Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 22
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 22 May 2007
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This organisation has multiple press sources, and a number of notable figures supporting it, which were mentioned in the article. Certainly not A7 criteria. Darksun 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I am requesting the article titled “Entrance Software” to be undeleted. I have checked the deletion log, and it appears that the article was deleted due to a proposed deletion by Naconkantari. I feel that the article had provided relevant and factual information that can benefit college students about the company, aiding them in making decisions when applying for summer internships as software engineers. There are many articles on similar software related companies, such as Microsoft, Accenture, and Amazon, providing invaluable information for those researching for future careers before entering the job market straight out of college. The article on Entrance Software provides similar information, and does not violate the Wikipedia content criteria. 205.196.183.229 19:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not clear as to why this article was deleted. There were numerous sources, and I can certainly track down some more, as well. 216.115.180.7 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Though it sounds like WP:BIO won't be met if the PROD is correct. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I would be willing to undelete this as a belatedly contested prod, without prejudice to an AfD, but the deleting administrator should be asked first. Newyorkbrad 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Delete, becausee the vast majority of the people either wanted this article deleted or merged per previous Afd. The result certianly wasn't keep. Sefringle 06:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleting admin deleted based on WP:CORP, but based on the state of the article at the time, not whether the subject actually met the criteria, and with gazillions of G-hits I suspect the subject would indeed meet the criteria. Votes are roughly evenly distributed, meaning no consensus seems to have been present. Morgan Wick 04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
My comments don't have to do with the outcome -- I think that I would lean toward recommending deletion in all three cases -- but with the process. I don't believe that closing admins should express new arguments which have not been yet raised in the AfD in the closure comments--it gives others no voice to contest these statements. From what I've seen elsewhere, Blnguyen is a great admin and contributor, and it could be that I, with much less experience, have missed something. But I don't feel like voices (even those of Admins asking for further comments to find consensus) were listened to in these AfDs. I haven't looked earlier than May 4, but the fact that Blnguyen has only closed deletions (>10) with one redirect, at least gives the appearance that these closures are not considering a balance of opinions. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |