PNMsoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

WP:CSD#A7 90.152.2.211 19:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator that deleted this article refuses to condsider undeleting "as it is the second time..." The administrator also states that his decision to delete was because "someone marked that article for speedy deletion and he agreed ..."

The first time this article was deleted was due to begginers errors (my mistake). I changed the article to confirm to Wikipedia's rules. I spent time & effort creating the article. If I'm doing something wrong, please tell me what, but allow me to change it and not blindly delete it.

This is from the Administrator's Talk:

Hi Wknight94. You have deleted the page PNMsoft (reason (WP:CSD#A7)) PNMsoft is an article about a real company and does assert the importance or significance of its subject. It is not controversial nor an advertisment. Could you please undelete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.152.2.211 (talk • contribs).

Someone marked that article for speedy deletion and I agreed and deleted it. See WP:CSD#A7 and WP:N for more information. This is the second time the article has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PNMsoft) so I am not going to restore it. You can submit a request at WP:DR. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I disagree with you but thank you for your answer.

• Endorse deletion in the deleted form makes no assertion of notability and doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. The initial recreation was by User:PNMsoft which may indicate a WP:COI issue. --pgk 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PNMsoft is one of the pioneers in the development of BPM & Workflow software. is a real and proven claim of notability. The previous recreaction (by myself) was done since my previous article sounded like an advert, and was changed to meet the standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNMsoft (talk • contribs)
    • 'Proven' where exactly? Certainly not by reference to non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. The use of peacock terms does not a claim to notability make. --pgk 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak list for AfD. PNMsoft is one of the pioneers in the development of BPM & Workflow software. is a claim of notability which should have not let it be speedy deleted. Corvus cornix 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Massive conflict of interest list for AFD I work for a company that actually is a leader in the BPM space (as selected by Gartner - publication 28 June 2006, ID Number G00139775 if any of you care to buy the report yourself). This company is not such a leader, nor even significant enought to merit a mention by Gartner in their annual report on the BPM market space for either of the last two years, but the article did claim that they are a leader. This is just typical marketing speak that means "does business in", not actually "leads" in the absence of credible third party support. A claim of notability merits an AFD, even if the claim is false, but this really is spam. If I didn't have such a massive conflict of interest I'd be prepared to endorse deletion under the more accurate reason of WP:CSD#G11. GRBerry 21:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • GRBerry is in a rival company (pegasystems). GRBerrys company is not in Microsoft's BPM Aliance, nor one of leading BPM & workflow leaders (yes, they appear in Gartners report - so what). GRBerrys comments shouldnt appear here (conflict of interests) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNMsoft (talk • contribs)
• Endorse deletion of unsourced hype-ridden article by blatantly conflicted single-purpose account - for which, read spam. Righteous WP:CSD#G11. No prejudice against a rewrite form sources by someone whose username does not match the company name, Guy (Help!) 23:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to log in. My username does match the company name — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNMsoft (talk • contribs)
    • Ummm, yes it does. Rossami (talk)
• Endorse closure of the old AFD discussion. I find no process problems in that discussion. Endorse redeletion under either cases G4, A7 or G11. The deleted versions contained no assertion or evidence that the this company met our generally accepted inclusion criteria. Neither has such evidence been provided here. The conflict of interest issues make the situation much worse. Note: I have no prejudice against a recreation from independent, reliable sources (if they can be found) by someone independent of the company. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Guys, it is your decision but seems unfair. One of you is in a rival company. One of you endorses because I forgot to log in. I humbly request a change to recreate, change or undelete the deletion. Thanks. PNMsoft — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNMsoft (talk • contribs)
  • Please reread what GBerry is saying above. Not only does he acknowledge the COI, he is supporting a call for a relisting for AfD, which actually supports you, in that it gives more eyes to the discussion. Corvus cornix 23:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, from the old AfD closure. There is no evidence presented that was not presented there, so there is no reason to overturn. And if the opinion of someone in a rival company doesn't count, why does the opinion of someone in this company count? -Amarkov moo! 19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diversified Technology, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted for CSD-A7 company. What and why? Speedy deleted earlier for lack of notability, which I corrected and gave references for. I cannot fathom why it has been deleted now, and wish it to be explained and reviewed, as I feel it is unjust. Dbmays 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you post those sources here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure:

http://www.vdc-corp.com/Purchase.asp?viewtype=detail&id=1924&pagesection=ehw http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=11313 http://www.heavyreading.com/details.asp?sku_id=780&skuitem_itemid=753&promo_code=&aff_code=&next_url=%2Fdefault.asp%3F http://www.compactpci-systems.com/news/db/?1480 http://www.rtcmagazine.com/home/article.php?id=100653 http://www.tmcnet.com/voip/0107/it-feature-fault-resilient-computing-for-telecom-part2-0107.htm

Two of those are market studies that I have physical copies of so I just linked to the study site. --Dbmays 15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent, thank you. Overturn, clearly meets WP:CORP standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)'s comments. --MalcolmGin 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, because we have refs. Abeg92contribs 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and would probably have not been eligible for CSD in the first place., certainly not after a good faith effort to improve. CSD is for articles that cannot realistically be improved. DGG 17:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear spam. Article does not assert notability, just provides a number of non-neutral links, which is not the same thing at all. Will be deleted as spam again if restored (although not by me, obviously, before Jeff has an embolism) but, to save this inclusionist charade, I'll restore and AfD. Free advertising on Wikipedia, everybody!   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• So

"Diversified Technology was the first to introduce an AdvancedTCA Infiniband CPU Node and Switch, introduced the industry's first AMD Opteron Rev. F based Node in 2007, and is the leading shipper of AdvancedTCA products worldwide." Those three items don't count as "notable"? Dbmays 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silkroad forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The reason that it was deleted was because there was an edit war between the users from the forum. However, there was no actuall post at first. It was simply all the users trying to post random things. However, i have created a elegent post to start with, and i will keep adding to it. However, for me to create internal links n all i will need it up and running. The protection was due to me asking for it to be protected, however i realise now i should have just waited for it to be removed. I will also be contesting for it to be de-protected. Im still new to being a user, not just reader of Wiki. So do forgive me if i have missed a step. K3y-J 10:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted for being not notable (not because of any edit war). No evidence provided to suggest it isn't just another forum. Endorse deletion. – Steel 13:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion withotu prejudice against a new article which credibly asserts notability by reference to independent sources. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a reminder, lack of notability does not qualify for speedy deletion. --MalcolmGin 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Lack of an assertion of notability is clearly grounds for speedy deletion per CSD A7. Naconkantari 17:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Speedy is suitable for articles of unquestionable lack of notability, but not for those where there is reason to doubt. allowing creation of a new article when protested is not the solution, because it will often discourage people and then we lose potentially good articles and potentially good editors. 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, no assertion of notability. Naconkantari 17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Feel free to recreate it if you can find independent, reliable sources. And no regulars list please. -Amarkov moo! 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, textbook A7. --Coredesat 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion, there were no claims of notability and no evidence of such. Corvus cornix 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levite Tithe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It was deleted under the reason "POV fork". But that's impossible, as it was created 2 days before the article (Maaser Rishon) it is alleged to be a fork of. Maaser Rishon, on the other hand, is a POV fork; its main author (Shirahadasha), admits that the Maaser Rishon article is POV - "the article is ... representing the Orthodox Judaism POV". The Levite Tithe article, on the other hand, comes from this article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which aims to be NPOV.

Additionally, Shirahadasha (who was the individual which proposed the Levite Tithe afd) changed his view half way through the AFD, and instead asked for the articles to be merged, rather than one of them deleted. For a merge to be possible, the Levite Tithe article needs to be restored. --User talk:FDuffy 07:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow undelete to enable merge and redirect. Note that the merge target should be Maaser Rishon per the AfD. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. New article fails various content guidelines, as stated in AFD. FDuffy seems to have composed the article offline and is therefore in possession of the material he'd like to merge into Maaser Rishon. JFW | T@lk 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, though I note that the old Jewish encyclopedia is not longer considered authoritative. There is a new one, available in libraries. It does seem likely there will be a disputed merge, but AfD is not the solution to good faith differences in POV.DGG 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and allow a discussion for possible merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]