399:, or even whether the article would survive A7; unsalting, instead, should be automatic (and usually is, AFAIK; I have seen several admins summarily unprotect a page salted because of repeated copyvios when asked by an established user who intends to introduce a new version, and I’ve never understood that there is a consensus against that operation) upon an editor's offering that he/she has a draft that is not a copyvio (we unsalt/permit recreation generally when the community are satisfied that the issue from which deletion followed is resolved, or at least addressed to a point from which a new discussion on the merits of deletion might be had at XfD, but in copyvio cases the requisite showing is made on the face of the article, and no further inquiry is required).
781:. I sometimes go through the logs for the previous 7 days to see if there are any relisted debates or withdrawn nominations that can be closed. While doing so I came across this debate that I have previously relisted and it appeared that it was headed either for a second relist (which I hate doing) or a "no consensus" close. As there was only one !vote and it was "redirect" that's what I did. As there was no consensus to delete in the original AFD and little participation, I would recommend that the nominator withdraw the DRV and renominate the article for deletion. --
414:"This isn't what DRV is about." wonkery entirely misses the point that two editors here are working productively on making a potential article better and ensuring that we don't waste time with future deletion discussions that we could prevent from occurring in the first place — the very future deletion discussions that the people agreeing with you are alluding to. And that's not even the only thing that you're missing. See below.
849:
This usually isn't a problem because usually if nobody !votes then nobody cares. AFD is now on a 7 day cycle which means a relisted debate is open for half a month. This minimizes the chance that an interested party may be out of town or something. The drawback is that you might have a situation like this where an interested party doesn't !vote in the AFD but objects after it's closed. --
195:; the second source is the company itself, and the fourth source seems to be talking about a company based in Melbourn, Australia (and if it's the same Exinda, then it's a little concerning that the sources can't agree on whether it's an American or Australian company). To me, all the sources read like infomercials rather than critical reviews.
359:
501:, which is the prior AFD discussion that sets the sourcing hurdle that this new draft has to clear. This is not solely about satisfying copyright violation concerns. Applause to S Marshall and MLauba for reviewing these concerns at Deletion Review before even knowing that there was an AFD discussion that raised them. ☺
413:
I suggest that you think about what Stifle wrote when concurring with you. S Marshall is doing a good job of trying to ensure that the draft, written by the same editor who wrote the copyright violations, doesn't get tagged for speedy deletion or sent to AFD as soon as it arrives in article space.
817:
It doesn't matter if the closer was an admin or not: there wasn't enough consensus for a trouble-free close. The most appropriate action would have been to go for a second relist, and if Ron wanted to help the process along then leaving a comment on the AfD that his view was that the article should
526:
It follows that DRV wields enormous power over the encyclopaedia, and that does need to be held in check by a strictly limited remit. I should have said explicitly that my remarks above are not intended as a condition of moving the article to the mainspace, and I omitted to do so, so I will say a
366:
I tweaked some of the sentences somewhat, and added the two stronger of the above sources to the article, also clarifying the (relative) uncertainty about the company's geographical location in the process. Please let me know if more is required at this stage. If this gets unsalted and moved while
848:
as they are "unanimous" in the sense that nobody but the nominator is advocating deletion. Yes the nominator might not be cool with it but he's free to renominate any time he wants which has the same effect as a relist. In this case I went with the suggestion of the only !voter in the discussion.
923:
The thing about DRV is that "redirect" and "keep" are both effectively the same outcome: they are different flavours of "keep". By convention, DRV can overturn a keep (or redirect) to a delete, and it can overturn a delete to a keep. But turning a keep into a redirect (or vice versa) is not an
799:
non-admins should only close unanimous or almost unanimous keep results. However, redirecting as a result of an AFD is not generally considered binding, and may be changed by another user under the normal editorial process. If the question is on whether the page should be a redirect or not, the
519:
Hmm, thanks, Uncle G. Nevertheless, the point
Jahiegel and Stifle both raised is well-taken—and indeed, both those users stand very highly in my esteem. DRV is already a very powerful authority; Knowledge (XXG) has plenty of provision for addressing conduct disputes, but in terms of content
759:
I'm curious as to why you didn't !vote in the AFD. If you were to make the same argument there as you are making here and on my talk page, the result might have been different. It looked to me as if it were a dead discussion that nobody much cared about and that's why I closed it how I did.
390:
If every deletion was taken pursuant to G12, such that the community have never pronounced on the suitability of the topic (even if the copyright-violating content was theoretically G11able), it is not for DRV to evaluate whether the draft provides sourcing sufficient to meet
899:
Discuss on the talk page. Del Rev does not have authority over this. You could try AfD again after a reasonable time. At that point, if the verdict is redirect, we can consider protecting the redirect. And there's another solution that might satisfy everyone: a merge.
818:
be redirected would have been more helpful than actually doing so in those circumstances. Sometimes an article has to be relisted three times to get a result, but there is no hurry - better to get consensus for an action than to leave the door open to a challenge.
867:
Just to reinterate here, so that it is clear: I have absolutely no problems with the NAC, and agree that in most cases it would have worked out fine. My motive in DRV was the most expedient way of sorting out the issue, that is all. Thanks everyone.
315:"is designed to help customers manage their bandwidth and network resources by providing a combination of application visibility, traffic control, network optimization and application acceleration" → "monitors and controls network traffic", and
367:
I'm asleep, I suggest that the mover also place {{Notable
Wikipedian|Hass2009|editedhere=yes}} on the article's talk page, for full disclosure (assuming this can also be used if the contributor himself is, in practice, not notable himself).
737:-- Chzz, the material is sufficiently sourced. There are citations after almost every paragraph. Fangoria News, Google News, Legends Magazine, Ottaway Newspapers, The Day newspaper, even a book published on the haunted house story
305:
The author's clearly more familiar with writing for marketing or promotional purposes than with writing for an encyclopaedia. That's not a crime, but some stylistic tweaks would help a lot. I'd like to
924:
administrative decision because it doesn't require use of administrative tools, so DRV would normally view this as a matter to be solved via the normal editing process (i.e. talk-page discussion).
520:
disputes, DRV is the highest court in the land, in the sense that there is nowhere to appeal a DRV decision. (I've remarked, in jest, that for an editor who disagrees with a DRV closure, a
498:
841:
690:
48:
34:
559:
In the grand scheme of things, these remarks nonetheless helped making the proposed stub into something with more staying power, so I'm sure not complaining ;)
43:
800:
proper place for discussion is the article talk page. If the question is on whether the page should be deleted or not, the article may be relisted at AFD.
678:
39:
254:
191:
That may be a non-infringing stub, but I'm concerned about the sources. I think it could be questioned whether those sources are
941:
542:
343:
220:
246:
21:
699:
840:
Actually I have been closing a lot of relisted debates like this, some as "no consensus". (with leave to speedy renominate,
144:
960:
628:
583:
94:
17:
741:
And the redirect was a total removal of ALL material. What you're doing is getting pretty darn close to vandalism.
318:"markets its products through a global network of value added resellers" → anything written in intelligible English.
269:, referencing to a more complete product description is an adequate (if slightly spammy) use of primary sources.
250:
159:
613:
173:
79:
948:
911:
885:
858:
854:
831:
809:
790:
786:
769:
765:
750:
728:
617:
568:
549:
521:
510:
490:
476:
457:
443:
423:
408:
376:
350:
298:
227:
185:
83:
309:"delivers WAN optimization and bandwidth management solutions" → "sells computer networking equipment"
938:
539:
340:
328:
With these changes being considered and the extra sources you list being included, I would recommend
217:
74:– Unsalt and permit recreation from non-infringing draft. Future AfDs are at editorial discretion. –
261:, still an RS. All relevant to the field the company operates in, more than sufficient to establish
746:
648:
918:
828:
404:
278:
609:
506:
486:
453:
419:
75:
242:
850:
805:
782:
761:
564:
439:
372:
294:
274:
181:
845:
796:
286:
282:
169:
931:
532:
472:
333:
210:
192:
277:) 22:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - Addendum: That the article needs close scrutiny against
878:
742:
721:
644:
604:
238:
202:
396:
392:
266:
262:
206:
907:
821:
400:
502:
482:
449:
415:
253:(RS, also highlights that the company operates an R&D center in Melbourne), or
325:
link doesn't go where the author expects it to go and should probably be redacted.
