Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 21
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The Article was deleted for A&, but this is an article about software product, to which A7 does not apply m656 (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Only web content is speedyable under A7, but not web applications. In addition, this is an application for mobile phone, not for web. It is absolutely not speedyable under A7. m656 (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. Please not that Nyttend is not clear about this definition, thinking that "web-related" is here same as "web-content", which is simply not so. This is an article about a software product which is a mobile phone application. It is no more web-related that any software at all, it runch even when the phone is off-line. But even if it were web-related (which it is not), it still would be software (outside A7 domain), and not "web content". Software is software. m656 (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
m656 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was deleted without due diligence within the group nomination. It was listed (in this order) as follows:
While I do agree that separate annual lists may be not notable, the root article, Forward 50, is. I believe that the article fell wictim of being last in the list, so that voters may easily miss its sepatate status to consider its merits in its own. Therefore my first objection is procedural: the list is not homogeneous and cannot be voted by a single vote. Further, the voters are quite possibly were put off track by a passionate eloquence of IZAK, who attacked both the newspaper The Forward and my intentions. I will not discuss his argument, since they are totally irrelevant: the intentions, neither mine not of the newspaper are irrelevant here, since wikipedia's policy of inclusion is not truth or correctness: it is notability and verifiablity. The votes of kind
have nothing to do with established wikipedia's inclusion criteria. In fact, it is very easy to verify that "Forward 50" received significant attention.
Once again, I don't care about deletion of the annual lists, but the main article was reasonably referenced from independent credible sources, it was not considered by its own merits according to wikipedia policies, and is necessary for the overall interlinked network of information in wikipedia. My final remark is about closing of the vote: formally the admin was right, since it was 100% delete vote, and I am at a loss on what I would have done in their position. Bar-abban (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |