Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 15

John Bambenek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD1|AFD2|AFD3)

Since deletion, subject has been interviewed by Daily Show, had a piece exclusively on him by ABC News, and has had about a dozen columns syndicated wildly on various papers and journals. His prominence continues to grow, even all the sysops here know him. Jcunha2 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean this ABC news piece? If not, what are you talking about? It's a shame that the deletion discussions have been marred by sockpuppets the way they have, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and Speedy close the last review closed on the 9th, 6 days ago. We really don't need to go through this every week. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, yet again another Bambenek sockpuppet. Corvus cornix 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse again. This has now got to the point of trolling. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Talend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The Talend page was speedily deleted by Nishkid64 for CSD#A7 reason, putting forward that Talend.com ranks badly on Alexa traffic ranking website. However, imho, I don't think Alexa traffic ranking is a valid representative of global internet usage. Fair enough, Talend is new on wikipedia and a pretty young player in the BI and ETL industry, but Talend is present and active on known resources websites such as SourceForge.netor on FreshMeat. Moreover after a year of existence, Talend is already the Technology partner of JasperSoftas the ETL OEM solution embedded in the JBIS suite, a Gold partner of MySQL, the ETL brick of the SpagoBIstack and has been approached by numerous Open Source as well as Proprietary software companies to setup integration and technological partnerships. Eventually Talend is co-founder with a large number of global Open Source keyplayers of the OSA and was invited to join the ObjectWeb consortium - OW2. I hope this information will let you think that Talend is "notable" enough to overturn the Talend article deletion decision. Elisa-Talend 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, no, it was deleted because it read as spam. I can't see the article, but I have no reason to believe Nishkid is trigger-happy on spam deletions, so endorse. Nothing's stopping you from writing a version that doesn't read like an advertisement, even if you think you've done so already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This was initially what I thought too, but please check out the exchange history with Nishkid64. I'm ready to follow the rules but I need some guidances, content-wise then, because I am getting confused how to proceed now.thnks. Elisa-Talend 15:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, I see. My suggestion: User:Elisa-Talend/Talend is a place you can work on the article, and I'll be glad to help you on it. When it meets the standards (if possible, no promises), we'll move it to the proper place and be all set with it. If you do this sooner rather than later, we can show people as they review this deletion that there's a better article in place already, ready to be moved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Great. Thanks a mil. I'm gonna work on it now.Elisa-Talend 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll keep it watchlisted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion article at time of deletion absolutely reeked of advertising/spam, up to and including the following (in bold text, no less): "Talend makes data integration tools accessible to everyone!". No opinion on whether a good article on Talend is possible, but we sure as heck don't want that one coming back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as being well within guidelines. If the author believes that an encyclopedic article can be written they are more than welcome to - the title is not protected and there is nothing preventing them from writing a new article from scratch, so long as it's not the same material. Arkyan 19:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I still feel that Talend has not had the time to assert its notability. The company has only been online for a year or so, and I am a bit skeptical on notability per WP:WEB for such an article. It seems too soon for the company to actually be a leader in its field, too. Nishkid64 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment With regard to notability, BI and, in particular ETL, are very focused fields, hence Talend (as well as [| Pentaho], which btw does have its own wikipedia article) are not Microsoft nor Google, but does this mean they don't deserve being mentioned in this encyclopedic reference? Elisa-Talend 11:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse all deletions of COI spam. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but no prejudice against creation of a non-spam version.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to all OK. I have no choice than accept this unanimous vote. But would it be possible for you(s) to comment the new article I propose: User:Elisa-Talend/Talend and possibly help me to correct it if applicable? With thanks. Elisa-Talend 11:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ho_Hwee_Long (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Person is a notable musician. Content does not infringe copyright. Hence no reason for deletion. Elaborations on how he meets wikipedia criteria for posting articles on musicians have previously been stated but were since lost when article was deleted without notice. Please restore those points if possible.Lmao123 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse copyvio deletion. Simply rewrite the article using the source, make sure you're following the major policy and relevant guideline, and you should be fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Verse_Studios (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Factually correct and follows the same format as many other indie studios 69.237.201.118 08:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Pligg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

It was deleted on the grounds of "notability" less than a month ago and yet *is* notable. It has 2.58 million Google hits (Pligg doesn't seem to be the name of anything else - every of the top 20 results is for the software). Nominator gave the following reason for deletion: "This article has no external references. Unable to find a single news article or mention of the site in reputable source". Firstly, we shouldn't be fixing a lack of references by deleting the article. Secondly, why would *news* establish whether software is "notable" or not? "MediaWiki" only gets 27 news hits at Google News. One of those who voted "delete" claimed "seems to fail WP:WEB". Problem: you can't fail a guideline (you can only not fulfil it). The fact that such an article can be deleted strikes me as a failure of our deletion mechanisms. Essentially, an article that is bound to get plenty of readers has been deleted based upon an out-of-touch and overformalised sense of notability. Oldak Quill 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Arizona Jewelers Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Notable Organization. This page was deleted because the Administrators did not believe the AJA is a notable Organization. However, the AJA is a very active and committed organization, that while new to the web has been working to promote ethics on a Statewide level for many years. It has recently begun to be more active online and as such wishes to include information about it's organization here in Wikipedia. While the administrators who deleted this article may not be aware of the AJA, it is well known in the jewelry industry and well regarded. The AJA holds a conference every year with speakers from around the U.S. attending to speak on every topic from Jade and Platinum to the Kimberley Process. Past speakers have included the primary authors of the Kimberley Process, and leading world experts on various minerals and jewelry processes. I will admit that the article needed to be updated, but instead of deleting it out-right with no notification to the primary author of the article Saint Gulik, it would've been nice to know that the article was being considered for deletion. 71.223.143.86 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse for now. Can you come up with any sources at all? WP:CORP is the applicable guideline to work off of here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, properly conducted AfD per above, no rationale for overturning presented. Deletion review is not AfD part 2... per above, "This page is about process, not about content." Unless a fleshed out reason can be provided other than "non-notable" (i.e., new sources indicating some notability that were not properly presented at the original deletion discussion) the original AfD should stand. If indeed such sources exist, no prejudice to recreation as a properly sourced article asserting said notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Nearly all the comments in the AfD were "per nom", and the nom gave a pretty weak reason for nomination, based on guidelines not policies. That said, the AfD ran its full course and no one stepped up to support the article, so no reason to overturn. To me, it appears that this could form the basis of an encyclopedic article, so I'd suggest creating a new one that complies with content policy. Agent 86 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The latest revision before deletion had no sources to back up any claims of notability, a valid reason for an AfD. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)