- Advanced Vista Optimizer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)
Somewhat, got improperly deleted by User:Fastily (who had deleted the article despite reading the article and the talk page) because it was advertising. I'm not sure even how the article was spam. -Porch corpter (contribs) 00:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, they way I understand it, DRV should be resorted to only if consultation with the deleting admin resulted in decline to restore the page. No such consultation/discussion has occurred. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consultation with the deletion admin is highly suggested, but not required.Umbralcorax (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I often restore borderline articles here for discussion, but I am not going to restore this one, for it is not borderline, but a mere advertising notice about a company and its apparently non-notable products. The one 3rd party reference given--is to an advertisement on another web site. Myself, I would have speedy deleted on both G11, promotional, and A7 , no indication of importance. Had the user approached the deleting admin, perhaps this could have been explained without the need to come here--that is why it is strongly advised; it is however not required: WP is NOT a Bureaucracy. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Perhaps read the entire article carefully. A7 is just nonsense, as the article had references in it, and as well the article is obviously clearly notable. -Porch corpter (contribs)
05:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Because I read it, I said to permit rewriting, because I think there might in fact be a chance of actual notability for the company. My suggestion is designed to help you get a sustainable article, for I distrust the independence of newspaper article that repeat Public relations as RSs, no matter which newspapers publish them. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you asking me to re-write the article? This and this were the article's sources. Are any of those sources newspapers? -Porch corpter (contribs) 07:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If those are the sources then 100% endorse deletion. How anyone could believe the second of those links (A "cracked" version of the software for download) would ever be an appropriate link from wikipedia, is beyond me. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This DRV is to contest the "spam deletion". Maybe the source is bad and/or unreliable (and can be removed), but I can just find more sources. -Porch corpter (contribs) 07:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source isn't merely bad it's totally unacceptable. Even if you ignore it as a crack, it's repeating manufacturers blurb about the product, the exact same text can be found in numerous places. The other link is clearly just an ad for the product. If the article relies totally on advertising for sourcing then... --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Spam on Wikipedia articles are inappropriate, but not on sources of Wikipedia articles. -Porch corpter (contribs) 08:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Which part of reliable sources states that sources which are solely spam can be considered reliable? Do you really believe that linking to sites touting copyright infringement is acceptable and merely spam? (See WP:ELNEVER) --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I mean advertising, not spam. Advertising on sources are fine, provided all those advertisements from the sources don't get as well included in the Wikipedia article. And copying a website or a website with copyright violations are truly inappropriate. -Porch corpter (contribs) 08:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion was out of process as I don't see anything promotional in this cache version and deleting it under A7 is not possible either as it does not apply to software. That being said, an AFD on this would end in a wp:snow close, so endorse as we are not a bureacracy. Yoenit (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean "overturn"? -Porch corpter (contribs) 16:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm pretty sure he doesn't. And unless you have sources that show that this product is notable, I also highly doubt it's worth our time restoring it. It'll go to AfD, where it will be deleted, and then you'll only have more trouble writing an article later if things change. lifebaka++ 16:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I didn't. overturning and sending to AFD will just waste everybodies time, as it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion. Yoenit (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, you clarified your reason. First point, this DRV is to contest the spam deletion, and nothing but the spam deletion. Second point, how is this tool not notable? I felt that this article subject was notable, and that is why I created it.
I doubt it would be a snow-delete at AFD. (Striking out because a whole consensus agrees that it won't survive at AFD) The article has got sources in it, I would have added more sources to the article though, but the article got deleted a few minutes after I created it. How am I suppose to add sources to the article after it gets deleted? -Porch corpter (contribs/public policy) 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a snowball endorse for the deletion, but a better question is whether there could be an article with this name in the future. Porchcorpter says he can find more sources, and there's no reason why he shouldn't be given a chance to try. Userfy, incubate, email him a copy, or whatever so as to facilitate that.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, snow-endorsement is rubbish. This article was not supposed to be deleted. It got deleted because of advertising, and there were no advertisements. And yes, indeed, I can find more sources and add it to the article -Porch corpter (contribs/public policy) 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, snow endorsement isn't rubbish, it's inevitable. What I want is for you to have the chance to find more sources and add them to the article. But you need to accept in return that while you're doing that, the article isn't going to appear in the mainspace. Tell me, do you think that individually replying to everyone who doesn't agree with you is going to help in some way?—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Replying to people (and correcting them) can sometimes be helpful. Yep, I'll be fine with it for now being in my userspace, adding more sources to it and making it more notable. -Porch corpter (contribs) 07:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not restore to mainspace- Whether or not you feel a speedy was strictly applicable, it is clear that the article could not possibly have survived an AfD if the cached version is anything to go by. It makes no assertion of notability and does in fact read like a company press release. I have no objection to a userfied version. Reyk YO! 00:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not endorsing but I won't say "overturn" (and I respect Fastily's judgement in this matter). IMHO the article fell short of G11. However, if this article is restored to mainspace, it will go to AFD and probably will get deleted and porchcorpter will not be able to write a new version without it being subject to CSD G4. A better idea would be to userfy it to User:Porchcorpter/Advanced Vista Optimizer where he can work in it, find sources, and then move it to mainspace when it's ready. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it was a G11--it seems fairly neutral and wasn't unabigously promotional. I also don't see any sign it came close to meeting WP:N. So we have a few choices: A) restore it and send it off to AfD (where it will get deleted unless new sources show up) B) move it to user space C) just leave it deleted. I think B is the best solution as it has the best chance of us ending up with coverage of the topic. I'd also give a bit of a fishwack to the deleting admin--an AfD would have been a better choice. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the mediocre CSD tag, I probably should not have marked it as G11. I agree with the idea that there is not a purpose in restoring it in its present form even if a G11 was not a correct tag because I do not think it would survive any other deletion process. I also seriously question the appropriateness of trying to cite a website offering cracked copies of the program as a source.
I don't think an A7 would have properly speaking applied either - WP:CSD says A7 can't be applied to software. But if A7 could be applied to software then the article would have warranted an A7 because it made no claim to importance. It had two 'sources' (one primary and one ridiculously bad) but A7 is not about the presence of sources, it's about a claim to importance - which was not present. 98.248.194.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
|