233:
While sourcing at present may be light (but adequate for a stub), requesting the
801:
560:
435:
368:
312:"has some 2,000 customers in a range of vertical markets" → "has 2000 customers"
290:
270:
258:
177:
114:
468:
871:
714:
265:. Regarding the second source, not all references quoted have to establish
902:
205:, or some other rock-solid source, in order to prove that the company is
110:
70:
434:. Of course, nothing prevents AFDing this article at a later stage.
197:
I'd suggest finding a discussion about Exinda in something like the
241:
is most certainly overkill in order to establish that this passes
322:
168:
Article was salted after multiple recreations and deletions per
303:
Those extra sources would help a lot, if they were in the stub.
285:
potential, is undeniable. That being said, the company passes
234:
198:
172:
for copyright concerns. A non-infringing Stub now exists at
707:
NAC as redirect, then article effectively recreated with
289:
and has its place here. The rest is a matter of cleanup.
711:, thus reinstating large amounts of unsourced material.
708:
685:
671:
663:
655:
151:
137:
129:
121:
499:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Exinda
Networks
176:. Requesting unsalting and move to article space.
739:What exactly do you have issue with, and why?
8:
627:The following is an archived debate of the
497:I recommend that everyone here now look at
448:It's already been through AFD and deleted.
93:The following is an archived debate of the
795:Shouldn't have been non-admin closed; per
597:
63:
332:so this stub can go into the mainspace.—
249:, part of the Ziff-Davis network (RS),
608:– Not an issue for deletion review. –
7:
467:per Jahiegel and Stifle's comments.
963:of the page listed in the heading.
586:of the page listed in the heading.
844:) This IMHO is still in line with
28:
281:, in particular since there is a
357:
959:The above is an archive of the
582:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
569:14:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
84:00:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
522:direct appeal to the monarch
949:16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
912:16:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
886:13:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
859:12:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
832:08:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
810:08:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
791:02:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
770:12:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
751:02:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
729:02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
618:18:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
550:02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
511:14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
491:14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
477:21:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
458:14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
444:07:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
424:14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
409:07:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
377:01:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
351:23:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
299:22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
228:22:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
186:19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
986:
245:. Further sources include
481:You've missed something.
430:Concur with Jahiegel and
966:Please do not modify it.
926:I therefore recommend a
634:Please do not modify it.
589:Please do not modify it.
100:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
631:of the article above.
97:of the article above.
930:without an outcome.—
524:is the only option.)
174:User:Hass2009/Exinda
973:
972:
922:
884:
727:
596:
595:
465:permit recreation
432:permit recreation
255:PC World magazine
977:
968:
946:
936:
916:
897:Content question
883:
881:
875:
869:
830:
824:
726:
724:
718:
712:
702:
697:
688:
674:
666:
658:
636:
598:
591:
547:
537:
365:
361:
360:
348:
338:
225:
215:
164:
162:
154:
140:
132:
124:
102:
64:
53:
33:
985:
984:
980:
979:
978:
976:
975:
974:
964:
961:deletion review
945:
942:
932:
879:
873:
870:
822:
819:
722:
716:
713:
698:
696:
693:
684:
683:
677:
670:
669:
662:
661:
654:
653:
632:
629:deletion review
587:
584:deletion review
546:
543:
533:
358:
356:
347:
344:
334:
224:
221:
211:
158:
156:
150:
149:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
120:
119:
98:
95:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
983:
981:
971:
970:
955:
954:
953:
952:
943:
914:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
862:
861:
835:
834:
812:
793:
775:
774:
773:
772:
754:
753:
705:
704:
694:
681:
675:
667:
659:
651:
645:Darklore Manor
639:
638:
623:
622:
621:
620:
605:Darklore Manor
594:
593:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
554:
553:
544:
514:
513:
495:
494:
493:
462:
461:
460:
428:
427:
426:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
345:
251:The Australian
239:New York Times
222:
203:New York Times
166:
165:
147:
141:
133:
125:
117:
105:
104:
89:
88:
87:
86:
61:
59:25 August 2009
56:
49:2009 August 26
47:
38:
35:2009 August 24
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
982:
969:
967:
962:
957:
956:
951:
950:
947:
939:
937:
935:
929:
920:
919:edit conflict
915:
913:
909:
905:
904:
898:
895:
894:
887:
882:
877:
876:
866:
865:
864:
863:
860:
856:
852:
847:
843:
839:
838:
837:
836:
833:
829:
826:
825:
816:
813:
811:
807:
803:
798:
794:
792:
788:
784:
780:
777:
776:
771:
767:
763:
758:
757:
756:
755:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
733:
732:
731:
730:
725:
720:
719:
710:
701:
692:
687:
680:
673:
665:
657:
650:
646:
643:
642:
641:
640:
637:
635:
630:
625:
624:
619:
615:
611:
607:
606:
602:
601:
600:
599:
592:
590:
585:
580:
579:
570:
566:
562:
558:
557:
556:
555:
552:
551:
548:
540:
538:
536:
530:
523:
518:
517:
516:
515:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
412:
411:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
389:
386:
378:
374:
370:
364:
355:
354:
353:
352:
349:
341:
339:
337:
331:
326:
324:
319:
316:
313:
310:
307:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:, also a RS,
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
231:
230:
229:
226:
218:
216:
214:
208:
204:
200:
194:
190:
189:
188:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
161:
153:
146:
139:
131:
123:
116:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
101:
96:
91:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
965:
958:
933:
928:speedy close
927:
925:
901:
896:
872:
820:
814:
778:
738:
734:
715:
706:
633:
626:
610:IronGargoyle
603:
588:
581:
534:
528:
525:
464:
431:
387:
362:
335:
329:
327:
320:
317:
314:
311:
308:
304:
212:
196:
167:
99:
92:
76:IronGargoyle
69:
58:
851:Ron Ritzman
783:Ron Ritzman
762:Ron Ritzman
531:over this.—
44:2009 August
934:S Marshall
535:S Marshall
336:S Marshall
321:Also, the
213:S Marshall
170:WP:CSD#G12
743:Ebonyskye
709:this edit
529:mea culpa
823:SilkTork
279:WP:PROMO
259:CNet.com
193:reliable
20: |
842:example
700:restore
664:history
503:Uncle G
483:Uncle G
450:Uncle G
416:Uncle G
388:Comment
243:WP:CORP
237:or the
207:notable
201:or the
160:restore
130:history
846:WP:NAC
815:Relist
802:Stifle
797:WP:NAC
779:Closer
561:MLauba
436:Stifle
369:MLauba
330:unsalt
291:MLauba
287:WP:GNG
283:WP:COI
271:MLauba
247:e-week
178:MLauba
111:Exinda
71:Exinda
908:talk
874:Chzz
717:Chzz
686:watch
679:links
469:Hobit
152:watch
145:links
52:: -->
16:<
944:Cont
855:talk
806:talk
787:talk
766:talk
747:talk
735:KEEP
672:logs
656:edit
649:talk
614:talk
565:talk
545:Cont
507:talk
487:talk
473:talk
454:talk
440:talk
420:talk
405:talk
397:WP:N
395:and
393:WP:V
373:talk
363:Done
346:Cont
323:VARS
306:see:
295:talk
275:talk
267:WP:N
263:WP:N
223:Cont
182:talk
138:logs
122:edit
115:talk
80:talk
32:<
903:DGG
691:XfD
689:) (
401:Joe
235:BBC
199:BBC
22:Log
910:)
880:►
857:)
808:)
789:)
768:)
760:--
749:)
723:►
616:)
567:)
509:)
489:)
475:)
456:)
442:)
422:)
407:)
375:)
297:)
209:.—
184:)
82:)
42::
940:/
921:)
917:(
906:(
853:(
827:*
804:(
785:(
764:(
745:(
703:)
695:|
682:|
676:|
668:|
660:|
652:|
647:(
612:(
563:(
541:/
505:(
485:(
471:(
452:(
438:(
418:(
403:(
371:(
342:/
293:(
273:(
219:/
180:(
163:)
157:(
155:)
148:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
118:|
113:(
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.