Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 31#Secure error messages in software systems (closed)

:{{DRV links|Verismic Software|xfd_page=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verismic_Software&action=edit&redlink=1|article=}}

The article Verismic Software had been approved through Articles for Creation process and then deleted by user:fastily. The editor gave the reason as G11, but everything stated in the article has a reliable outside source and is written in a factual tone. I placed a message on Fastily's talk page but they are out until Feb. 8th. I then placed a message on the admin who originally approved the article and they suggested I post a request here. Not sure what else to explain? Thanks, HeidiSmith (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Restore. The article was not written in a promotional tone; it appeared more or less factual and neutral. The G11 criteria are not met, nor are any other speedy deletion criteria that I can see. Is it only me or do we recently see a lot of questionable speedy deletions by {{user|Fastily}} on this board?  Sandstein  21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Restore per Sandstein. Fastily's been very active in deletion of late, and I've been assuming that the high number of Fastily-related DRVs probably has more to do with the amount of work he's done than with a decline in quality.—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

:As of late, Fastily has done more deletion work than any other admin. Almost all of his work on Wikipedia is deletion related. Given the amount of work he does in the area, it is unsurprising that he has more actions brought up at DRV. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Restore - the article as it stands is rather brief, but it's well-sourced so there's scope for improvement. ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 10:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Take to AFD as it wasn't a G11. But reading at the sources there's clear notability concerns. Source 1 is a type of press release by the creator of the Company. Source three is a press release and the rest of the sources are passing mentions, or don't mention the subject at all like [http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_mgt_low_carbon_allies]. The only source that may be reliable is [http://www.ocmetro.com/t-verismic_tech_updated_04192011.aspx this], but honestly and most of these local business news sites content is press releases, which this article sounds like. Secret ^account 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• List at AFD. This did not meet G11, because while there was clearly a promotional intent, the article is not solely promotional. However, per Secret it is questionable whether notability is established by the sources, which all seem to have problems of independence and/or lack of substantial coverage. This needs scrutiny at AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Secret, Verismic IS mentioned on this page [http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_mgt_low_carbon_allies], it is the one of the bullets above the fold 'Sparxent's Verismic Software' and I think being named one of InfoWorld's top 15 Green IT projects of 2011 is pretty notable [http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/the-green-it-stars-2011-549?page=0,1]. Not exactly a 'passing mention'. HeidiSmith (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, the company didn't win the top 15 green projects award. The Boulder Valley School District was the winner with a small passing mention they used the software, so that is misleading. The other source I just saw the mention, and that's clearly not a claim of notability, or a significant mention of the company. Secret ^account 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn, list at AFD if desired As already argued by the people above: not a G11 candidate, but unclear whether the subject is notable. Yoenit (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• You should get rid of this page right away, it's ridiculous, come on, why even thinking if it should be in the Wikipedia or not? It lacks decent sources and is unreliable. Seriously. Wikipedia's IQ is dropping by the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutshell1111 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

:{{DRV links|Secure error messages in software systems|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secure error messages in software systems|article=}}

Two deletes which addressed the reason given for deletion: essay-like how-to content. Closer gave no policy-based rationale about why the "keep" and "merge" votes raised valid objections. Pnm (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• If you had asked Stifle to explain his close, he would undoubtedly have told you that the objections raised by the "keep" and "merge" were that the material is fixable by the normal editing process. In other words, the consensus was that while the existing content was of little use, Wikipedia should have an article with this name, so the material needs to be rewritten rather than deleted. The policy basis for this is in WP:ATD.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• In fairness to Pnm, I do have a standing waiver of any requirements to discuss my AFD closures with me before coming here. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Stifle's waiver notice is here, and after reading another contributor's recent discussion contesting a "no consensus" closure without a stated rationale I concluded I should just come here. – Pnm (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• I contended the article did not seem fixable by editing – and still do. Any article with this title would necessarily violate WP:NOTHOWTO or WP:NOTMANUAL. If you think otherwise may I ask you to explain the reason you disagree, or attempt to demonstrate the editing fix you suggest? – Pnm (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• That's not my opinion, Pnm. It was the view expressed by Dcoetzee and History2007. On the face of it Canvashat and Tigerboy's remarks neither agree nor disagree with that, but they say "merge", and indicating that this title should be a bluelink. (By convention DRV regards "merge" !votes as a variant of "keep" rather than a variant of "delete".) Thus what Canvashat and Tigerboy have to say would be taken to support Dcoetzee and History2007, although perhaps given rather less weight. Bobrayner's remark suggest that the content should be deleted because nobody's going to fix it, which carries little weight per our editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT). That only leaves yourself as nominator and Lambiam, which is not sufficient to overrule the "keep" side. Stifle's drawn towards the deletionist side of the force a little more than I am, but I'm not surprised that he couldn't find a delete consensus in that debate. Believe you me, if there was one there to be found, I'm pretty sure Stifle would have found it.—S Marshall T/C 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• You'll see Tigerboy gave an "overturn" opinion below. But okay, I see that two people gave their opinions that it's fixable by editing. I've just tried with {{diff|Secure_error_messages_in_software_systems|474276588|474157099|these edits}}. It's still OR, but merging it into error message won't make that article worse. – Pnm (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• I do see that, but wise though Stifle is, he's not psychic. He could only decide based on what was written at the time of closure.—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn The only user wanted to keep the article gave the reason "Content is very, very low quality. Topic is not." I can see how Stifle got "no consensus", but I think that a lot of the "differing" views were in fact saying the same thing- that the article did not merit independent existence.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete, or redirect, or merge. Only one user wanted to retain this as a separate article, and even they said that it would need to be cut to two lines. There is clear consensus to not retain this as a separate article, although how exactly to do so is a bit more open to the closer's discretion.  Sandstein  21:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. There is consensus at the AfD that the article is poorly written and should be stubbified or redirected. There is no consensus that it needs to be deleted. A redirect or (selective) merge can be carried out by any user acting boldly and then discussed as necessary on the article talk page. See WP:BRD. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Low quality is not a policy-based reason for deletion, and all arguments on that basis should be disregarded. To argue along that line, it is necessary to show that a the quality of the article could never be improved, which requires the topic to be unsuitable in some particular way, or the content to be positively bad in some manner. not just low quality. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. Feel free to edit, merge or even redirect. Or try continuing the discussion on the article talk page. One interested editor is more than enough to fix this. If fixes prove unworkable, feel free to renominate at AfD, preferably in not less than two months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. Like Tigerboy1966 and Sandstein, I see a consensus against a standalone article, which is usually better expressed as "redirect, history available for merging" or "delete, I will provide history on request". The problem here is that there is no consensus to do anything specific. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• I see no reason to not have an article on this subject. It's actually reliable and notable. You people have to know when an article is reliable and when it's not. Please, do not touch it.
• Endorse and spell in all relevant guidelines and policies that the XfD discussions are supposed to judge on articles' names, not content. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Ultimatum (American band)|xfd_page=|article=}}

I think I'm doing this right... Ultimatum (American band) was deleted following a standard deletion review. I got the deleting admin to restore the page to my sandbox where I and other WPers could improve the article, addressing the lack of references and significance of the labels the band is on. I believe that these improvements (and continuing improvements like adding albums, etc.) have improved this article to the point where it is ready for resubmission to the mainspace. I contacted Mr. Ritzman who instructed me to resubmit the article here, rather than proceeding with a move without consulting anyone. I have informed Mr. Ritzman of this resubmission and await your (hopefully positive) comments. Thank you.

Here's the updated page. User:5minutes/Ultimatum (American band)

5minutes (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, 5minutes. Well done for a creditable effort there. I think you need to remove the "influences" section which is uncited, and for the magazine references, add page numbers to those citations that lack them. It would be best if you could also supply ISSNs. Despite these mild criticisms I think this material is roughly ready for the mainspace and I would not be opposed to putting it there.—S Marshall T/C 08:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

::*Per your suggestion, I have updated the magazine references with page numbers (I may still be digging some up) and ISSN's and have removed the influences section pending a discovery of a referenced article that says "the band sounds like so-and-so". 5minutes (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

:::*I found a reference to a comparison of their sounds, and so I inserted a statement accordingly (with a link to the reference). 5minutes (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Allow recreation. While I have no knowledge about or interest in this genre of ... sound, the revised article is substantially better than the deleted one, and appears much more likely to be notable after a glance at the references. This does not rule out a second AfDF discussion if anybody still thinks it's non-notable, of course.  Sandstein  21:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. I'm not sure if I even have a vote as the one requesting recreation, but I'll vote anyway. Accept or ignore as you see fit. 5minutes (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

:*...Sort of. It's assumed that you'd like to have the article recreated, since you requested that earlier, so your !vote here is redundant. But any admin closing the discussion will understand that anyway, since you quite clearly noted the duplication. No worries. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Allow recreation. Looks OK to me, though - as noted - another AFD might result if notability isn't clear enough. I think it's borderline leaning to notable, but that's outside of DRV's scope. The claim, at least, is a credible one. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. The article has been substantially improved and significant effort made to address the notability problems raised at AFD. I have some doubt as to whether the sources listed fully satisfy WP:GNG, because the main source seems to be HM magazine, a former low-circulation niche mag now reincarnated as a fanzine, and refs draw from both incarnations. However, that there is a case to be made that GNG is satisfied, and any further assessment belongs at AFD (if anyone wants to take it there). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• And the same for this page. Keep it. Why just keep attacking the articles? Leave it because it is highly notable.
• Question - so should I consider this matter closed? Do I need to recreate the page or will an Admin do so? 5minutes (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Best to wait for an admin to formally close the discussion and, presumably, move the draft back to article space. DRV's typically last seven days or so and this one isn't due to be closed till tomorrow. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks. Didn't know the process. 5minutes (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)