was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malakai_Joe/Randy_Richards
Original deletion review is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_11#Randy_Rasputin_Richards

Above unsigned is from Malakai Joe (talk) Quode (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse deletion we just endorsed this lass than a week ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse, the previous DRV for this was only closed 2½ hours before this one was listed. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing that for now, as the previous DRV did tell him to come back when he had a draft. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not yet~~. Look over other articles about similar people. Try to write just a few sentences about one or two things related to him (perhaps 3: acting/voice acting, writing, photography), each in their own section. Keep it short and keep it prose rather than a list. Leave things out rather than overload with trivia, but feel free to list unused sources as "other references" or somesuch.

I strongly disagree with the above !votes as time isn't important here. We told the author to come back with a better article, he tried. The issue isn't the time, it's that he's failed. Humm, take a look at Joel C. Rosenburg for a decent article about someone notable for more than one thing. Joel is a lot more notable than Randy, but same ideas apply. Given the sources I think there's an article here. I just think that at this point it needs to be written fairly well before it is placed in mainspace. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything to delete anyway - the article is in my User space for us to work on, not in main space. Anyway, Hobit, the article Joel C. Rosenburg is a broken link (the article doesn't exist). Can you give me another example? If so, I can give the rewrite a shot this evening. Malakai Joe (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Hobit, I've made your suggested changes as best as I could without an example. See what you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malakai_Joe/Randy_Rasputin_Richards Malakai Joe (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, sorry it was Joel C. Rosenberg. I'll look over the article shortly. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few changes to the structure and organization (mostly minor) which removed one reference (The library award). I just don't know that it is relevant to the anything. I certainly wouldn't lead the section with it. I think it is now a reasonably good article so I recommend moving to mainspace with no objection to another AfD if someone still has notability issues. I personally think the sources clear WP:N, but I could certainly see how this could be debatable. Hobit (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. How does this work if its a consensus? Do I have to do something, or does it automatically go back into mainspace? Malakai Joe (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We wait for this DrV to close (generally 4-5 days). After that it will either be moved to mainspace or not depending on the close. It also might go to mainspace and be sent back to AfD. Fun times. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Malakai Joe (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, the sources need to be more highlighted throughout the article with reliable sources. The article, or should I say person, does not come across as notable enough according to Wikipedia standards. Come back later and then ask for allowance of recreation. Xandrus (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original did that. Hobit asked the article to be reduced, so a lot of the other sources went with it. The bar keeps moving. Last time I was told to come back when Randy Richards was the subject of a full page article in a magazine. I did. Now thats not enough? Malakai Joe (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion I don't see enough reliable sources, or more specifically, secondary sources quite yet. Out of the nine references, one is a link to a PDF hosted at a Dungeon and Dragons site, three are links to videos ([1], [2], [3]) and one is a forum post. That's too many references that could be classified as primary sources in my opinion. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So which is it? I removed most of the sources in order to cut it down to a stub, as asked. The original criticism (last year) was that it had too many sources, so then we added al buttloads of non-primary sources. This time we were asked to reduce the amount of sources to make it a stub, and now we have someone that wants more sources. Its round and round and round we go. Do you want me to put it back the way it was? Malakai Joe (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a bit of stretching in the article in regards to some accomplishments. "Richards has appeared in local TV newscasts" Then examples one. "His nature photography has also won awards, the most recent..." again, only one example exists, no others can be noted. The Katrina event itself created three related events, the news cast, story and photo tour, but its spread over three locations. Voice acting is too new with no real body of work that has elevated the feat beyond a self reference. Randy archives each small achievement and parades them on his personally maintained web sites. Beyond that it’s hard to find mention of these things separate from Randy. If we understand that Randy is the focus of the article and drop all of his self promotion there is very little left. Quode (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To Malakai Joe) I understand your frustration, but I never saw the article in its previous incarnations, so I'm only going off of what I see now and what I've seen in AFDs. An article that has mostly primary sources is more likely to be seen as advertising and less likely to survive a future AFD, in my opinion. So my advice would be not so much "go back to what the article was before", but rather "try to create an article that is more non-primary than primary sources". Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 15:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(To Raven1977) This is the second draft article, revised to have more secondary sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malakai_Joe/Randy_Richards

No Randy, this is the first draft that was rejected multiple times over the years with a few minor edits. Raven has seen the second draft you created per Hobit and which this discussion is all about. Quode (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Teri, you weren't around for the very first draft review. Right now the article is more or less in its original stub form. The original reviewers wanted it expanded with more sources and citations. We've come full circle. Malakai Joe (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, anyone else, just review the article history page for clarification. The rejected article was first, then the stub revision. Now hes going back to the first rejected article and we now have two pages dedicated to Randy for no good reason. Quode (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave deleted. Article was and remains an indulgence by or on behalf of a non-notable subject. --65.1.63.123 (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Revision as a stub article. Malakai Joe (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin. This is the nominator so should be ignored. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After the revision its a decent stub article. I would allow recreation but with some provisos. Randy Richards appears to meet notability as defined in WP:N. If you can work some of the secondary sources from the longer version of the article I would not object moving it to mainspace, provided this fix only adds a few sentences. Gerran (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Gerran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I nominate a move to mainspace of revised article. Randy Richards's work is fairly popular in the UK. 94.76.196.63 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — 94.76.196.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Endorse we did this already and thre subject is still not notable Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Egyptian yoga – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Egyptian yoga (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) DRV requested on MBisanz's talk page by user Neferhotep. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga. Prodego ^talk 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin Thanks Prodego for helping him out. Editor seems to believe people were confused when commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian yoga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga and that sources exist for one of them. Both discussions look normal to me and I encourage Neferhotep to present new sources on either article for community review. MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] It seems to me that either somebody had vandalized this article or the committee who made the deletion review has not had time enough to look carefully at the sources I had provided. Someone writes about the sources : "none in English". If you consult the original bibliography and the references, you will see that there were several sources in English : a book by Hanish published in Chicago, a book by L. Hamilton published in the USA, 3 articles in English by G. and B. Khane, published in a UK serious yoga magazine, 2 books in English by Muata Ashby (it would be possible to add other books by this last author, but I didn't because it is just selfpublications, without any academic reference). Mr Gordon believes that I was alluding to the selfpublications by Muata Ashby when I wrote that some africanists lean about Khane's work, I ams sorry, I am afraid it is a confusion. The provided references were refering to several academic publications written by some University professors. I don't claim this article was perfect. Certainly not, and I would try to improve it if y had the possibiliity to do it. But some reproachs seem to me Neferhotep (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)unjustified.[reply] Keep deleted, the consensus at the previous AFDs seems fine and nothing has been presented that suggests the deletion process wasn't properly followed. The lister is encouraged to write a properly-sourced userspace draft and return here with it. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment I'll volunteer to have a look at these once I get a few other things off my plate. Tothwolf (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The article did not suffer from vandalism but did suffer from an apparently novel synthesis of unrelated groups under the heading Egyption yoga. The AfD consensus for deletion is both clear and correct. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Egyptian yoga – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

DRV requested on MBisanz's talk page by user Neferhotep. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga. Prodego ^talk 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin Thanks Prodego for helping him out. Editor seems to believe people were confused when commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian yoga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga and that sources exist for one of them. Both discussions look normal to me and I encourage Neferhotep to present new sources on either article for community review. MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that either somebody had vandalized this article or the committee who made the deletion review has not had time enough to look carefully at the sources I had provided. Someone writes about the sources : "none in English". If you consult the original bibliography and the references, you will see that there were several sources in English : a book by Hanish published in Chicago, a book by L. Hamilton published in the USA, 3 articles in English by G. and B. Khane, published in a UK serious yoga magazine, 2 books in English by Muata Ashby (it would be possible to add other books by this last author, but I didn't because it is just selfpublications, without any academic reference). Mr Gordon believes that I was alluding to the selfpublications by Muata Ashby when I wrote that some africanists lean about Khane's work, I ams sorry, I am afraid it is a confusion. The provided references were refering to several academic publications written by some University professors. I don't claim this article was perfect. Certainly not, and I would try to improve it if y had the possibiliity to do it. But some reproachs seem to me Neferhotep (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)unjustified.[reply]

