Martijn DeVisser's FLV Player (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

It was a stub. I had two notable third party reviews of the software, which makes it notable. Over 10 million people downloaded the free program from download.com alone! I posted hangon as instructed. The talk page is still there, no discussion made, it just deleted. Dream Focus 20:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Title fixed to be page title, not URL. GRBerry 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • The article had no context, regardless of the stub or not. An article about the software begins with "this is a software that does this and that". Just writing how many people downloaded is a bad excuse. If expanded, I may change my mind but in the present state, no. --Tone 22:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • With a name like FLV player, I didn't think I needed to write it plays FLV files. The point is you are suppose to discuss the contested speedy delete on the talk page, BEFORE acting. Dream Focus 22:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • • After a reconsideration, this article does not fit in the A3 criteria I applied initially. Still, it was originally nominated as db-spam which I believe is relevant here. So much from my side. --Tone 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he was the talkative explaining type he would've followed proper procedures and discussed on the talk page what he believed was wrong with the article, instead of just deleting it outright, ignoring the hangon tag. I did post on the article's talk page asking about the deletion tag, but he didn't respond, just deleted it outright. Anyway, can someone undelete this already? There was plenty of information in the article, plus links to two reviews providing the software was notable. And it can't be spam, since nothing was being advertised. Its a free program, the most popular FLV player out there. Dream Focus 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't ask why the admin who deleted it didn't discuss the matter (and you'll note that the hangon tag says "this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria..."); I asked why you didn't discuss the matter. Two wrongs don't make a right. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, though I might have gone for a G11 (advertising); there was no actual article there, just a statement that it had been downloaded so many times and an editorial comment that sounded promotional. As far as I know, the "hangon" tag isn't a magic "you must talk about this" card; the admin obviously felt that the comments on the talk page were not sufficient to reconsider the deletion. If you feel that you've got sources to make a full, properly referenced and neutral article, then go right ahead - but I'd suggest forming it in your userspace, then moving it in completed form to the proper name. That should save some grief. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, seems a perfectly valid G11 speedy deletion. --Stormie (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as a valid G11. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wolverine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Wolverine is noteworthy enough to have a solo template. In addition to having several articles providing overview for the character (Wolverine in other media, Fictional history of Wolverine), there are also article dedicated to his solo comic books (Origin (comics), Old Man Logan, etc.) as well as solo films (X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Hulk Vs. Wolverine) and video games (Wolverine (video game), Wolverine: Adamantium Rage, etc.) as well as his supporting cast (Silver Fox, Daken, etc.). Moreso many of these article are not in Template:X-Men or any other navbox. Since Wolverine has a significant number of articles that mostly deal with him directly (and not as his place in the X-Men), the character should have a separate template. Marcus Brute (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, or was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (consensus wording with me, BTW) DGG (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The was previously another Wolverine template at the same location and mine was deleted under "recreation of deleted material." I was unsure on which admin to contact (the one who deleted mine or the one who deleted the original), so felt it best to post here.--Marcus Brute (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. For future reference, it's almost always best (and can be faster) to ask one or more of the admins to reconsider the matter before listing here. As the template deleted per TFD was different from the one deleted most recently, overturn and send to TFD. Be warned, though, I would expect it to be redeleted there. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The new version of the template was sufficiently different from the original and tried to address the issues that got it deleted first time round. It doesn't meet the G4 speedy criterion. (Relist for TFD if neccesary) - Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per MGM; substantially different. Mangojuice^talk 15:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Bravo (character) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn and delete or relist. Juliancolton's closure statement indicates that he found claims of "original research" to be either the most prevalent or most persuasive of the arguments for deletion. However, I challenge that assessment. The strongest deletion argument was that the article is an unnecessary fork of content that belongs in the Johnny Bravo article. The character is not just the main character of the program; rather, the two are so inseparable that any and all encyclopedic content on the character should in fact also be found in the program article. Furthermore, the article as it stands is chock-full of unnecessary plot recaps and quotations; once excised (the necessity of which was acknowledged by Juliancolton), the only remaining content would be small enough that it could be easily merged back into Johnny Bravo, where it belongs. I believe the closing admin incorrectly discounted those quite valid arguments in favor of "original research is not in itself a reason for deletion". Powers ^T 14:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin - A few points: as I said, original research is not itself a reason for deletion. The same could be said about the lack of references and the abundance of in-universe info; these issues should have been addressed through editing, not deletion. Also, the general consensus was that the subject is notable enough to justify inclusion. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete in respect of the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please elaborate? I'm not sure I understand. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen Stifle's votes at drv before. As far as I can tell, he thinks that an afd outcome is either a subjective judgment call for which the drv participant can offer no objective rationale, or a mysterious ethereal substance that penetrates the drv participant's mind by osmosis. Or are those the same thing? 160.39.213.152 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought that the consensus favoured deletion; I'm in a minority and I accept that. I will not dignify 160.39...'s message with a reply. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as reasonable close. OR isn't a reason to delete, and consensous didn't favor the view that LtPowers has. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The arguments that Powers offers as rationales for deletion are in fact rationales for redirecting. And there were no valid arguments for deletion in the afd. Hobit was right at the afd--the questions of whether to redirect this subtopic of Johnny Bravo and whether to merge any of the content into Johnny Bravo, should be discussed at the article talk page. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer interpreted the consensus correctly, OR is not a valid reason for deletion. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I voted to delete this article, but I see that the consensus wasn't to do so. OR may or may not be a reason to delete an article. Consensus shows that the article should be kept and worked on for now. The original research should of course be deleted, and the article (re)written from an out-of-universe perspective. If it isn't improved significantly I can see it reasonably relisted at a later date. Closure was appropriate. Themfromspace (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Consensus was clear. The nominator, a newcomer here, merely said "unencyclopedic" without further specification. There was one editor very strongly opposed to the article, and he commented 16 times during the discussion. His initial argument was "useless", which = dont like it. The later ones were simply challenging every keep comment said, every suggestion that in might be merged, and every proposed source. What he was basically saying is that material about an character, regardless of sourcing, does not belong in WP. That this did not have consensus is understandable, because with all the disputes at WP:FICT, that sourced content per the GNG is sufficient for an article on a major character in a notable work has been accepted by everyone there. The keeps said the character was sufficiently notable, both because of being the main character and because there were 3 external RSs. The article meets the requirements and no reasonable closer could have closed except to say that. DGG (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure If after excising OR and unneeded plot details, the remains can be merged somewhere, the edit history should remain for attribution purposes. Deletion would be wholly inappropriate. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, while User:A Man In Black had a point about the division between the article and it's parent Johnny Bravo being unclear, the deletion of the article was not warranted. Consensus in the discussion was clearly to keep the article but if User:LtPowers and A Man In Black want to start a merger discussion on the Talk page or dramatically reduce the content about the the character himself in the parent article then I see no reason to object to it. It's far too common that any changes, especially cutting down, of a recently AfD kept article are summarily reverted with a reference to the AfD. A closed AfD which ends in Keep does not suspend the right of editors to change the article - nor is it an endorsement of the current content of the article. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The bad state of an article on an appropriate topic is not an acceptable reason for deletion. That's what the deletion debate is about: whether to delete. I suggest the lister use ((mergeto)) and discuss merging if that is what he/she wants. Mangojuice^talk 21:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Nothing inappropriate about this closure. OR, the main reason the delete voters cited, in an article of a notable topic is a reason for article improvement, not deletion, and that is what keep voters pointed out.--Oakshade (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close There was no consensus to delete. The topic is almost certainly notable even if there is OR in the current version. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Canada (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Completing malformed request by an IP; reason is below. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following page has been deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya_Muslim_Community_Canada - I am requesting restore as this page contained enough information about this canadian community to be useful to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.174.123 (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The relevant information is present at Ahmadiyya#Canada. Endorse deletion as deletion process was correctly followed. Stifle (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Stifle. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy. I think this was deleted as a speedy. A group with 20,000 members is making a claim to notability and so isn't a speedy candidate. If there was an AfD I'm missing, please let me know. It may make sense merged to where it is, but that isn't what speedy deletes are for. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn The actual notability needs to be decided by the community, and such local councils are often not supported there. But it the size is certainly enough of a claim to pass AfD. DGG (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn, I think it makes enough of a claim to easily pass CSD A7. However, I don't think it should have its own article given the coverage Stifle points out and what's been presented in the deleted article: I suggest a redirect. Mangojuice^talk 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]