Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 3: 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 09:23, 3 February 2009 editStifle (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators84,009 edits →ExperVision: keep deleted← Previous edit Revision as of 09:26, 3 February 2009 edit undoStifle (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators84,009 edits →TurnKey Linux: overtrunNext edit →
Line 46: Line 46:
* - a ] database appliance * - a ] database appliance
* - a ] database appliance --] (]) 03:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC) * - a ] database appliance --] (]) 03:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
*I've had a look at the article and it looks like the second half of G11 ("would need to be fundamentally rewritten") isn't met. The article could be trimmed (with most of the external links dropped) and it would be fine. It's also got a history back to the middle of last year, and I'm slow to support deleting older articles as spam. '''Overturn'''. ] (]) 09:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:26, 3 February 2009

Administrator instructions

< February 2 Deletion review archives: 2009 February February 4 >

3 February 2009

ExperVision

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

I requested the speedy deletion, and create protection of this article, because it was overly promotional, just parroting the official website of this organization. The user who created it all those times eventually came to me and asked for assistance in creating an article that would better meet Misplaced Pages inclusion criteria. This user was new and very inexperienced, as well as being less than fluent in the English language. Working together, we have developed a stub article on the subject, which you can see here. It's not great, but it seems to me to get by the basic criteria for a stub. I approached the protecting admin and was rather brusquely told to make my case here, so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

TurnKey Linux

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

This article was flagged for speedy deletion as SPAM without debate, at the sole discretion of User:Efe , who usually edits music articles and has demonstrated he does not understand the subject matter. The deleted article is sourced with proper citations from reputable sources and describes in neutral language a community-oriented opensource project. There is no selling involved. Misplaced Pages includes articles on many other Ubuntu derivatives , no less notable. Why was this project singled out?

The project is quite popular for it's specialized niche (Software appliance) with over 10,000 downloads as evidenced by sourceforge statistics, despite still being in beta, which shows significant interest from the community. The project even has a MediaWiki software appliance featured on mediawiki.org. This is deletionism run amok. -- LirazSiri (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment May I ask what those "reputable sources" were? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier to have this discussion if the article was still accessible. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the wiki text, but here are a couple of said reputable sources: Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter#Issue108 Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter#Issue115 . I doubt whether a significant fraction of the many other Ubuntu derivatives that are covered on Misplaced Pages are mentioned in the official Ubuntu newsletter. - LirazSiri (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment

Sources as of the last edit:

And additional lists of external links: