Hussein el gebaly (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Arguments cogently stated that the article should be deleted, however due to a "tie" which is a no-no, it was found to be no consensus, however either it should have been given more time for more commentary or the arguments should have been measured and an outcome decidedTroyster87 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: An attempt was made (diff) to resolve the matter with the closing admin prior to initiating this review, as is recommended in the instructions for listing a deletion review. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete without prejudice to proper creation or relist for more discussion. The case made for deleting the article was stronger than the case made for keeping it. Both 'keep' comments focused on the point that the article asserts notability. While the article does indeed assert the notability of its subject, we should question the veracity of these assertions unless they can be corroborated by reliable sources. The standard at AfD is whether notability is proven, not just asserted, either in the article or in the AfD itself. I think we should assume good faith about the creator's motivations for creating the article (i.e. perhaps it was not intended to be promotional), but regardless of intentions the article is still essentially a resume. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no-consensus closure. Relisting was not in order as, per WP:RELIST, there were more than one or two contributors to the discussion. With two editors on each side of the debate, and no special policy-based reason to close the debate one way or the other, no consensus was the correct result. Those who suggest relisting would be correct are free to gather a consensus to support a change to the deletion process at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - weight of arguments on both sides was balanced. This was clearly a no-consensus close, and WP:RELIST indicated that relisting after this level of discussion is not appropriate Fritzpoll (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per WP:RELIST "and/or if it seems to the closer to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist the discussion". In this case, I don't think there were any solid arguments based on policy. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - seems fine. Strength of arguments & numbers both push towards "keep", but there's some discretion in how it's closed here (especially since the outcomes are very similar). WilyD 13:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I would have relisted this, but closing as "no consensus" is within closer's discretion. The article is abominable however, and if not cleaned up, expect to see this again at AfD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin Can we please work on the wording of WP:RELIST? I've been yelled at a good number of times for relisting articles with more than a couple of comments citing the current restrictive wording and taken to DRV several times for not relisting in cases like this. Rather than stick the closer in contradictory position of having to relist against policy to be DRV'd for following policy, can we just delete If a debate has already been relisted once, the closer should consider carefully if a no-consensus close would be more appropriate than a second relisting. If further discussion is unlikely to bring consensus, then the discussion should simply be closed. from the WP:RELIST page? MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anything especially bad is happening; the closure is getting endorsed here. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, your closure seems fine. No matter what policies say, people will sometimes be unhappy with the way you close an XFD and try their luck at DRV. The only way to avoid this is to not close XFDs. WilyD 10:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There was enough support for keeping to make it very unlikely that a relisting would result in deletion, and that support was policy based. The awards listed in the article may not be referenced, but they are verifiable in that it is possible to check with the awarding body that they are are true. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page has indefinite protection for an invalid reason. The article was not the same and addressed AFD. The article was [re]marked for deletion by editor with interest in having the article removed, who previously nominated alternative versions of the article. Artparis (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As far as I can see, the newly deleted version of the article was practically identical to the version that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin John Callanan (2nd nomination). Thus it is technically a correct G4 deletion. Black Kite 00:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In situations where an article has been repeatedly deleted to the point where protection is necessary, it's usual to present a sourced userspace draft before requesting restoration. I would recommend this approach here. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (as deleting admin). As Black Kite has already noted the article I removed was practically identical to the version deleted at the last AFD (and endorsed further at deletion review - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 7) and thus I believe my action to have been a perfectly valid application of G4. Nancy ^talk 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the review request again and realised that it is the protection that is being disputed not the deletion (I think, or is it both, seeing as this is DRV not PRV...) so my previous comment may not make a whole heap of sense in that context. I was also the protecting admin and the reason I gave in the protection log was Repeatedly recreated: Please create a draft in userspace before contacting an admin to uprotect this page. New article must address concerns raised in the AFDs which is factual, reasonable, provides a steer towards next steps and makes it clear that the protection is indefinite but not infinite. Nancy ^talk 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - under the circumstances, one could run a DRV requesting recreation (i. e. overturn the old deletion discussion), but protection is certainly appropriate in the meantime. WilyD 13:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If someone wants to write an article in userspace and present it here, I'm sure that - if it's properly sourced and encyclopedic - the protection can be removed. Until then, it's appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cellebrum Technologies Limited (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD was closed (somewhat reluctantly)'no consensus'. AfD discussion demonstrates that the vast majority believed that the article should be deleted. Notability is very borderline; the article author has admitted COI. Previous 'facts' had references which did not check out. Some facts are still only supported by co website. The closing admin used the WP:CSB argument, which was not discussed, but clearly location is a consideration in determining notability. Over all, I appeal to WP:COMMONSENSE, that the article is a) highly unlikely to be developed into anything useful, and b) if deleted, no true 'information' will be lost. Thank you for your time.  Chzz  ►  14:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed header template. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 8 March 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) 14:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I misread the instructions; sorry, won't happen again. --  Chzz  ►  13:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I moved this to the correct location.) Endorse no consensus closure, as there was indeed no consensus. If the article has not improved in a month or two, feel free to relist it. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin My issues were two-fold with this one. First, the WP:CSB issue; as I said at the AfD, would a US company of this size be deleted at AfD? Almost certainly not. Secondly, a number of the Delete !votes suggested that the article was spam; I don't see any particular evidence of that. Discarding those, we end up with a few Deletes and a few Weak Keeps. However, what swung it back to give the article a chance for me was looking at some reliable sources - Indian Television, Business Line - which persuades me the article should at least be given a chance. Yes, there are COI issues and I have tagged accordingly. I'm not particularly bothered if this is overturned and deleted, but I felt there was enough grey area in there. Black Kite 15:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure result, somewhat reluctantly. The article was substantially edited over the course of the AfD. The version that I read towards the beginning of the process indeed read like spam, with value added service provider and other patent nonsense phrases. The current version seems much more neutral. I have done some minor edits to the article since the AfD closed, getting rid of some "solution"-speak and minor grammar fixes. I generally think that non-consumer online, technology, or communications businesses need to meet VERY high standards of notability (I.e. if they only appear in newspapers in the business section, that isn't enough for that kind of business.) I still would not mind seeing this deleted, and don't see the nationality of the business making any difference. But the article has improved, and as such I would not quarrel with the closing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse when there is no consensus, that's the best close. Perfectly reasonable. I disagree though ith the above comment: there is no need for anything to meet a higher standard of notability than being notable. DGG (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. There wasn't a consensus so the closer was correct.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - vote counting may lean towards delete, but strength of argument was entirely one-sided to keep. Sounds like "no consensus" to men. WilyD 13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my secret page, and an admin deleted it with the text:

o hai, i haz found ur sekrit page! please contribute to the encyclopedia more and search for hidden pages less. Vinson 22:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This page appears to have been restored, so there's nothing to discuss. My opinion: either we need a valid speedy criterion or a valid MFD discussion. A single admin making the call is not appropriate. There is also no minimum treshold of contribution for a secret page to be allowable. The user contributed plenty. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]