Stephen Toulouse ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Also "Stepto": Stepto ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Former vanity page (as " Stepto"), but subject is in a prominent Microsoft position and is commonly quoted on official issues of Xbox Live Policy. He is also a frequent guest on gaming-related programs in his professional capacity. White 720 ( talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: I think that this DRV was triggered by a recent G4 deletion of Stephen Toulouse based on a 3-year-old AfD, and not to review the closure of the AfD itself. JIC anyone is confused like I was. Tim Song ( talk) 23:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Yes, that's why I opened this review. Apologies if this is the wrong venue. White 720 ( talk) 23:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• DRV is the correct venue, but have you discussed the matter with the admin who G4'd the article? I can't see any discussion on his talk page. Tim Song ( talk) 23:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oops, my mistake. I left a note on the talk page of the original deleter, not the person who speedy-deleted the rewritten article. I've left a note on the most recent deleter's talk page. White 720 ( talk) 23:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist While I'm not quite convinced that "Director of Xbox LIVE Policy and Enforcement. " is a sufficiently notable position at MS, it is more important than his position was 3 years ago. This should not have been G4'd . An admin doing a G4 must look at the originally deleted article. If the new one, though possibly still not notable, is significantly improved, it needs a renomination, not a G4 -- especially after such a period as 3 years. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment if the article is as the google cache suggests, then I can't see that it has substantially addressed the concerns of the original AFD debate so would appear to meet the G4 criteria. It still does nothing to establish notability in line with the general notability guide, is essentially unsourced (except perhaps the subjects personal website, which would align with the vanity concern of the original) -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist, article was substantially different to the previously-deleted article, and as such, CSD:G4 doesn't apply. Stifle ( talk) 08:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment The editor Accounting4Taste provided a copy of the article in my user space: User:White 720/Stephen Toulouse. The article as it stands does not have much content, but I'll work on it and resubmit it when I get the chance. At that point it can be reviewed again. Thanks for all your help, everyone. White 720 ( talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

URW ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This entry was deleted by user RandomXYZb for A7 (No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion) with no prior discussion. RandomXYZb cannot be contacted, and has a known history of vandalism. Such deletion should not be honoured. Jacob Poon ( talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• RandomXYZb does not have a known history of vandalism. It is the account of a former administrator who has since left the project, whose edit to a user talk page to inform that user that xe had revoked that account's editing privileges most definitely was not vandalism, let alone a "history" of vandalism. Uncle G ( talk) 01:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore and optionally send to afd URW (in full, URW++ Design & Development) is a fairly well known typefounder,[ [1] and might very well be notable. The article as deleted expresses enough possibility of notability that it was not a G7 by any reasonable way of looking at things. It does need better references, but reviews of the fonts should be available. Inadequate references is not a reason for speedy DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy endorse deletion. Anyone who comes seeking equity should come with clean hands, and the nominator's aspersions against the deleting admin show that he lacks them. Stifle ( talk) 08:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Struck, see below. reply
• Speedy close per Stifle. Any consideration of the merits of the deletion must await a further DRV, if necessary. Blatantly unfounded allegations against the deleting admin should not be tolerated, WP:AGF notwithstanding. Tim Song ( talk) 08:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It would have been far better to just discount them, as they've been refuted, and discuss this case on its actual merits instead. Uncle G ( talk) 23:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I consider the nom's failure to retract or amend the statement almost 24 hours after the blatant inaccuracy was pointed out to be extremely problematic. The article, as I see it, was borderline A7 (essentially, a 37-year-old company selling fonts), and as such within the admin's discretion to delete. Thus, endorse deletion on the merits, though I remain convinced that this one should be speedy closed. Tim Song ( talk) 23:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Any chance of the article being made visible for DRV purposes? I should like to judge for myself whether A7 applied.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Done. There was also an article at Unternehmensberatung Rubow Weber, but it was a 3 sentence stub containing less than this. So I haven't bothered undeleting it, too. Uncle G ( talk) 23:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Thank you, Uncle G. I'm of the opinion that A7 was uncharitable but technically valid, so my answer would be endorse, but I think a more interesting question is whether Wikipedia should have an article on URW. DGG's claims merit investigation, so I shall run with permit recreation without prejudice against an early AfD to establish consensus on notability.

  Stifle and Tim Song, I have no objection to your speedy close proposal but if that is the consensus, then I shall simply bring a fresh DRV. My hands are clean.