Keep deleted, the consensus at the previous AFDs seems fine and nothing has been presented that suggests the deletion process wasn't properly followed. The lister is encouraged to write a properly-sourced userspace draft and return here with it. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll volunteer to have a look at these once I get a few other things off my plate. Tothwolf (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article did not suffer from vandalism but did suffer from an apparently novel synthesis of unrelated groups under the heading Egyption yoga. The AfD consensus for deletion is both clear and correct. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arrogant Sons of Bitches – New version restored per consensus. – Mgm\|^(talk) 09:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Arrogant Sons of Bitches (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I am one of the deleting admins (will notify Fabrictramp and Nancy as soon as I've posted) and received this note from a user who has created this draft and asked me to unprotect. I was the third admin to delete and there was an AfD so I'm hesitant to overturn consensus, although I do think the article is much improved and appears to pass WP:MUSIC. So in that sense I endorse re-creation with the userspace draft although the original deletions were perfectly justified. Thoughts? StarM 01:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse re-creation - I wrote the new version of the article. I think that it now establishes notability: Frontman Jeff Rosenstock went on to found Quote Unquote Records and Bomb the Music Industry. ASOB has also been the subject of independent published works as are sourced. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse re-creation, no reflection on previous closers. That's a nice-looking article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 03:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse re-creation. The AfD participants expressed concern about the sources, which viewing the earlier version was clearly justified. Since those are addressed, recreation should be okay. (P.S. I don't think a blogspot reviewer is really significant or can that account be linked to a specific well-known person?) - Mgm\|^(talk) 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse move into mainspace. A great job creating a good, well sourced version of the article. Obviously this doesn't reflect poorly on the deleting admins who deleted a completely different page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse recreation/move to mainspace - new article addresses all the issues raised at the AFD. Good work! Nancy ^talk 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Arrogant Sons of Bitches – New version restored per consensus. – Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am one of the deleting admins (will notify Fabrictramp and Nancy as soon as I've posted) and received this note from a user who has created this draft and asked me to unprotect. I was the third admin to delete and there was an AfD so I'm hesitant to overturn consensus, although I do think the article is much improved and appears to pass WP:MUSIC. So in that sense I endorse re-creation with the userspace draft although the original deletions were perfectly justified. Thoughts? StarM 01:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse re-creation - I wrote the new version of the article. I think that it now establishes notability: Frontman Jeff Rosenstock went on to found Quote Unquote Records and Bomb the Music Industry. ASOB has also been the subject of independent published works as are sourced. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse re-creation, no reflection on previous closers. That's a nice-looking article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 03:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse re-creation. The AfD participants expressed concern about the sources, which viewing the earlier version was clearly justified. Since those are addressed, recreation should be okay. (P.S. I don't think a blogspot reviewer is really significant or can that account be linked to a specific well-known person?) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move into mainspace. A great job creating a good, well sourced version of the article. Obviously this doesn't reflect poorly on the deleting admins who deleted a completely different page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse recreation/move to mainspace - new article addresses all the issues raised at the AFD. Good work! Nancy ^talk 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

uCoz – restore article with new sources. The Afd was closed correctly, but the new sources provided in this DRV have provided grounds for notability. The article can be renominated for deletion on other grounds in the future, or if other editors disagree that the sources show notability. – Aervanath (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
UCoz (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) [Discussion] The article about uCoz has been deleted groundlessly. First of all uCoz is not a software. It is a service (hosting and CMS). If you want to identify the notability of a service, you must know how many people use it. So, if you measure notability according to the number of press releases and high PR articles, you make a mistake. Because it is an indirect indication which depends on PR activity but not notability. You can see the number of uCoz users by the Alexa rank for the following domains: ucoz.com, ucoz.net, ucoz.org, ucoz.co.uk, ucoz.de, ucoz.es, ucoz.ru, ucoz.ua, ucoz.kz, ucoz.lv, ucoz.cn, at.ua, 3dn.ru, my1.ru, clan.su, moy.su, do.am. Now uCoz has 716189 active users (top.ucoz.com). So, isn't this number an indication of its being a mass service? Meskalyto (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion It was explained to you at the AfD that 'mass' doesn't mean notable by Wikipedia standards, which is how we should be deciding about articles. No one came up with reliable 3rd party sources showing notability then, you are just repeating what you said earlier. dougweller (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse – this is not AFD round 2. It has already been explained in the AFD. Disagreeing with the general notability guideline, nor continuing to assert notability via alexa (this has also been beaten down into the ground at the AFD) is not grounds for challenging the deletion. If you want to demonstrate notaility, then you need to show significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. MuZemike 19:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse once you strip away the drama, we are left with a source-less article about a web service. To close such a discussion as delete is wholly appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - the closer of the AFD interpreted consensus correctly and the outcome was an accurate application of WP:NOTE Nancy ^talk 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] ~~Endorse~~ While I would have liked to have seen this AfD actually result in some discussion, I do not see anything improper with the close. That said, however, I think the editor who nominated this article for AfD may have nominated it prematurely. It is obvious that uCoz is an extremely popular service in Russia and I have little doubt that it will be possible to find sources for this subject that meet WP:RS. Wikipedia articles are not limited to English only subjects and I believe the only reason this article went to AfD is that the language barrier made it difficult to locate Russian sources that meet WP:RS. I would encourage Meskalyto to read WP:RS and create a list of sources (with links where possible) to any Russian publications such as books, magazines, reviews, etc of uCoz and then check with the reliable sources noticeboard. Once WP:RS can be satisfied I see absolutely no reason why an article about uCoz should not exist on Wikipedia. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn (struck endorse) Restore article due to reliable sources being available, even if they are non-English. Tothwolf (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment I realized I should make this clear for the record that WP:N / notability is not the real issue for this article (even though that was the reason mentioned in many of the Delete "votes". It is easy to see that uCoz is extremely popular and has a large web presence and userbase. The only issue I see is the difficulty in finding sources that meet WP:RS due to the fact that most of the coverage of this subject is in Russian. Tothwolf (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] to the extent that this is part of the reason, it would have been incorrectly deleted, as all languages are usable. Probably thousands of people of enWP can read Russian. DGG (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] If we can find a source that can be used for the article, I intend to strike my Endorse above. A Google search for uCoz and Runet Prize (as well as the Russian spelling) that Ekjon Lok mention below does seem to confirm what's in the Runet Prize article so there must be something that can be used to meet WP:RS. Tothwolf (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Re-Open discussion page and uCoz page for further discussion of this issue and the possibility to give reliable sources. Since the discussion has been stopped by the deletion of the article without the detailed examination of the issue, I adduce arguments about the hasty decision here. Wikipedia articles must be corroborated by reliable secondary sources in cases when false information might be added. Corroboration is not necessary in other cases. In Runet_Prize we can find uCoz in the nomination “People’s Ten” on the third place. By the way, Wikipedia participated in this nomination as well. You can hardly call this award not notable. TV broadcasting of the award presentation ceremony. uCoz has also taken the 3rd place in its nomination in another popular award Golden Site If needed, I can give scanned copies of magazines where uCoz is mentioned as the service that covers 52% of Russian free hosting services. If you type "ucoz" in Google you’ll see more than 10 millions of pages where it is mentioned. Wikipedia article about uCoz takes now the 4th place in Google by the search word "ucoz". Millions of people enter this word in search boxes, and Wikipedia could fulfill its direct mission in this case.Meskalyto (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] With all due respect, so many arguments above are just so wrong that one does not know where to begin. "Wikipedia articles must be corroborated by reliable secondary sources in cases when false information might be added. Corroboration is not necessary in other cases." This is just plainly false. "the service [that] covers 52% of Russian free hosting services" This does not invalidate the need for reliable sources. "Wikipedia article about uCoz takes now the 4th place in Google by the search word 'ucoz'" So what? "Millions of people enter this word in search boxes" What's your reference for "millions"? And in any case, what is this supposed to prove? "Wikipedia could fulfill its direct mission in this case" What is in your opinion Wikipedia's mission? To help people when they type words in search boxes??? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] PS Just to clarify, this is not an argument for endorsing deletion; this is merely a reply to the post above. I am sure that if reliable source are found, even if they are not in English, a good case can be made for keeping this article; I have no opinion on that. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] PPS I am sure that Runet Prize would definitely qualify as a reliable source and notability benchmark. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin comment - just so you know, I wasn't informed about this DRV, which is why I haven't commented. Filer appears to have misunderstood our notability guidelines, which were the basis for the close. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Where should I give the reliable sources, here or on the uCoz delete page? Meskalyto (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Here is the most appropriate venue. Let's see what you've got. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Meskalyto, list them here. You may list Russian or English sources. An English translation for any Russian sources will be helpful. Tothwolf (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fritzpoll, I realize you were going by rough consensus in the AfD, but to be honest I don't think the filer got it wrong at all. I think he may have been premature to bring this to DRV but notability is not the issue. The issue is WP:RS. It seems that a couple people voted right at the very end of the AfD to delete claiming the subject lacked notability (going only by what the editor who nominated the article stated). The subject itself has already been proven notable, the problem is that reliable sources were not cited. It looks like people have also voted in the DRV before all the facts were made clear. I only happened across this DRV myself because I was checking on another on the same page. Tothwolf (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I based my comment on the fact that the filer seems to be saying that the fact it isn't cited in third-party reliable sources is irrelevant, and that we should rely on its traffic statistics. I think that's a misunderstanding of WP:N. I'm happy for the page to be recreated if RS can be found, and this DRV endorses such an action, but I can't be held responsible for not doing a thorough search myself Fritzpoll (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] The filer is not a native English speaker and I believe there has been misunderstanding all around. Have a look at Runet Prize, I think that helps clarify why WP:N has already been established. Tothwolf (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Not really, and I'm not participating one way or the other here. I'm satisfied that my close was correct. I'll also be satisfied if you can convince folks here that WP:N has been met, but to do so, you might want to spell it out rather than relying on people to go look. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] We'll see how it goes. Sources do seem to be available but the language barrier does tend to complicate the process. Tothwolf (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] 'Endorse - As the original afd nominator the service/product made no claim of notability or reliable sources to back up the random spurts of OR. I was never informed about the DRV and it seems one editor would rather make uncivil claims then make useful discussion. 16x9 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment I strongly advise you to take the person attacks elsewhere. You could have sourced this material yourself and I consider the way you treated Meskalyto to be very inappropriate. Tothwolf (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment I was referring to you. 16x9 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Thanks for clarifying, however my comment and suggestion above still stands. Tothwolf (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Tentative restore per this link, Runet Prize 2008. Runet Prize is the official and one of the most important Russian prizes for Internet-related services. Go down to "8. НАРОДНАЯ 10-КА", or "People's 10 nominations"; you'll see UcoZ listed at no. 3 (the same list includes, incidentally, Russian Wikipedia at No. 9, as well as Google.ru at No. 6, Yandex at No. 7, and other major players). I'd say that is sufficient as a guarantee of notability. More reliable sources won't come amiss, though. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment reading more about Runet Prize, it would appear to be the Russian version of the Webby Awards. We've used the Webby Awards for English articles so Runet Prize would certainly seem to be a WP:RS. Tothwolf (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment From what I can tell they the category this service won was more like the People's Voice Award [4] Also the Webby Awards are an international award while these is only for Russian sites. 16x9 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The Webby Awards are a people's choice type award. Sources are not required to be in English; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella Nardoni case (and many, many others). See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] reply you keep trying to insinuate that I have a problem with things being in Russian which is not true and needs to stop. The webby awards are by a panel of judges, while the people's choice are by popular vote. Again another fallacy in your comparison is that the webby awards are broad in scope while Runet is narrow. If we are randomly pulling pages to see visit m:DICK. 16x9 (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment I insinuate no such thing. I believe it is however readily apparent at this point that you seem to enjoy having articles deleted and would rather tag/nominate them for deletion using an automated utility instead of actually trying to add sources or improve them, even when sources are available (Yes, it usually takes work to find them). Furthermore, I find it disturbing that you then seem to attempt to discount any sources that are presented by others. I suggest you re-read WP:BEFORE before you tag or nominate any more articles for deletion. Had you done a "what links here" check for uCoz you would have seen the Runet Prize link before nominating uCoz for AfD. This is the last time I will debate this with you here, if you want to go down this road again, take it to a talk page. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Breaking here to try to separate this from the cluttered discussion above. WP:WEB#Criteria 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. uCoz won an award in the 2008 Runet Prize which is the national award of the Russian Federation. This is non-trivial and shows that uCoz is very much a notable topic. The original AfD votes claiming uCoz was not notable did not account for this and are therefore invalid. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment WP:WEB is about web content like blogs not the service or product. 16x9 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Closure, the original discussion was closed properly, and DRV is not AFD round two. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply] Are you implying that we don't have to follow WP:N (including WP:WEB) and WP:RS and as such that those guidelines and policies are invalid and do not apply to this article? You might want to re-read what has been discussed since the first round of endorse (I struck my own endorse after more information came to light). The problem here (and for the record, I have no editing involvement whatsoever with the article in question) is that at the time the article was nominated for AfD, the nominator claimed it didn't meet WP:N. We can now clearly establish that the topic does indeed meet WP:N. I'm unsure as to what exactly you think DRV is for if you think it isn't for correcting such mistakes? Tothwolf (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I have not attempted to follow all of this, but there seems to be some personal animosities involved. It would seem that if the site or service or whatever won an important prize, then it is notable, and that's the end of it. All that is necessary to do is to document the prize. DGG (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Re-reading that AfD discussion, that last remark is no longer effectively a "close" since reliable sources are on the table, and the penultimate remark should be discounted as a WP:JNN. That doesn't leave a consensus for "delete". No reflection on Fritzpoll because there's new information here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Here I give several independent sources which prove the notability of uCoz. [Well-known hosting award.] uCoz in two digests [1], [2], [3] Full scanned copies of digests [1], [2] Should I give more sources to prove notability? Meskalyto (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] endorse but relist DRV isn't really the place to have this discussion given how narrow our focus is. The question of notability needs to go back to the wider community for discussion due to the new sourcing but the original close was valid given the information and discussion at the time of closing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

uCoz – restore article with new sources. The Afd was closed correctly, but the new sources provided in this DRV have provided grounds for notability. The article can be renominated for deletion on other grounds in the future, or if other editors disagree that the sources show notability. – Aervanath (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Discussion] The article about uCoz has been deleted groundlessly.

First of all uCoz is not a software. It is a service (hosting and CMS). If you want to identify the notability of a service, you must know how many people use it. So, if you measure notability according to the number of press releases and high PR articles, you make a mistake. Because it is an indirect indication which depends on PR activity but not notability. You can see the number of uCoz users by the Alexa rank for the following domains: ucoz.com, ucoz.net, ucoz.org, ucoz.co.uk, ucoz.de, ucoz.es, ucoz.ru, ucoz.ua, ucoz.kz, ucoz.lv, ucoz.cn, at.ua, 3dn.ru, my1.ru, clan.su, moy.su, do.am. Now uCoz has 716189 active users (top.ucoz.com). So, isn't this number an indication of its being a mass service? Meskalyto (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion It was explained to you at the AfD that 'mass' doesn't mean notable by Wikipedia standards, which is how we should be deciding about articles. No one came up with reliable 3rd party sources showing notability then, you are just repeating what you said earlier. dougweller (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – this is not AFD round 2. It has already been explained in the AFD. Disagreeing with the general notability guideline, nor continuing to assert notability via alexa (this has also been beaten down into the ground at the AFD) is not grounds for challenging the deletion. If you want to demonstrate notaility, then you need to show significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. MuZemike 19:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse once you strip away the drama, we are left with a source-less article about a web service. To close such a discussion as delete is wholly appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the closer of the AFD interpreted consensus correctly and the outcome was an accurate application of WP:NOTE Nancy ^talk 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~ While I would have liked to have seen this AfD actually result in some discussion, I do not see anything improper with the close.
That said, however, I think the editor who nominated this article for AfD may have nominated it prematurely.
It is obvious that uCoz is an extremely popular service in Russia and I have little doubt that it will be possible to find sources for this subject that meet WP:RS. Wikipedia articles are not limited to English only subjects and I believe the only reason this article went to AfD is that the language barrier made it difficult to locate Russian sources that meet WP:RS.
I would encourage Meskalyto to read WP:RS and create a list of sources (with links where possible) to any Russian publications such as books, magazines, reviews, etc of uCoz and then check with the reliable sources noticeboard. Once WP:RS can be satisfied I see absolutely no reason why an article about uCoz should not exist on Wikipedia.
