1110:. I admit I do find it rather strange that the article has been singled out in defiance of prevailing standards on Knowledge (XXG), and my imagination is working overtime. Guess what? Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks there is some funny business going on. I'd like to remind you that I did not open this deletion review. I am merely making my opinions heard. Or has my involvement stripped me of my right to have an opinion as well? So far instead of replying directly to any of the valid points I have raised most of those supporting deletions have attacked me personally rather than actually contradicted anything I have said. Here let me spell this out for you so you don't have to fish around for it and default to more personal attacks:
1534:
that satisfies your criteria for notability for the purpose of comparison? If you can't do that how can we trust your judgment and why should we have to when there are many
Wikipedians who do understand software and might be more capable of arriving at an informed opinion regarding this matter? How can your integrity be trusted when you are so firmly insistent on usurping power for yourself and your fellow administrators by circumventing the intended system of checks and balances? Let me reiterate once again: being an administrator does not not give you any special authority here. If anything your opinion should weigh less because you have admitted you do not understand the subject matter.
819:"I created the article in the image of the other articles on Ubuntu derivatives covered in Knowledge (XXG). In this form it existed for months without any objections being raised. Sure there was room for improvement, there always is. Perhaps as you mention the article didn't emphasize the notable aspects of the project it described sufficiently. I would have welcomed friendly collaboration with other editors to improve the article (or any feedback really). Unfortunately, instead of a peaceful discussion that would have perhaps led to the necessary improvements, I suddenly found myself thrust into a battlefield, with much of the fire directed against me personally."
250:. However, as each of us knows, there are enormous “deficiencies” in what is set forth on its pages, and I have endeavored to add to the knowledge base. For example, the failure to mention (1) the largest mass rape in history (i.e., the Soviets raped at least 2 million women in what is now acknowledged as the largest case of mass rape in history), and (2) the largest mass murders in history by Stalin (i.e., more than 30 million men, women and children) and Mao (i.e., an estimated 30-40 million deaths between 1958 and 1960, as a result of what his regime hailed as the "Great Leap Forward"), are not simply minor inconsequential oversights.
316:, which is also cited to give readers an accurate description of what has been happening as the economic tsunami takes its toll globally, which is the result of Greenspan's policies at the Fed that are producing economic chaos and hurting millions of people globally. Seventh, the page in my name is thoroughly sourced; and notwithstanding your comments, we have never been contacted by anyone from Wiki, ever, except with respect to (1) some minor edits that we agreed with, and (2) the requirement for better sourcing/backup to substantiate the entries at the page, which was accomplished by more than 20 footnotes.
303:. Third, nowhere on the "Violence against women" page does it reflect that approximately 2 million women were raped by the Soviets at the end of WWII, in the largest mass rape in history. Fourth, nowhere on the "Violence" and "Mass murder" pages do they reflect the fact that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more than 30 million men, women and children—his own countrymen; and that Mao Tse-tung was directly responsible for an estimated 30-40 million deaths between 1958 and 1960. These are colossal omissions; they are not merely minor oversights. Fifth, you or
1500:"But such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same."
1278:"There were no references or claims of notability?". This is plainly untrue, though I should probably let someone else call you out for ignoring the evidence I have submitted to the contrary. My voice doesn't seem to count for much here. On one hand you claim the burden on proof is on the article creator. On the other hand you feel perfectly comfortable dismissing everything the article creator says, regardless of merit on the basis of
964:. Process for its own sake is a waste of everyone's time. And funny, I thought that YOU had agreed to walk away from promoting yourself when you withdrew your original DRV request, LirazSiri, so lecturing others for what you're unwilling to do yourself and making unfounded claims about others's supposed lack of neutrality--ESPECIALLY given your built-in conflict of interest--does you no credit. --
1696:
thus not enough evidence to merit an AFD discussion. I also can't encourage anyone to recreate this article, because I don't believe there are enough usable sources for a rewrite to pass muster. If better sourcing becomes available in the future, that can be handled then - but as always better if by an editor not personally involved in the project.
1427:
as showing the project is notable for its category. You can't reasonably expect the New York Times to cover a distribution of software appliances or any technical development in a non-mainstream field. OK, maybe you don't think that is enough to show that the project is notable, but that's not your decision to make. That should be
1020:. Rectifying the abuse of process is the best way for us to sort through this mess as quickly as possible, but I'm skeptical whether that will be allowed to happen because the real issue here is abuse of administrator power and the administrators are much more likely to support each other than give credence to any wrongdoing.
848:). If you think you have cooled down enough to rejoin the discussion that's fine, but please try to keep your cool this time and maintain neutrality. Here's a question for you: did you at any point actually try searching for reliable independent sources before forming the opinion that TurnKey Linux is a non-notable
1655:. Those advocating for inclusion above assert that the user sub-page version was fundamentally identical to the article space version, so will be analyzed on that basis. This was promotional material needing to be completely rewritten to become acceptable. As it was clearly promotional, it qualified for
1725:
is listing all products using postgresql. Rest of sources are newsletters and blogs. There is an argument that it's notable because of having a certain component, but there is no secondary source anywhere saying that this has any relevance at all (hint:find a good one, and chances for recreation will
1232:
It's still early days here, but I'm not hearing any sense from our admins yet. The burden here is for all of you to demonstrate that this is spam and should be deleted as such. All the "Endorse
Deletions" thus far say nothing about this (and instead attack LirazSiri). It would be SO wonderful if this
756:
you're all admins against a single non-admin editor... what need is there to tip the scales even more by preventing it from being openly discussed? The effort expended in forcing this into a speedy deletion could have accomplished a transparent and process-compliant deletion many times over. Why so
675:
What? The article was advertorial created by the project's co-founder, deleted twice as spam / non-notable, the project's co-founder then created and later withdrew a DRV request after some slightly acrimonious debate during which it became clear that no reliable independent sources were available.
1548:
You know, I wasn't going to allow myself to be baited into further comment, but you know what? I know our guidelines. I know our policies. I have worked deletion debates many, many times, and based on that knowledge, I feel that the article in question was correctly deleted as a G11 - advertisement.
1070:
means that you have a conflict of interest, full stop. Imagining that someone else, uninvolved, has a conflict of interest means precisely nothing. The rest of your paranoid piffle and personal attacks are not worth responding to except the last: the issue has been addressed--no flaws in the process
688:
deletion, albeit for a garage distro rather than a garage band. It's not at all clear to me what you want to change, indeed it sounds as if you are quite happy for nothing to change. Why on earth would we want to go through process just for the sake of it? If you think the article potentially has
625:
I fully expect that the result of an AfD would be consensus for deletion, which I personally would probably agree with. My concerns here relate to the fact that the deletion appears to have occurred out of process. My only interest is to rectify that and ensure that a properly-documented community
1533:
That's interesting. Do you see spam when you look at articles about other Ubuntu derivatives/free software projects or is it just the TurnKey Linux article that offends you? And really, why do you keep avoiding my question? Is it that difficult for you to give me just one example from this category
1426:
In an nascent niche category such as software appliances getting over 10,000 downloads in a few months, while being covered by multiple independent blogs, the Ubuntu newsletter, lwn.net, livedistro.org (the top site covering Live CDs) and the Open
Directory Project might just be interpreted by some
238:
We have to assume that other similar actions are taken on a routine basis, which does not reflect well on
Knowledge (XXG), regrettably. Indeed, if the same criteria and actions were applied to and taken with respect to others (e.g., Wiki page deletions, without notice), and if my law firm gave the
1749:
that the article in its last state would survive an AFD. I would recommend that those advocating the restoration of the article again, after a previous DRV, an attempt to change the notability policy to allow restoration, and several other discussions on other pages, do something productive rather
1695:
or AFD, given the fact that the newsletter says "If you'd like to contribute to a future issue of the Ubuntu Weekly
Newsletter, please feel free to edit the appropriate wiki page." I can't quickly tell whether the lwn.net page would pass muster, but the article can't stand with only it. There is