  Would you like to go this route?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 00:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  I don't see process wonkery as an appealing option, to be honest. I would also endorse and permit recreation. Stifle ( talk) 08:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  That would surely be process for process's sake, though I don't quite get the purpose of bringing a new DRV when you are !voting to endorse. To insist on a new DRV here would be a pointy gesture in futility, so I'm withdrawing the suggestion for this one, even though I thought, and still think, that such blatantly baseless accusations should not be tolerated. My endorse !vote on the merits stands. Tim Song ( talk) 08:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  Please would the closer note in the close that everyone involved deplores the inaccurate accusations in the nomination, but DRV has nevertheless decided to consider whether Wikipedia should include this content, it being to the benefit of the encyclopaedia to do so.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion I can't see what the claim of notability is in the deleted article. Permit recreation from independent sources, as is always permissible. GRBerry 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  the claim that a company has produced important products is a claim that the company is of some significance. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  Only problem is, I can't see where the claim of importance is. Yes, the company made fonts. Where's the claim that the company made important fonts? Tim Song ( talk) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  True, but it would also be process wonkery to restore an article that has no hope at AFD. Stifle ( talk) 07:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  I don't see a claim that the company has produced important products in the article. GRBerry 14:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Support_wiki ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Article was unjustly deleted without *any* consensus being reached. In fact the article was recommended to be created by editors and administrators as a result of an earlier article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikiport

This article is not a non-notable neologism. It is a clear and widespread practice, and was categorized as a wiki concept which was appropriate. The article existed for an entire year before an editor came through and speedily deleted it. Notquiteleet ( talk)

Nice, very civil and well reasoned statement there. It was not speedy deleted, it was deleted following two weeks at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support wiki. Certainly not the most heavily trafficked AFD I've ever seen, and for some reason it appears the page's creator was not informed, but it was not hastily deleted by some jackass. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• It was speedily deleted, and in case you lack the reading comprehension to understand what "speedy" means in this context, it refers to the depth of discussion on the matter, not the actual time it spent in AfD. How can you not have the intellect to understand that, yet have the authority to delete articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notquiteleet ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• In accordance with WP:PA, I have removed a personal attack from this nomination.

  I think the consensus to delete was reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support wiki on 26th August. There was a subsequent deletion under criterion G4. As a non-admin myself, I cannot check whether the G4 was correct, and for the purposes of this reply I have assumed that the re-created article was substantially identical to the previous version.

  The article was, indeed, "recommended to be created" by one user, Ningauble, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiport. Ningauble is not an administrator here, though he is one on Wikiquote.

  I do think it's entirely possible that there's material to be written on the "support wiki" concept. I think it is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia to contain material on such widespread uses of the mediawiki software. (If not here, then where?)

  I think the issue here is that the article has been created in the wrong place; because there is a consensus that the "support wiki" concept is not notable, it does not belong in its own article. It belongs as a section of MediaWiki.

  I can't see what the deleted article contained. On the assumption that it was good faith encyclopaedic content, I move for endorse, combined with userfication of the article to User:Notquiteleet so that he can consider including part or all of it in MediaWiki.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)\ reply

  • I've checked. The re-creation by Notquiteleet is identical wikitext to earlier versions of the original article, also written by Notquiteleet, prior to some cleanup. Uncle G ( talk) 01:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist Inadequate discussion, especially in view of the earlier recommendation to recreate. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This is not an article that should be located on Mediawiki, or within an article on Mediawiki. It doesnt matter what wiki distribution an organization uses, the concept of using wiki software for communal-based support is achieved with any wiki platform.

Just my .02, and thanks for reviewing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notquiteleet ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion per the consensus at the discussion, with liberty to relist. Stifle ( talk) 18:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• What are you talking about? There was no "consensus". 2 people voted to delete it, one to merge it, and 3 whole people contributed to the discussion. What planet do you live on and how in the heck do you consider that to be, in any way, a "consensus"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notquiteleet ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • AFD is not a vote, there is no quorum, and please go and read WP:CIVIL. Stifle ( talk) 08:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - perfectly valid reasons given at the AfD. No need for a round 2. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse without prejudice to userfication upon request. I've seen AfD's closed with only two !votes, nom included. We have 4 here, and the arguments seem to be grounded in policy. As the discussion was relisted for one week without getting any additional input, I don't think the failure to relist it again, if error, was prejudicial. Tim Song ( talk) 23:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as AfD nom. Deletion argument based on policy and sound source verification. No prejudice against userification or eventual move, so long as AfD notability+verifiability concerns get addressed. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Thanks to Cybercobra for notifying me of this discussion. First I had heard of it and the nominator didn't approach me to discuss prior to the listing. Endorse own deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - USERFY if nom wants, so that article may be brought up to standard, but consensus is clear Corpx ( talk) 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, consensus of the AfD discussion was clear and imho correctly interpreted by the closing admin - I'm not seeing any reason presented here as to why he should have interpreted it differently. -- Stormie ( talk) 01:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse sound deletion - based on solid reasoning. This is not a plebiscite or vote. -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

