Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 29

Last Man Standing (Ryan Shupe & the Rubberband album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This album has now been released officially and is listed at All Music Guide link, referenced in a news article here link, and has a third party review here link RobDMB (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn The sources provided are substantial enough for me to believe that this page should be undeleted, especially now that the album has been released. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'd be happier with a userfy (if you want) to fix any of the problems that'd be caused by tone changes now that it's released then a move back into mainspace whenever RobDMB wants. But really, you don't need a DRV to recreate the page. Just do it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Question I recreated the page once before with what I thought were credible sources, but I was still referencing non-credible sources. I'm really new at this so I want to be sure that if I recreate the page that I'm doing it with good sources. I don't want it to be taken down a third time. I also am not sure what you mean by userfy, I'm a total nOOb here. RobDMB (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It means that an admin will restore the article in full, with history, at a subpage of your userpage. Say, at User:RobDRMB/Last Man Standing (Ryan Shupe & the Rubberband album) or something similar. From there you can continue to work on it and have other editors make sure that it's kosher before moving it back into the mainspace. Cheers! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte Marshall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

What was the reason for a A7 deletion as 46,000 ghits, taking in the "model" tag within the search and a few magazine covers otherwise prove notability. Looking at this link of the deleted article, all it needs is some source Jay Pegg (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't see the original article, but I can't find any reliable sources for her. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - I can see the deleted article and its a valid A7 deletion. There were no sources listed and the description of this individual contained no assertions of notability. If you want this back we need to see some sources please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse The first hit on Google is a forum, which isn't a good sign. No reliable sources seem to be amid the hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse Looking at the article, the link above is indeed a copy of the WP article. While on the one hand "Charlotte is also a "Page 3" girl of the The Sun newspaper" could be regarded as a claim to importance, the total lack of sourcing after 2 years here and a very dubious quote that her former headmaster thought her nude modeling career was "a perfect demonstration of the school ethos:" makes it unlikely that the article could possibly stand. First find some real sources. DGG (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - A valid A7 deletion. The verdict could change if better sources were provided. Someone would need to go through all the Google hits and find something we can use. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

GKOS_keyboard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page describing the GKOS keyboard was deleted due to missing references even if it is a proposed standard that is documented in the global ITU-R contributions that ARE referenced on the page. ITU-R is an international telecommunications organisation under United Nations. Please consider undeleting the page. Description of the GKOS concept, intended for future mobile telecommunications devices, in the widely agreed technology trends documentation of ITU-R makes it notable. Tiptyper (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

NeutralRelist. I think the administrator's judgement towards notability was likely correct, and the AfD was left open for nine days, so there was no reason to keep it any longer...but the discussion was never relisted. I'm not much for two-person consensus with one dissenter, thats more to the realm of XfD, so I was suprised to see it wasn't relisted. If and when the closing admin comes here to comment, I may change my opinion. MrPrada (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Relist without to get some more views on this article. DGG (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse my own deletion as AfD closer. I've restored the article at User:EdJohnston/GKOS keyboard for reference during this discussion. The claim that the GKOS keyboard is an ITU standard can't be easily confirmed anywhere. GKOS is mentioned in an ITU technology trends report that appears a bit vague on the subject. You're all invited to try to interpret this language:

  Annex 13, as an example, describes a proposed method for combining text entry and a large display on a single compact mobile terminal. The annexed presentation of the GKOS back panel keyboard (Global keyboard optimized for small wireless devices) demonstrates that completely new types of physical user interfaces can still be found, and hopefully encourages manufacturers to study this issue more and maybe further refine the proposed concept to obtain a common standard for this kind of solution. The concept is an open standard and was first published on 5 October 2000. For more detailed information on GKOS, check also http://gkos.com.