493:
Once nominators resort to personal attacks on good faith users contributing to the discussion we close them because DRV is not a platform to attack other users. There is a clear consensus supporting this deletion and, if you want to bring this back, you will need much better sourcing then what you
1515:
You know what? I know fuck all about software, so I'm not about to go about that, when the fact is that this is not a debate over the other articles, it is a debate about whether the article was deleted in process. I see your article, I see spam, I see no good references, I see no reason for the
738:
I still just do not get why, if this is such a slam-dunk notability issue, anyone would be opposed to having that documented with community consensus and within process. This is what's setting off alarm bells for me here. The whole idea of speedy deletion is that it's for situations where it's
1360:
I think nothing of the sort, feel that's bordering on a personal attack, and would request that you redact that statement. Notability on
Knowledge (XXG) is based on reliable sources that are non-trivial, neutral, and preferably based off of an outlet that has a level of editorial control. Going
1251:
Actually, the burden of proof in relation to deletion discussions lies with the article creator/defender to show the notability. In this case, I still haven't seen much of anything that proves the article was deleted against policy. There were no references or claims of notability, the article
653:
and so I believe that even if this has occurred entirely in good faith it is essential that policy and process be complied with and that the greater community's faith in the integrity of the project administrators be maintained. Also, LirazSiri has indicated that a substantial portion of the
634:, the parent distribution. (So whether or not that is valid criteria for notability, I do not believe the article qualified for A7 speedy deletion because it at least attempted to provide evidence of its subject's notability.) I have elaborated on these points extensively in the VPP thread.
629:
In my opinion and that of the author the article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion; the initial deleter's behavior was not consistent with the removal of G11 / spam and the subsequent CSD offered, A7 that no evidence of notability was given, also appears faulty in that the article
1369:
doesn't meet the guidelines. The final version of the article as it was deleted included a number of features that I, had I seen it, would have immediately considered to be promotional - and believe me, I get dozens of promo releases a day, so I can recognize it - and it had no assertion of
319:
Thus, I respectfully request that you promptly reinstate the page as written. Thank you for your attention to this matter; and again, I hope you feel better. Also, the deletion does not show up on either of the following pages: "Knowledge (XXG):Deletion today" or "Knowledge (XXG):Deletion
654:
frustration stemming from the deletion would be assuaged by a show that it is consensus-backed - so I also think that the AfD process should be followed out of respect for LirazSiri, a token of the respect that the project has towards all good faith editors. Although LirazSiri has a
1071:
or new information other than a result not to your personal liking have been brought forth--and your increasingly hypocritical meanderings, such as attacking anyone contradicting you whilst crying 'Help! Help! I'm bein' oppressed' isn't helping your credibility one iota. --
239:
task to one or more young lawyers or law clerks of ferreting out all of the
Knowledge (XXG) pages that are “self-serving”—and are put up or changed by people who are the direct beneficiaries of such pages—it is respectfully submitted that Knowledge (XXG) would be “gutted.”
1361:
through the list of sources you provide above, a couple of which I see in the article, they are almost entirely blogs, trivial mentions, or sites based on user submission - there is none of what we would define as independent coverage in a reliable source. One of them is
1549:
Personal knowledge is not important here. Deletion debates are about whether our guidelines and policies have been followed correctly; I feel that in this case, they have. I am also personally insulted by your attack on my integrity. I demand a retraction immediately.
641:
and a number of comments that have come up in discussion indicate that many administrators would endorse an out-of-process deletion based upon the deleter's cognizance alone, an usurpation of the normal standard of community consensus for deciding notability.
1137:(who may know more about the subject matter) discuss the article and reach consensus instead of effectively limiting the discussion to Administrators and their buddies? This is not deletion is supposed to work. How do you justify this abuse of process?
353:. We are talking about the puff-piece you wrote about yourself, right? What on earth has that got to do with WW2? If you want to correct perceived inaccuracies on the site, feel free. You don't need to have an article about yourself to do it, though.
