Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 25: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:57, 25 November 2007 editGRBerry (talk | contribs)16,708 edits →JAMAA: close this, do the one on the 24th which is reopened← Previous edit Revision as of 21:59, 25 November 2007 edit undoGRBerry (talk | contribs)16,708 edits →JAMAA (closed): close; use the one on the 24thNext edit →
Line 16: Line 16:
|- |-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* ''']''' – {{{2|Deletion endorsed}}} – ] 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> * ''']''' – DRV on 24 November reopeoned at my , it's original closer didn't notice the intervening AFD – ] 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|- |-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''

Revision as of 21:59, 25 November 2007

< November 24 Deletion review archives: 2007 November November 26 >

25 November 2007

JAMAA (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
}
JAMAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) (DRV1) (DRV2)

The previous deletion review was closed within hours of its opening and was not given sufficient time to run its full course. See DRV1 and DRV2. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy close this nomination. Please stop abusing the DRV process. The first DRV endorsed closure but didn't prevent a reliably-sourced article from being created. That was ten days ago. The second DRV was speedy closed because nothing had changed in the ten days since the first DRV. Now, go create an article or give it up. Corvus cornixtalk 21:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Glitz

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

There were multiple procedural errors in the deletion of this page. It is fundamentally a notability dispute (and not in one of the A7 categories), so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. The most recent deletion uses CSD G4 (recreation), but my recreation is about the graphics library, while the previous article was about an avatar in a MMORPG. Furthermore, the article was tagged with {{db-nn}}, but the subject is not in any of the categories. Simply put, if someone wants to delete this article for notability, it needs to through the standard WP:AFD process. Superm401 - Talk 06:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Overturn Deletion Latest deletion cites G4, which does not apply to previously speedied material. Procedural flaw. the_undertow 07:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn. not a valid G4 delete. By the way, if the previous article was about an MMORPG avatar, it does fall into an A7 category (web content) --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy deletion - Public disclosure of private information of a person under 18 using an avatar for which there is no reasonable assertion of importance/significance in the article falls under CSD A7 and possibly CSD G10. -- Jreferee t/c 17:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Permit recreation only if the article is renamed to Glitz (software). The name is appropriate per www.freedesktop.org/Software/glitz. As noted above, my own review of the matter was mislead by the prior deleted content. It makes no sense to continue with an article name that makes deletion mistakes likely. -- Jreferee t/c 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Overturn, allow creation of a feasible article G4 might not apply, but either A7 or A1 certainly do. Generally, I consider DRV nominations that are longer than the deleted article borderline disruptive. The last deleted article ("Glitz is a widely used image compositing library that relies on the OpenGL capabilities of graphics hardware.") neither asserted notability nor did it even explain properly what it was about. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Do not overturn my deletion in present state, but allow re-creation. Exact text when I G4'ed was

    Glitz is a widely used image compositing library that relies on the OpenGL capabilities of graphics hardware.

    So that fails WP:CSD#A7. Suggest userfying of article by creator pending review by another editor. Although G4 may be procedularly incorrect at the time I speedied it, the article still failed A7 and borderline A1 so could have been speedied anyway with a different rationale. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Recreate. If this gets undeleted its just going to get redeleted under A7. Why don't you just write a proper article that actually says something instead of wasting our time with a deletion review? Also, have you discussed this with the deleting admin in advance or notified them of this review? Spartaz 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC) - Oh I see you went stright to DRV without the discussion with the admin. Gah. can someone close this as recreation allowed? Spartaz 21:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)