--Tothwolf (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (struck endorse) Restore article due to reliable sources being available, even if they are non-English. Tothwolf (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I realized I should make this clear for the record that WP:N / notability is not the real issue for this article (even though that was the reason mentioned in many of the Delete "votes". It is easy to see that uCoz is extremely popular and has a large web presence and userbase. The only issue I see is the difficulty in finding sources that meet WP:RS due to the fact that most of the coverage of this subject is in Russian. Tothwolf (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to the extent that this is part of the reason, it would have been incorrectly deleted, as all languages are usable. Probably thousands of people of enWP can read Russian. DGG (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find a source that can be used for the article, I intend to strike my Endorse above. A Google search for uCoz and Runet Prize (as well as the Russian spelling) that Ekjon Lok mention below does seem to confirm what's in the Runet Prize article so there must be something that can be used to meet WP:RS. Tothwolf (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Open discussion page and uCoz page for further discussion of this issue and the possibility to give reliable sources.

Since the discussion has been stopped by the deletion of the article without the detailed examination of the issue, I adduce arguments about the hasty decision here.
Wikipedia articles must be corroborated by reliable secondary sources in cases when false information might be added. Corroboration is not necessary in other cases.
In Runet_Prize we can find uCoz in the nomination “People’s Ten” on the third place. By the way, Wikipedia participated in this nomination as well. You can hardly call this award not notable. TV broadcasting of the award presentation ceremony. uCoz has also taken the 3rd place in its nomination in another popular award Golden Site
If needed, I can give scanned copies of magazines where uCoz is mentioned as the service that covers 52% of Russian free hosting services.
If you type "ucoz" in Google you’ll see more than 10 millions of pages where it is mentioned. Wikipedia article about uCoz takes now the 4th place in Google by the search word "ucoz". Millions of people enter this word in search boxes, and Wikipedia could fulfill its direct mission in this case.Meskalyto (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, so many arguments above are just so wrong that one does not know where to begin.

"Wikipedia articles must be corroborated by reliable secondary sources in cases when false information might be added. Corroboration is not necessary in other cases." This is just plainly false.
"the service [that] covers 52% of Russian free hosting services" This does not invalidate the need for reliable sources.
"Wikipedia article about uCoz takes now the 4th place in Google by the search word 'ucoz'" So what?
"Millions of people enter this word in search boxes" What's your reference for "millions"? And in any case, what is this supposed to prove?
"Wikipedia could fulfill its direct mission in this case" What is in your opinion Wikipedia's mission? To help people when they type words in search boxes??? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Just to clarify, this is not an argument for endorsing deletion; this is merely a reply to the post above. I am sure that if reliable source are found, even if they are not in English, a good case can be made for keeping this article; I have no opinion on that. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I am sure that Runet Prize would definitely qualify as a reliable source and notability benchmark. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin comment - just so you know, I wasn't informed about this DRV, which is why I haven't commented. Filer appears to have misunderstood our notability guidelines, which were the basis for the close. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I give the reliable sources, here or on the uCoz delete page? Meskalyto (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the most appropriate venue. Let's see what you've got. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meskalyto, list them here. You may list Russian or English sources. An English translation for any Russian sources will be helpful. Tothwolf (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fritzpoll, I realize you were going by rough consensus in the AfD, but to be honest I don't think the filer got it wrong at all. I think he may have been premature to bring this to DRV but notability is not the issue. The issue is WP:RS. It seems that a couple people voted right at the very end of the AfD to delete claiming the subject lacked notability (going only by what the editor who nominated the article stated). The subject itself has already been proven notable, the problem is that reliable sources were not cited. It looks like people have also voted in the DRV before all the facts were made clear. I only happened across this DRV myself because I was checking on another on the same page. Tothwolf (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I based my comment on the fact that the filer seems to be saying that the fact it isn't cited in third-party reliable sources is irrelevant, and that we should rely on its traffic statistics. I think that's a misunderstanding of WP:N. I'm happy for the page to be recreated if RS can be found, and this DRV endorses such an action, but I can't be held responsible for not doing a thorough search myself Fritzpoll (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The filer is not a native English speaker and I believe there has been misunderstanding all around. Have a look at Runet Prize, I think that helps clarify why WP:N has already been established. Tothwolf (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not really, and I'm not participating one way or the other here. I'm satisfied that my close was correct. I'll also be satisfied if you can convince folks here that WP:N has been met, but to do so, you might want to spell it out rather than relying on people to go look. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - We'll see how it goes. Sources do seem to be available but the language barrier does tend to complicate the process. Tothwolf (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Endorse - As the original afd nominator the service/product made no claim of notability or reliable sources to back up the random spurts of OR. I was never informed about the DRV and it seems one editor would rather make uncivil claims then make useful discussion. 16x9 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I strongly advise you to take the person attacks elsewhere. You could have sourced this material yourself and I consider the way you treated Meskalyto to be very inappropriate. Tothwolf (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was referring to you. 16x9 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for clarifying, however my comment and suggestion above still stands. Tothwolf (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative restore per this link, Runet Prize 2008. Runet Prize is the official and one of the most important Russian prizes for Internet-related services. Go down to "8. НАРОДНАЯ 10-КА", or "People's 10 nominations"; you'll see UcoZ listed at no. 3 (the same list includes, incidentally, Russian Wikipedia at No. 9, as well as Google.ru at No. 6, Yandex at No. 7, and other major players). I'd say that is sufficient as a guarantee of notability. More reliable sources won't come amiss, though. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment reading more about Runet Prize, it would appear to be the Russian version of the Webby Awards. We've used the Webby Awards for English articles so Runet Prize would certainly seem to be a WP:RS. Tothwolf (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I can tell they the category this service won was more like the People's Voice Award [4] Also the Webby Awards are an international award while these is only for Russian sites. 16x9 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

The Webby Awards are a people's choice type award.
Sources are not required to be in English; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella Nardoni case (and many, many others).
See WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

--Tothwolf (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply you keep trying to insinuate that I have a problem with things being in Russian which is not true and needs to stop. The webby awards are by a panel of judges, while the people's choice are by popular vote. Again another fallacy in your comparison is that the webby awards are broad in scope while Runet is narrow. If we are randomly pulling pages to see visit m:DICK. 16x9 (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I insinuate no such thing. I believe it is however readily apparent at this point that you seem to enjoy having articles deleted and would rather tag/nominate them for deletion using an automated utility instead of actually trying to add sources or improve them, even when sources are available (Yes, it usually takes work to find them). Furthermore, I find it disturbing that you then seem to attempt to discount any sources that are presented by others. I suggest you re-read WP:BEFORE before you tag or nominate any more articles for deletion. Had you done a "what links here" check for uCoz you would have seen the Runet Prize link before nominating uCoz for AfD.
This is the last time I will debate this with you here, if you want to go down this road again, take it to a talk page.
--Tothwolf (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Breaking here to try to separate this from the cluttered discussion above.
WP:WEB#Criteria 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
uCoz won an award in the 2008 Runet Prize which is the national award of the Russian Federation. This is non-trivial and shows that uCoz is very much a notable topic. The original AfD votes claiming uCoz was not notable did not account for this and are therefore invalid.
--Tothwolf (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:WEB is about web content like blogs not the service or product. 16x9 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure, the original discussion was closed properly, and DRV is not AFD round two. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Are you implying that we don't have to follow WP:N (including WP:WEB) and WP:RS and as such that those guidelines and policies are invalid and do not apply to this article? You might want to re-read what has been discussed since the first round of endorse (I struck my own endorse after more information came to light). The problem here (and for the record, I have no editing involvement whatsoever with the article in question) is that at the time the article was nominated for AfD, the nominator claimed it didn't meet WP:N. We can now clearly establish that the topic does indeed meet WP:N. I'm unsure as to what exactly you think DRV is for if you think it isn't for correcting such mistakes? Tothwolf (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I have not attempted to follow all of this, but there seems to be some personal animosities involved. It would seem that if the site or service or whatever won an important prize, then it is notable, and that's the end of it. All that is necessary to do is to document the prize. DGG (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Re-reading that AfD discussion, that last remark is no longer effectively a "close" since reliable sources are on the table, and the penultimate remark should be discounted as a WP:JNN. That doesn't leave a consensus for "delete". No reflection on Fritzpoll because there's new information here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Here I give several independent sources which prove the notability of uCoz.
- [Well-known hosting award.]
- uCoz in two digests [1], [2], [3]
- Full scanned copies of digests [1], [2]
Should I give more sources to prove notability? Meskalyto (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse but relist DRV isn't really the place to have this discussion given how narrow our focus is. The question of notability needs to go back to the wider community for discussion due to the new sourcing but the original close was valid given the information and discussion at the time of closing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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