Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 30

International Free and Open Source Software Law Review (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi there, I note that you deleted the article 'International Free and Open Source Software Law Review' in November, and would like to request that it be reinstated. The reason given was lack of notability, and the fact that it had only published one issue. The publication had, and has increasingly, a large degree of respect and support from around the Free Software community in academia and industry, and further has just published its second issue (Volume 1, Issue 2). It is listed by major academic libraries around the world (it is indexed by OCLC) and deposits DOI numbers with CrossRef. It also has significant endorsements from major industry players, including sponsorship from Mozilla, NLnet and the Open Invention Network. The second issue features personal endorsement quotes from Bill Patry of Google and Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center. I would be grateful if you would consider reversing the decision in light of the significant continuing support and notability the publication has achieved in the last six months. BigRedBall (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow restoration. The journal appears to have come to fruition, as was foreshadowed in the AfD. The journal has a reasonable enough degree of coverage (and seems to attract quality contributors) to warrant restoration. There might be a question whether it meets WP:JOURNAL, but that is only an essay, and a review of the contents of the journal indicate that it is of an academic standard that would warrant inclusion. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Be bold and re-create it. You don't need permission from DRV to re-create an article if the subject has become notable; the title is not salted. Userfy upon request. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore directly in mainspace, on the basis of the article in Computerworld [1] DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore directly to the mainspace per DGG's source. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exebit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The primary cause for deletion was being not listed by Google. However, after growing discussions as the festival draws closer, the Exebit website is getting several hits and is the top ranked article on google when you search for "exebit". Hence, I request you to reconsider the deletion. Exebit (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure The consensus was small but clear: the festival lacks notability. There are hits for it, but nothing approaching a reliable source. Perhaps the debate should have been relisted, but I think it would not have changed the result; as it was, the consensus was unanimous. The review appears to have been brought in good faith by a user who neither understands the notability criteria, nor the username policy.--otherlleft 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The delete !votes and nomination state that there are no sources independent of the subject, this has not been refuted at the AfD or here. The delete closure was correct and no evidence has been presented to relist the article. J04n(talk page) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: an entirely proper close. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, could not reasonably have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure There was a unanimous consensus to delete, and it was based on a lack of evidence of notability – a strong reason for deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. IS THIS REAL LIFE? JBsupreme (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steen Christensen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm taking the rather rare, but not unheard of, step of asking for a review of a DrV closing. User:NuclearWarfare endorsed a speedy deletion at DrV (link above) just recently. The !vote count was 6-8 (depending on how you count it) in favor of restoration with none opposed that I could see. The feeling was this belonged at AfD, not as a speedy. NW chose to endorse the deletion and discussions about the topic were fruitless.[2] I do fully understand NW's position on the matter, and personally would have !voted to userfy/incubate in the DrV. But given that the speedy was clearly overturned by the DrV, I don't see how this close can stand.Hobit (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and the closure of the previous DRV: I have read the contents of the now-deleted article. Every sentence in it is contentious and/or negative unsourced information. Regardless of the notability or the sourceability of the article, this deletion is clearly covered under policy, and only a properly sourced article can replace it. Further, I believe this DRV should be closed procedurally immediately as there is no new information being presented, and it is nothing more than an example of someone being dissatisfied with the result. DRVs can overturn a deletion decision when policy violations occur, but there was no policy violation in the initial deletion, nor in the refusal to overturn the initial deletion decision. Risker (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A DrV doesn't require new information to exist. And the question isn't one of "policy violation" at DrV. The question is if the close was done properly. Given that the close was against unanimous consensus, I think that's at the very least a fair concern... Hobit (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A DRV questions the *original* closure, which was done entirely within policy, and thus the DRV's close was entirely within policy. Consensus does not trump policy, particularly not WMF policy. And, for the record, I am looking at DRVs right now because of the recent discussions related to BLPs. This is the only one that appears relevant to my interests today. I'll move over to AfD if I have time. Risker (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (EC)Endorse, the closing admin recognized the consensus and is willing to restore the article as soon as someone is willing to source it, which was a common sentiment of those who participated in the first DRV ("provided that the sources are added soon thereafter", "provided the sources are added promptly", "Overturn speedy deletion and add sources"). J04n(talk page) 02:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I wrote a lengthy comment arguing that the close should be revised to provide for direct restoration to mainspace (conditioned on prompt sourcing), attempted to post it, and then the server went down....

  On reconsideration, I think this is another one of those hypertechnical disputes over a technicality. The article is restored either to mainspace or to userspace. Either way, it has to be sourced either before it enters mainspace, or soon afterwards. So basically we are spending seven days debating, not whether the article should be restored (it should be), nor where it would ultimately end up (mainspace), nor the condition for a permanent location in mainspace (being sourced), but where it should be during the few hours between it is restored and it is sourced. What a productive use of time. IMO the original close should simply read "JIP (talk · contribs) is allowed to undelete the article provided that he sources it immediately thereafter", which should avoid the problem of a restored negative unsourced BLP hanging around in mainspace. Regardless, here's hoping that someone would source the article in the coming few days and moot this DRV.

  That said, I disagree with Risker that the DRV is procedurally improper. The allegation that the closer closed a DRV contrary to consensus is clearly within DRV's jurisdiction. Tim Song (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse DRV close, insisting on sources before restoration is not particularly onerous. I generally agree with Tim Song's analysis of the situation. I think temporary userfication with a NOINDEX is easy enough. Hypothetically, if the article were restored to article space and stayed unsourced for more than a few hours (coordination issues, distractions), I wouldn't be surprised if it were userfied or even G10'd again. Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close DRV as moot, JIP added the Finnish sources to the restored article. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Requiring sources is not unreasonable. MBisanz ^talk 05:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think DRV can review DRVs, but without waiving that objection, endorse closure as per MBisanz. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not endorse the sentence "Deletion endorsed". The discussion did not endorse deletion of the article. However, Endorse the second sentence as a reasonable reading of the discussion, except that "immediately" is too short. Of course, for this article to be left in mainspace, there must be at least one editor willing to step forward, to work on named problems, sourcing, and to possibly defend it at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have undeleted the article, and added all the sources and external links found on the original Finnish article to it. If it's still not satisfactory, it can undergo proposal for deletion or nomination for deletion. JIP | Talk 15:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close this DRV as moot per Flatscan. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]