  So GKOS has been referred to as an example by the author of a draft ITU report.'The 'concept is an open standard' probably means that anyone can implement it free of patent or licensing fees. I don't see this as making it an ITU standard. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, notability not asserted, and no reliable sources except for one passing mention, create a new page with no history as a redirect to Chorded_keyboard#Commercial_devices. If merge of information is necessary, then restore history under the redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, while low on participation, AfD outcome seems to be right. The requester has picked up above suggestion of redirecting and adding a sentence to Chorded_keyboard#Commercial_devices and I've added above mentioned reference. If it gets expanded later with more sources, it can still be relisted if necessary.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Zemax (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article on the optical design software Zemax was deleted in 2005 by AFD, referring to it as an advertisement and also citing WP:CORP. The editors who contributed to the discussion appear not to have been aware that Zemax is an extremely widely-used piece of optical design software. Books have been written about it specifically, and very many optical engineering texts refer to it (Search for Zemax in any of these for examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6].) Professional magazines write reviews of it, and a Google search will turn up many references to the software online, which are not from the company that sells it. It is frequently mentioned in the scientific literature. Category:Optical software is incomplete without this article, and Zemax is at least as notable as the other entries in that category. If the earlier versions of the article read too much like advertisements, that can be fixed by editing. The article has been deleted three times. If the text of the three versions can be made available to me I volunteer to merge them and put the article into neutral point of view. Srleffler (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Email content to user. I believe the request is prefectly resonable. If necessary history of previous can be restored under new content. Or each can be userfied for you, but that'd make a history merge a little more complicated. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• It was deleted quite a while ago, and Srleffler certainly makes a good case for us being able to have a proper article on this topic. I have undeleted it, since I think this is the easiest way to let people work on it again. I'll leave a note on the talk page explaining, so hopefully nobody decides to speedy it again in a hurry. Friday (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• It certainly doesn't have any reliable sources, and seems to never to have had. Corvus cornix_talk 20:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Good work by Srleffler. Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Allow the restore. I'm endorsing Friday's undeletion (see above). As improved by Srleffler in the last 24 hours, the article now has enough reliable sources to justify its existence. I don't believe a new AfD is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current state of the article absolutely establishes notability and is of a quality encyclopedic tone, not an advertisment at all. No problems here anymore. --Stormie (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion since currect article has addressed issues raised at AfD. Awesome work by Srleffler on sourcing the article --Enric Naval (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Improper use of WP:G5. Uploader was not banned, merely blocked; and image was not uploaded "in violation" of any community sanction, but as a good faith contribution unrelated to blocking. Pete (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of old so my memory may be foggy, but IIRC, Blueberrypie12 (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppeter of numerous accounts and was blocked indefinitely as a result. If I am not mistaken, Blueberrypie12 was a recreation of a banned user, and the contributions by Blueberrypie12 were deleted with the G5 criteria. I think there is more to this than what's seen at face value, and I am pretty sure I noted this at ANI. I'll see if I can dig this up later tonight or tomorrow, or ask other administrators who were involved on their opinion of this case. seicer | talk | contribs 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you remember correctly that BlueberryPie was an extensive sockpuppeteer. And a very frustrating one at that. But many of his/her edits were not problematic. This one was an apparently good faith upload from Portland Indymedia. I emailed Indymedia at the time, and was assured by two volunteers that all images posted to that site are copyleft; I could forward the emails to WP:OTRS, and can ask for further clarification if necessary. But I don't think the original grounds for deletion were correct. The user was not banned, and the uploading was unrelated to the blocking. -Pete (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted/deleted many of this user's contributions. Normally I would have assumes good faith, but given the problematic history and the constant POV-pushing edits, I figured it would be unproductive to examine each image/edit individually. If the image is used and attributed properly, I have no problems with it being restored. It's just hard to judge dozens of images and edits when so many of them are probably malicious.-Wafulz (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I appear to be criticizing any administrative action. That's not my intent, I remember clearly how frustrating BlueberryPie's string of edits were. Just looking to get this image restored, Arrow is a significant figure in the politics of the Pacific Northwest, and a free photo should not be allowed to go the way of the dodo... -Pete (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming nobody else objects, you can go ahead and restore it.-Wafulz (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no issues either. seicer | talk | contribs 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for discussing. Not sure what protocol is here -- I thought a DRV was supposed to stay up at least 5 days, and closed by someone other than the nominator? I'd love to just move on, but don't want to break the rules. -Pete (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)