How many of you actually read the article itself instead of basing a decision on shallow and the absence of thorough insight of the content itself? The recent comments suggest that youre skimming the AfD with all of 3 people contributing to it and basing a decision on that. Read the original article. If I must I will keep creating the article which existed an entire year on wikipedia without any problems, and all the sudden its deemed not "worthy" enough based on superficial insights of 2 out of 3 people? My God thats pathetic integrity for an editor at ANY level.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.102.86 ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Superficial? I checked each and every one of the sources the article cited and searched for "support wiki" in their text; I also ran an internet search and checked the results. That's more than "superficial" legwork. Find some decent sources and you are more than welcome to have another go at it. However, the article's content as of just before deletion was unverifiable and its topic was of dubious notability. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Given the threat to recreate the article, I ask that if the closing administrator finds the deletion to be endorsed, he also protects the article from recreation. I strongly suspect that the IP comment immediately prior to this is from the nominator, and if this proves to be the case, this DRV should be speedy-closed as DRV is not a platform to attack other editors. Stifle ( talk) 08:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• If it quacks.... Either way, the old reminder seems necessary - Reminder for people unfamiliar with DRV: DRV is not AfD round two. We are not some sort of super-AfD. The quite narrow issue here is whether the AfD was appropriately closed. Please limit your comments accordingly. In addition, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Tim Song ( talk) 08:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  Given the nom's statements below, I second Stifle's proposal that we speedily close this DRV as endorse. Repeated personal attacks against DRV participants should not be tolerated; permitting DRV to be used as a platform for those attacks sends the wrong message and does not further the goal of building an encyclopedia; no prejudice will likely result from a speedy close since it seems that the consensus was quite strong that the closure was proper. Tim Song ( talk) 03:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note that the article was recreated and deleted on 1 September and protected from recreation the same day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

How are the cited links not credible? Cybercobra your reasoning is the classic example you trying to assign verifiability and notability on a subject to which you have no contextual understanding of. This is absolutely pathetic. Its the blind leading the blind. Support wiki is the contextual use of wiki software to provide communal support to an organizations clientele. This is why it was categorized as a wiki concept, because it is a practice, a clearly established and wide practice that is easily observed. You guys have absolutley no understanding of context and are trying to support a decision to delete an article based on a text search within an article, or a search on google? When did you start using google as a barometer for your brain and inability to actually think? My God this is pathetic. Notquiteleet ( talk) 00:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Short answer: we are not supposed to think on Wikipedia, in the sense you are using it. No original research is mandatory. So if cybercobra can't find the term in a text search, that's sufficient. The exact term has to gain widespread acceptance first. You can't just make up a name for an (allegedly) widespread phenomenon and then argue that an article with that name should be kept because the phenomenon is widespread. You have to show that the name is in widespread use, too. Tim Song ( talk) 00:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

See also WP:NEO#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms. You have to find source(s) talking about the term, as opposed to examples of sources using the term. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah well, since xe apparently can't even supply a source using the term, the point seems rather moot. Mea culpa for not actually checking WP:NEO, though, since I thought WP:OR more than sufficient for this issue. Tim Song ( talk) 01:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Its not a term you dumbass. Its a descriptive observation of a widespread practice, which is the entire reason it was categorized as a wiki concept. Are you naturally this stupid or do you have to actually put in some effort?

It is not original research, and yes there is more involvement in to determining the notability of an issue than merely a text search within a document. Your mentality is entirely and absolutely preadolescent at best. From the wikiport article linked in the OP:

Comment. An article using a descriptive title such as Wiki-based technical support is certainly feasible if good sources are found to document the practice without conducting "original research". However, I don't think it is appropriate to coin and promote a new word to describe the concept here. --Itub (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete, pretty obviously a neologism that people aren't using yet. "Tech support wikis" are a concept worth covering somehow (well, at least briefly in related articles), but there's no need to come up with new terms... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete and start over. A good article on "Wiki support community" or "Support wiki" would be welcome. Notquiteleet would be well advised to refrain from naming it after his own protologism, to review Wikipedia policy on notability and verifiability which will answer his questions, and to begin by collecting reliable sources first, before writing the article. Happy editing! ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As Itub mentions below, you might be able to make an article title "Wiki-based technical support" that documents this practice, if you can find a few reliable sources to back it up. However, there are no such sources that refer to "wikiport" in this context - this use of the term is your original thought. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I did exactly what was recommended in a previous article, and produced a document that was left alone and categorized correctly for a YEAR, and now all the sudden its not notable?

You have still not explained how the following sources cited in the article are not credible: Information Week Network Computing (part of the Information Week network) IT Today Internet News

Let alone you have still further failed to cite why the authors of the articles in the listed publications are not credible.

From the reasoning and logic employed in the explanations thus far it doesnt seem that most of you are not qualified to make such a claim of notability, much less credibility on this subject.

• Speedy close. DRV is not a platform for attack on other editors, and there is strong support for endorsing the deletion. Stifle ( talk) 07:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

File:Strawberry Switchblade.JPG ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

The recent deletion of the photograph illustrating this article was unnecessary. I am the photographer who took that image, I own and hold the negatives of that image and the copyright belongs to me. The image was used by WEA records to promote a single of theirs and was used on a record cover - but it was only used on that one off basis and that copyright remained with me. Peter McArthur. As the copyright holder I give permission for it to be used here on Wikipedia to illustrate this article. 116.77.48.126 ( talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I suggest you contact WP:OTRS with this, so they can verify what you say. We cannot do so here. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Destructoid ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I ask for an undeletion of this article, or rather an unprotection as I have a sourced version of the article ready in my user page.

I asked to unprotection of the page in 10th August on WikiProject Video games Requests. Reason was: "This article was deleted in April 2007 because it was decided to "keep and clean up" in January 2007 (see first nomination), but no clean-up had taken place since then. The problem is that it is impossible to create a new article with reliable sources about the subject, as it is protected and can only be created by admins. Plus there were 82 google hits at the time, but 1,120,000 in August 2009, so it should be easy to find reliable sources now that time had passed. Please note that I did not edit this article, nor created it before.

I created the article in my user space here: User:Hervegirod/Destructoid, using a lot of independent sources, from Joystiq, 1UP.com, Sarcastic Gamer, Ars Technica, the Webby Awards, Giant Bomb, Wired News, Kotaku, Eurogamer, Hudson Soft, or Rock, Paper, Shotgun. It address the two reasons given for the deletion in April 2007, which were:

• In January, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destructoid voted to "keep and clean up". We kept it, it has not been cleaned up. Self-referenced, spammy and has always been that way,
• No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party sources.

I also sent a message to Satori Son, the Administrator who decided for the delete after the consensus, asking for unprotection, but he seems to be busy on the moment on non wikipedia stuff and had not the time to answer. Hervegirod ( talk) 23:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Restore. If an AfD closes and keep and clean up, and it's not cleaned up, the solution is to fix it, not delete it. That second nomination was improper ,and did not receive sufficient attention. Failure to improve an article is not a reason for deletion, and a close on that basis is against policy. The awards, furthermore, are significance--the top 15% of the items submitted,according to that page. [2] DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• I take the opposite position to DGG; if an AFD closes as keep and cleanup, and it's not cleaned up, it shows that nobody cares enough about the subject and we should not have an article about it. See also User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up.
  However, this article is clearly improved and includable, and I would move it to mainspace. Stifle ( talk) 08:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• I agree with DGG and Stifle that this draft should be moved to mainspace, and I would like to add that in order to comply with the GDFL/CC-BY-SA, a history merge from User:BrOnXbOmBr21/Destructoid to User:Hervegirod/Destructoid should take place at the same time as the move.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore - yup, completely fixed now, and per S Marshall above for the History Merge. Black Kite 00:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore as long as licensing issues are dealt with. The userspace draft deals with issues brought up at AfD - even if a couple of the sources are a bit questionable. Guest9999 ( talk) 20:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply