Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2011 May 23
2011 May 25 >

24 May 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Best & Co. (retailer founded 1997) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I happened to come across the article Best & Co. yesterday and noticed that the content seemed to be discussing two entirely separate retail chains that happened to share the same name. (Maybe they are actually connected in some way; this was not established by the article.) Since there is no reason for two unrelated topics to share an article, I moved the content about the newer chain to Best & Co. (retailer founded 1997). It was immediately nominated for speedy-deletion due to A7, which I contested on the grounds that the content had been added to the other article presumably in good faith, had thus not been intended as its own article, and it seemed fair to allow at least the opportunity to establish its own notability. It does not seem fair to me that whomever added the content should possibly return and see that the content was moved to a separate article and then immediately deleted on the grounds of not being good enough for a separate article. I also note that (I believe) the article did mention the brand is "known" for its trunk shows and was discussed in at least one book, which seems to me to be enough of a "credible claim of significance or importance" to grant it at least a prod or an AFD. I expressed these points to deleting admin User:Vegaswikian, which was unproductive; he/she added the content back to Best & Co., which I re-removed because putting the content back to where it doesn't belong certainly doesn't seem to solve the problem as far as I can tell. I know nothing about the brand myself except what was in the article; I would not oppose a prod nor would I defend the article in an AFD. I just think the process so far has not given the topic a fair hearing. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • When the creator says. I make no assertion that this topic actually justifies an article; and it gets nominated for speedy deletion as being not notable, why is there an issue? Also, while the article was deleted, the material was not. It is still contained in the original article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write the content; my moving it to a new article was essentially procedural. It is analogous to someone completing the AFD nomination process for another user, despite not having a personal opinion on whether the nominated article should be deleted (which happens all the time). I performed a cleanup move, it led to a poorly-handled process, and then, yes, I felt the need to try to correct the process despite having no personal stake in the outcome. Also, please note that (as far as I can see from reading it) the speedy-delete criteria is not that the topic must be notable, but that it should make some assertion of notability, which it does. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What assertion of notability was made? I can only see The company is known for its trunk shows (with no evidence), which does not appear to me to be an assertion of importance or significance (which is what the CSD actually say) - although the deleting admin should not have used the word "notability" in their summary, from the content of the article, it was clear that the word "significance or importance" should have been used instead.(oops... I must have read a comment on another deleted article!) Endorse deletion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the deletion log ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Restore and list at AfD having seen the arguments below, I think it is fair to take this to AfD, so that a consensus can be found. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be overly harsh of us to censure the deleting admin for removing that content under CSD A7. But this isn't to say that this Best & Co. can't have an article. All that's been said to you is that it can't have that particular article. If you can produce something with a couple of reliable sources then there's nothing to stop you adding it to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 22:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you direct me to the speedy-delete criteria that indicates that lack of reliable sources is a cause for speedy deletion? Because the only mention I can find of such at WP:CSD appears to say that lack of reliable sources is not a reason to apply A7. (The same page states, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.") I am not arguing that it is, or is not, possible to provide such sources to establish notability; I am arguing that "the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions", which is one of the stated purposes of the Deletion Review process. (I don't think I've said anything about censuring an admin; casting an attempt to overturn an improper decision as an attempt to punish the decision-maker hardly seems productive in determining how to best uphold policy.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no speedy deletion criterion for a lack of reliable sources. But the current wiki-culture makes it a bit of a waste of time to create an article without sources, because if the creator doesn't source it and defend it, nobody else will. Nowadays I often find I can't write content because it's so time-consuming just stopping people deleting the stuff I've already written.—S Marshall T/C 18:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, I have said many times (but clearly nobody has interest in actually reading or understanding this situation) that I would be fine with the article being prodded or AFD-ed, for not having sources or whatever other reason. My objection is to the speedy delete because I do not feel this case falls within the speedy-delete criteria, and there are reasons why there are several different deletion processes in place. That the article could be deleted via prod or AFD has nothing to do with whether it was speedy-deleted was done outside of the criteria for speedy-deletions and should thus be overturned. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore This was not a clear speedy. I saw the article on the list, and decided not to take action in either deleting it or removing the tag because I was unsure how to handle it. From the content as it existed, I though perhaps it should be merged--I had not noticed it had just been split. I see now from the explanation that I would have done better to remove the speedy, as in all cases where one is not positively certain it should be a speedy, because the policy says that any doubt should be so handled. I apologize for putting off the issue when I saw it, instead of boldly following policy. I cannot blame another admin from thinking otherwise and having no doubt, but I should have trusted my own judgment. (perhaps I hesitated to do so, because I had just had a complaint about doing exactly that in another case, of declining to delete an article where I thought the article was probably speedy deletable but from the circumstances of creation had some doubt about it. ) (And, just to complete the circle of possibilities, had today a complaint from the author of that article, about my warning him against creating spam links to the subject in question. He was in fact sufficiently insulted by the warning to say he was leaving Wikipedia, and it is possible that he might be a useful contributor.) DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question As has been pointed out to me several times, I have the option of re-creating the article in a manner that will allay the concerns that led it to be deleted. Do I have the option to withdraw this deletion review request (thus accepting the deletion of the article in its previous state) so that I may proceed with re-working it? (If I have that option, I hereby choose to do so.) If I can't close this discussion early, may I still go ahead and create the new article before the discussion is closed? I'm sorry if this information is posted and I missed it. Also, if it's possible for an admin to restore the deleted article to my userspace so that I may refer to it in creating an improved version, I would appreciate that favor. Thank you. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The deleting admin quite accurately noted that the article included no assertion of significance. This is a slightly unusual case, because the article creator is claiming (without evidence or sources) that the company/brand he wants to create a separate article about is unrelated to the notable company/brand it claims, on its website, to be the current form of. (This isn't a BLP violation, and it's not actionable business defamation, but it's still something to be uneasy about in a Wikipedia article.) The creator is also compounding the problem by insisting that all substantive content relating to the current brand/company be removed from the article on the original brand/company, and has been edit warring to keep it out. This is getting messy, due to the article creator's insistence on getting his own way on matters that are essentially editorial discretion, and he needs to understand he's got no basis for believing that he's allowed to override the views of a greater number of other editors and control the content of the relevant articles, without getting consensus first. If he were making a credible BLP or NFCC claim, for example, the situation would be different. But he can't be the judge in his own case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, I'm pretty sure that you don't need evidence to claim that two things aren't related. I'll add that to the list of truly bizarre logic I've encountered during this ordeal. Second, I did check the company's website before creating the spin-off article, to see if there was any sign it was connected to the original company. I admit: I did miss that tiny "Established 1879" in the logo, which is good enough proof for me. I'm baffled as to why it made more sense to you to argue with me this long about it, instead of just pointing out that part of the logo, which would have taken about thirty seconds. Another addition to that list, I guess, along with most of the other stuff you've said here and on my Talk page (including that making any change to an article without first getting consensus, even if there's no reason at all to think it will be controversial, is edit-warring). I've already logged my attempt to withdraw this discussion above, but I assume that will continue to be ignored or perhaps portrayed as something wildly different, as my repeated, fervent attempts for someone to explain their point-of-view have been taken as repeated assertions that I'm not interested in anyone else's point-of-view. A lot of people here have done a lot to lower my general opinion of Wikipedians, which was already pretty awful. My most fervent apologies for attempting to improve the encyclopedia by organizing information logically and upholding deletion guidelines. I'm sure I'll be banned soon enough for trying to fix a typo or something. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list at AfD as a contested speedy. For A7s, this should be automatic, not requiring discussion at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and List at AFD. This is an unusual enough case that I feel it would benefit from a variety of opinions, and not just a summary speedy deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Userfy  as per Theoldsparkle.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There's not much point to undeleting or userfying. The content has already been restored to the main article on the subject, and the editor who initiated this review has acknowledged that the "new" company presents itself as the successor brand to the original, so that separate articles aren't appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Third Summers brother (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I contacted the closing administrator, but he considers that his decision was the more appropriate. He closed the discussion as a no consensus, stating that he evaluated that one of the sources, Comic Book Resources (CBR), used in keep arguments, had respectable coverage of the topic and was reliable, and, for that reason, he gave equal weight to keep votes. However, as I pointed out to him, that CBR was a reliable third-party source was not in contention but that it was the only reliable source that treated the topic and that it does not give reception or significance for the fictional plot-point or discusses the plot-point in detail since it merely repeats part of the plot. So, I believe that with a single source, the keep arguments did not address the lack of notability per the WP:GNG because lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic and mere republications of a single source do not always constitute multiple works. I also commented to the closing administrator that I feel that his rationale ignored the other concerns raised in the AfD. Keep arguments did not address the WP:PLOT concerns and barely touched the WP:OR or WP:SYNTH concerns. These are also part of WP:DEL#REASON along with lack of notability. There was also a simple majority of delete !votes, 6 delete !votes vs. 5 keep !votes. As stated in WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and underlying policy, and I believe that, since keep arguments only pointed out to CBR as a reliable source to address the concerns regarding the WP:GNG and did not provided multiple reliable sources or properly addressed the other concerns, the strength of argument and underlying policy was with deletion arguments, which were a majority. The closing administrator believes that this was more a disagreement in how policy should apply while I believe that the deletion arguments showed that the article does not meet the policies and should have been deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Reasonable close, clearly within the closer's discretion. The article is a wretched collection of fannish speculation, but it's an article about a fictional concept, with no content that's offensive under any important content policy, and the dispute isn't really whether to keep any of the content, but how much to keep and where to keep it. Under these circumstances, the case for overriding the expressed community sentiment, which clearly doesn't achieve consensus, is pretty weak, and the closer's judgment should not be overturned. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh - Wait a month or so and renominate if it doesn't get cleaned up. An article on a plot point of a comic book is beyond all boundaries of absurdity, but overturning a NC finding is a long-shot at best. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : WP:PLOT ??? there are quotations from interviews and informations about the authors. WP:OR or WP:SYNTH ??? All the work of investigation has been made in one CBR source. A vote for the deletion is valid when the arguments are valids, only the notability can be a reason for this deletion. The people who vote for keep have addressed the deletion concerns. Some contributors state that CBR is not the only reliable source that treated the topic, there is some informations in Wizard Magazine about the subject. So let them the time to clean the article and to find other reliable sources. If it doesn't get improved after a month, the deletion is not the only option: Xymmax has writen "Editors may wish to consider carefully if an appropriate merge target can be developed". Kurt Parker has written "I think all editors that were against the merge before would not be for the merge instead of losing the article's information completely." --Crazy runner (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)--Crazy runner (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that this was within the closer's discretion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I have almost never !voted here to reverse a non-consensus close; it would take a really clear drastic error to justify doing so, because the close does not preclude further discussion. I agree with Tarc's recommendation for how & when to proceed. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I couldn't find a consensus here which is why I passed it over when closing most of the remaining AFDs from that day's log. That's a pretty good indication that no-consensus was the right close. Spartaz Humbug! 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment - I just wanted to acknowledge this discussion. I don't want to rehash the statements from my close, which were fairly summarized by the nominator. I'll leave it as I still don't see a consensus to delete in the discussion in question. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (no consensus to delete). Delete would have been a stretch, no consensus is easily justified. Separately, I note from the XfD that WP:NOR was a major problem, and that WP:NOR is rarely a good reason alone for deletion verses merge or merge & redirect, and that bloated fiction is usually best condensed into fewer articles leaving behind redirects with history intact. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I remember when this was a Big Debate in Xmen world, I agree its Fanboy WP:OR and would probably have argued delete. I see no reason why the closers is out of line. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hydration for Health Initiative (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Bertieri4 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC) The article was deleted because of lack of sufficient sourcing in news and scholarly references. However the Hydration for Health Initiative is a notable scientific organisation for healthcare professionals with the aim to communicate the fundamental need for healthcare policymakers and practitioners to proactively provide healthy hydration advice. The initiative activities and messages are based on published scientific evidence. In addition, the initiative is cited in the November/ December 2010 issue of the Journal of Nutrition, http://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/toc/2010/11001. Other papers have been submitted to journals since its establishment in 2009, but these have not yet been published due to the lengthy peer-review process. The initiative has an educational remit and is not a promotional resource as it does not promote bottled water or Danone Waters mineral water brands. Reference to Danone Waters is intended solely for transparency. An expert group of international researchers and academics - recognised and respected in the field of nutrition, hydration, physiology, medicine, noteworthy in their own right - oversee the activities of the initiative. The Initiative is not limited to the website, but it organises annual scientific meetings attended by hundreds of physicians and the proocedings of these meetings are published in notable peer-reviewed journals; it also develops educational and information materials for use by healthcare professionals. Some of these materials have been reviewed and approved for use by the International Society of Nephrology. The reason why such information is not widely available on the web is because it is restricted to healthcare professional use. Please consider reinstating the entry and I can modify the article to address some of the concerns about commercial product promotion. I have already discussed this option with the admin, and he advised me to bring my reasons to this forum.[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Riscos.info – Deletion endorsed as a reasonable speedy. However, as is typical for speedy deletions, there is no prejudice against an editor creating an article on the same subject that overcomes the speedy deletion criteria. If Trevj or another editor already has a userspace draft that achieves this, they are welcome to move it to this article name. – RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Riscos.info (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

So far unable to reach consensus with deleting admin. Reinstatement of article would permit the inclusion of additional refs by editors to confirm notability. Initial copyright issues were misinterpreted and have been addressed at Suspected copyright violations/2011-05-13. Trevj (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I do not understand some of the prior discussion for this article. This says CC-by 2.5 is not a compatible licence for text import to WP. My reading of Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F suggests to me it is compatible. The small number of backlinks is commented on here but I think that may be a Google feature no longer supported (and it never works well for me!). This search shows many references (but I have not assessed their reliability, etc.). It is looking to me that if this article has not been through AfD then it should be listed there or restored.Thincat (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The deletion was not for a copyright concern (and I don't think there are any copyright concerns) but for want of notability. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The matter is almost exactly as Stifle says. No copyright concerns, but notability concerns. (Actually what the deleting admin found wasn't that the subject was non-notable, because individual admins don't get to decide that on their own authority. Notability can only be decided based on a community consensus. What the deleting admin found was that the article contained no assertion of notability, i.e. that there was nothing in the article to indicate why it should belong in an encyclopaedia.)

    There is no obstacle to creating a fresh article with this name that explains why the material belongs in an encyclopaedia, and I suggest that rather than waiting a week at deletion review, you just run your eye over WP:YFA, make sure the subject is suitable for an encyclopaedia, and if you think it is, get on and write it.—S Marshall T/C 11:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the clarification. AIUI there are umpteen articles which were initially created without any assertion of notability. Such assertions have subsequently been able to be added by the community. I assert that an entry for the site belongs in the encyclopedia because it informs readers of its purpose, history, features and subsites without them having to follow external links. I'll try to work on the userspace draft in the mean time. And I'm happy to wait for the outcome of the discussion, rather than recreate the article now as suggested. --Trevj (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct outcome if other articles like your article have not been deleted is to delete the other articles, not restore yours. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This principle is understood and appreciated, but I wouldn't expect such an outcome to be immediate for such articles. Wouldn't a reasonable amount of time be granted for an article with potential to be improved? --Trevj (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - there are no claims of significance or importance within the text of the article that I can see. It explains that the site is a resource for RISC OS C programmers - but does not explain why it is significant.
    The fact that other articles have been created without assertions of significance or importance (which is what the Criteria for speedy deletion actually say, rather than assertion of notability) is neither here nor there - we are discussing this article.
    You seem to be saying "Let it stay on Wikipedia, and I'll assume that other editors will find references to show why it is important or significant"... which is not how Wikipedia should work.
    Before commenting here, I looked for some useable references - there are no Google News ones at all (including the News Archive), no Google Books hits, and only one Google Scholar one, which is a mention in the bibliography of an MSc Thesis - but that mention refers to one sentence in the thesis. I could not find any significant coverage at reliable independent sources which would be able to show an assertion of importance or significance could be made.
    I am assuming that (as you are expecting other editors to find such references) you couldn't either. Of course, if I am mistaken, then could you provide some suitable references here? If you can, I'd be happy to suggest restoring the article so that you can add them to it - although I should point out that the references provided in the draft at User:Trevj/Archive/riscos.info are either from riscos.info itself (i.e. not independent), or are basically press releases (i.e. from riscos.info itself to various organisations) or are minor coverage (single sentence mentions). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi and thanks for sharing your opinion. Regarding locating references, I'm unable to do so myself as they're likely to be in printed magazines not personally owned by me. Likely sources are Archive and Qercus. Therefore, I've put the word out that I'm seeking additional references. Please note that I've specifically not canvassed for opinion in this discussion, i.e. while I've linked to the draft article, I've explained the position on canvassing, and I've requested people to please stay out of any relevant discussions they may find... I hope that's OK. Regarding Google refs, this is obviously a convenient way to attempt to judge significance or importance. However, it's certainly not the only means and I believe that relevant references exist in printed magazines. If such refs aren't forthcoming before this discussion is closed (and if the consensus here is to not overturn the deletion), I propose to include them at a later date within a new incarnation of the article. --Trevj (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, I'd like to note at this point that my belief that such references exist should be considered with respect to WP:AGF. While this is obviously a niche topic area, my understanding of WP:NOTNOTHERE is that diversity in interests is to be welcomed. We're here to build an encyclopedia, after all. --Trevj (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think WP;AGF is an issue here, I don't think anyone believes you are acting in bad faith. I'd also see no reason to question your sincerity in the belief the sources are out there somewhere, however your belief no matter how strong doesn't remove the requirement to actually make those concrete. Diversity in interest also isn't an issue, niche subjects can and are written about, however they need to meet the same basic standards, generally in order to fulfil the basic non-negotiable standards of an encyclopedia - verifiabilty and no original research etc. there would need to be decent coverage in third party sources. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to clarify that I do not believe that you have acted in bad faith at all in this matter. However, believing that there must be sources available is not sufficient for keeping an article - otherwise that could be the argument used at all these discussions. As I said above, if suitable sources could be found (as you say, they will probably be off-line, as we haven't been able to find on-line ones) before this discussion is closed, I'd be quite happy to change my opinion here. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. I'm impressed with the civility of this discussion and I understand that no one has accused anyone of acting in bad faith. I was merely seeking to highlight the sincerity of my arguments, and now see that I should assume the assumption of good faith in any case. Apologies to all. --Trevj (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has this not been incubated or userfied? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User already has a copy here --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did request that it be incubated rather than deleted. This was on the article's talk page. I'm sure there are simply too many articles marked for speedy deletion for everything to be considered in an ideal manner - which is probably why the request appears to have been overlooked. If the article deletion isn't overturned, incubation would be preferable to simply retaining the userfied version. This is because it would carry more perceived legitimacy, which IMO would encourage further work by other editors. --Trevj (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as an article (I commented previously). I am not saying the deletion was wrong because I cannot make out what was deleted and whether it made a notability claim. The current user space version makes two (referenced) claims of notability in the first paragraph. Whether these are ultimately adequate is not a matter for DRV (I would suggest "keep" at any AFD). Since S Marshall says the creator could restore the article now, I am sure this is right. If an article has been speedy-deleted for lacking a claim, then, once "any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source"(WP:CSD#A7) is supplied, the article should be able to be restored without being subjected to ersatz AFD discussions here at DRV or elsewhere. Thincat (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's (even marginal) support for me to recreate the article, I'm happy to go ahead with that in due course. Whatever's easiest. I'm really not too fussed about the ultimate decision and am not interested in proving a point or anything. But at the moment, I feel it could be fruitless if I recreate the article in light of some the (useful and constructive) comments above. --Trevj (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the speedy deletion is overturned, then it would appear that WP:PROD remains a possibility. But in any case, the draft article in its current state is a big improvement over the one initially created. In arriving at it I've learnt a little more about editing standards, which I should be able to use elsewhere to improve other articles. --Trevj (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion, incubate, do not restore to mainspace yet. I agree with JamesBWatson (talk · contribs)'s assessment of the userspace draft's sources. The references are either primary sources or passing mentions, neither of which establish notability. I have been unable to find the assertions of notability necessary to prevent WP:CSD#A7. Thus, I disagree Thincat (talk · contribs)'s position to restore the page to the mainspace. Because the userspace lacks reliable sources that establish notability, it would be deleted at AfD if no sources were added. Per Trevj (talk · contribs)'s request above, I think the best resolution is to incubate the page to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Riscos.info to allow more time for editors to find sources for it.

    If the closing admin chooses to incubate the article, I ask him/her to undelete the revisions from Riscos.info and history merge them with the changes Trevj has made at User:Trevj/Archive/riscos.info before moving the content to the incubator. Cunard (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A section on 'Notable hosted projects' has now been added to the userspace draft. --Trevj (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Is there a further objective definition of this, please? If not, it could be argued that a subjective interpretation for niche subjects could imply a considerably lower threshold in order to be considered adequate. A number of the references certainly include non-trivial coverage. It should also be noted that WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay rather than being policy, although I do understand that the hosting of notable projects alone doesn't confer notability on the site. --Trevj (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_May_24&oldid=1136100214"