999:
violations. This from an administrator who hides behind a pseudonym and has had his user page deleted for reasons unknown. Maybe if everyone was half as transparent as I am we might discover that there is more to this abuse of process than meets the
307:
might argue that I should provide the original sourcing for my article; however, with due respect for both of you, I do not have the time to go back and do so, because the files are in dead storage. I assure both of you that it is totally accurate,
788:- this appears to have been an in process CSD and I see no reason to further strain the deletion process when a deletion is essentially undisputed. Process for process sake alone is often a bad idea - and I think this, if in AfD, would be likely to
728:
The article was not spam and was not non-notable, at least not to the degree that's necessary to justify speedy deleting. Speedy deleting isn't some mechanism for allowing admins to override community-based and process-based assessment of
1629:
Speaking as an uninvolved user, I am surprised at the incivility of a number of the people arguing for deletion. This thing appears to have some valid sources and references that could be used, and thus, cannot be deleted under CSD. Thus,
1323:
have a voice and
Administrators have no special advantage. On the other hand, here at deletion review administrators hold all the cards. This is an abuse of process. There are nearly 9 million editors and only 1,300 administrators. We
1370:
notability. In my opinion, as a person who has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever, there was no issue with the deletion. I hope this clears up my view and how my opinion is, in fact, based in the guidelines regarding deletions.
1585:
project is very important, merely notable, as in, you would want to make note of it if you were trying to learn more about the field of software appliances, an emerging development only a couple of years old, who's main article
1412:
is notable and they have editorial control over who gets listed in the "new distributions" report. Sure they linked to a post I wrote, but they do that all the time. I shouldn't be punished for doing a good job describing a
618:, who initiated the review, withdrew the request for it. However I think that it is clear that LirazSiri felt under duress at that point; also he or she has persisted in criticizing the deletion along with myself at
982:
I made my relationship with the article public from the beginning. The reasons for Guy's lack of neutrality are not public knowledge. I use my real identity to edit
Knowledge (XXG) and make all possible reasons for
689:
merit then just create a new version with reliable independent sources. If you don't, then walk away. otherwise this is just process for the sake of process, which does not sound to me like a good idea at all.
1144:
unofficial Ubuntu derivative of the many listed on
Knowledge (XXG) that satisfies your definition of what is notable for an article in this category so I have a comparable benchmark and can work towards that.
840:
Guy, I distinctly remember you agreed to walk away and hand off your crusade against this article to someone else after it had become clear you had lost your cool and were no longer acting in a neutral manner
1712:, etc. The interesed editors should wait until they have better sources, then make a userspace draft and send it to DRV, or, if the sources are clearly RS this time, recreate directly and put up for AFD.
860:
project and if not, could you please explain your reasoning (e.g., what does qualify) and provide me with just one reference from the many unofficial Ubuntu derivatives listed on Knowledge (XXG) that
1196:
If you don't want the article restored, that means you do want the article to stay deleted, and that means the same result would be accomplished by not having a DRV at all. Am I missing anything?
268:
who may be ill. Ample time has been given, however, to reinstate the page as written. Thank you for reading these comments, and addressing the concerns stated herein. Time is of the essence.
676:
Where debate rose above the level of name calling, the view seems to me to be that the article was spammy, whatever the merits or otherwise of the topic itself. It was an absolutely standard
336:
close. No valid reason given to even hint at why it should be overturned. As for the legal bullying/posturing embedded in generally meandering and incomprehensible text? Good luck with that.
1708:
The closing admin made a correct assesment on the lack of reliable sources. Those sources wouldn't qualify as WP:RS on a AFD, it would be a waste of time, process for the sake of process,
1012:
This is misdirection. I find it hard to believe that you are concerned with wasting time, considering how much time has already been wasted discussing this issue on multiple venues (e.g.,
291:
above, and they need to be addressed, respectfully. The changes to the following pages were made to insure their accuracy, completeness and to reflect what actually happened in history:
1480:
Don't change the subject. Instead of reframing my question in a way that allows you to avoid it, why don't you actually try and spend a few minutes of your time and prove me wrong?
312:, because one group representing the victims contacted me and praised me for writing the article. Sixth, the changes to the Greenspan page involved another article of mine in the
826:
Please note that it is not unanimously agreed that the article was an advertisement, that TurnKey Linux is not notable or that it should be deleted (via whatever process). (e.g.,
661:
I intend to accept community consensus over whether or not Knowledge (XXG) policy indicates that in this instance the article should be listed in an AfD to validate the deletion.
446:
1664:
796:
or contact involved contributors directly for comments. If needed, a userfication of the deleted material can probably be requested from an Admin without the drama of DRV.
1214:
Here we go again... Article was restored to user space, then was redeleted out of bad faith (tends to happen with the deletionists around here). Ask LirazSiri for more.
51:
814:
Here we go again. Hi everyone! Let's try to have a calm, cool discussion this time and avoid threatening language and abrasive personal attacks. As I've stated before
611:
37:
46:
204:, which states in pertinent part: “author was contacted but ignored attempts to discuss issues with him.” That is totally false and may constitute defamation,
1659:
deletion. An acceptable article is written primarily from independent and reliable sources. Having looked at the sources listed above, I see only three that
739:
expected that consensus is going to be overwhelmingly in favor of deletion; so why try to stop that from being demonstrated? It seems to me that even if it
1319:(G11). The normal deletion process involves reaching consensus about the notability or non-notability of an article at the community-level where regular
261:’s Wiki page: (1) “I respectfully request that you promptly reinstate the page as written,” and (2) “we assume that the page has been saved by you.”
1431:
decision to make. We should let Wikipedians with the proper technical background chip in, and most of those don't hang around in deletion review.
264:
Needless to say, we sincerely hope this matter can be resolved amicably. Indeed, these comments were not posted until now, out of respect for
144:
139:
180:
148:
1581:
Has anyone else noticed how, for the purpose of this discussion, notable has been redefined to mean "very important"? I never claimed this
1398:
That's not a personal attack, unless you include yourself in the group I describe (administrators who seem to view regular Wikipedians as
42:
579:
172:
131:
853:
193:
As mentioned below, I first tried discussing the matter with the admininstrator who deleted the page, but there has been no response.
766:
P.S. I'm out of it, going offline now and I probably won't be back until it's all over and done with, so do as you please I guess. --
743:
notable you'd still be able to get it deleted because from the sound of it LirazSiri is the only editor who would think it's notable.
619:
603:
543:
538:
208:, because it was published on the Web at “15:26, 7 February 2009,” and Google and other search engines are showing that note now.
1252:
creator has an admitted conflict of interest. If someone can show a policy violation here, I'd be happy to reconsider; otherwise
715:
if you can't imagine the point of making sure things like this are done in-process instead of out-of-process. Couldn't you just
547:
1720:
is making a namecheck of all new distros, the ubuntu newsletters are doing namechecks of all new Ubuntu software, and postgresql
21:
852:
project and supporting deletion? For example, would any of the following qualify in your opinion as notable references for an
231:. Granted the person may be genuinely ill, and we are sorry about that; however, it does not excuse the last action taken by
1612:
I suspect that no-one else has noticed because it's a product of your imagination. Which is the charitable interpretation. --
571:
530:
1668:
1438:
unofficial Ubuntu derivative of the many covered on Knowledge (XXG) that exceeds TurnKey Linux's notability (or satisfies
1495:
1459:
287:
First, I too am sorry that you are not feeling well, and hope that you feel better. Second, I have read the comments of
913:
767:
719:
to show some respect for me by responding to all that instead of re-using arguments I've already extensively replied to?
662:
94:
1778:
1416:
Postgresql.org's official website linked to our TurnKey PostgreSQL appliance after a discussion on their mailing list.
987:
known. That should work in my favor. Instead, it is used to ram me by a rogue administrator in a systematic pattern of
638:
595:
509:
464:
111:
17:
1617:
1076:
969:
594:
requesting that the article be restored / undeleted. I request that the reviewers indicate, as described in the
918:
1683:. Our nominator is also asking if it merits an AFD discussion. The two UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter sources would
893:
135:
1201:
400:
341:
1320:
1767:
1735:
1700:
1642:
1621:
1603:
1558:
1543:
1525:
1510:
1489:
1475:
1451:
1379:
1345:
1265:
1242:
1223:
1205:
1183:
1080:
1053:
973:
955:
805:
774:
702:
669:
498:
453:
429:
404:
383:
361:
345:
100:
1329:
1731:
801:
425:
127:
76:
992:
1423:
Many sites that are based on user-submissions still exercise editorial control (e.g., livedistro.org).
1613:
1590:) does not contain any sources. Neither does the article on the main commercial vendor in this field
1072:
965:
276:
265:
258:
254:
243:
232:
228:
220:
212:
201:
197:
1017:
712:
650:
1599:
1539:
1506:
1485:
1447:
1341:
1233:
deletion could be upheld by sticking to what's relevant. Such a pitty that's not likely to happen.
1179:
1049:
951:
1328:
Wikipedians outnumber administrators nearly 10,000 to 1. Being an administrator is supposed to be
323:
272:
1758:
1638:
1587:
1554:
1521:
1471:
1375:
1299:
Administrators are not intended to have the authority to circumvent the normal deletion process (
1261:
1167:
937:
792:. If someone feels now that the subject is encyclopaedic, recreate the article in user space and
534:
450:
337:
1107:
646:
637:
Hence the justifications presented for speedy deletion have begun to take on the appearance of
1238:
1219:
354:
327:
1746:
1721:
1709:
1692:
1316:
1304:
1130:
888:
789:
1727:
797:
421:
88:
1676:
1656:
1463:
1312:
1308:
1300:
1279:
1126:
1103:
1041:
1013:
996:
988:
984:
793:
685:
681:
677:
655:
418:
414:
392:
242:
I have great respect for Knowledge (XXG) and all that is done by its volunteers, including
883:
878:
313:
1688:
1652:
575:
176:
1595:
1535:
1502:
1481:
1443:
1337:
1175:
1045:
947:
615:
1675:. The article was not written primarily from those sources, so clearly qualified for
297:
here is an article Naelgele wrote but then he also adds his own personal website to it
1755:
1634:
1582:
1550:
1517:
1467:
1371:
1257:
857:
849:
697:
691:
526:
485:
300:
1697:
1234:
1215:
1166:
If instead of a direct and relevant response to these issues you resort to further
1140:
2. Why don't you take up on the challenge I extended to Guy and Tony. Find me just
1044:
instead of addressing the issue at hand. Please address the issue, not the people.
909:
New TurnKey Linux releases feature dramatic usability improvements (livedistro.org)
631:
495:
304:
288:
280:
247:
216:
564:
165:
1403:
1333:
1197:
396:
379:
219:. Having responded to these arbitrary and capricious actions and statements at
82:
1750:
than trying to continue wasting people's time with long repetitive arguments.
1417:
1171:
200:
is arbitrary and capricious. Equally serious is the deletion note created by
1336:
that has the right to abuse its power to impose its will on the rest of us.
1033:
711:
I think I have explained my purpose here pretty extensively, plus linked to
1125:
1. Why are we having this discussion on DR rather than through the normal
630:
provided cited positive mention of TurnKey Linux within the newsletter of
1325:
1283:
1036:(I stated the reasons for walking away from the previous deletion review
445:
user for making legal threats, a big Wiki no-no. Oh, while we're at it,
1409:
1723:
903:
873:
1516:
deletion to be overturned. My opinion has been registered. Good day.
375:
320:
yesterday," however, we assume that the page has been saved by you.
1311:. It seems to be widely agreed that the article doesn't qualify for
80:– Firing off legal threats is a sure-fire way to have a DRV closed.
1174:
attacks that will be evidence for lack of good faith on your part.
1102:- now your just making words up! Anyhow, It's still a violation of
253:
Last but not least, we are lawyers and we take very seriously what
1718:
1672:
1591:
1399:
1362:
1332:, but some of you seem to regard yourselves as some kind of elite
1134:
908:
898:
649:; I thoroughly agree with the principles articulated in the essay
1133:
process. What is so terrifying about letting regular Wikipedians
927:
1651:
There is a cached version of the userspace page still available
864:
meet your criteria for notability in this area? (for comparison)
1030:"I thought YOU had agreed to walk away from promoting yourself"
923:
904:
Ruby on Rails is running on the Ubuntu box (fromjumpstreet.com)
919:
VirtualBox Multiple TCP port forwarding (blog.nixternal.com)
931:
889:
PostgreSQL Weekly News - December 15 2008 (postgresql.org)
658:
with the topic IMO the article was created in good faith.
1010:"Process for its own sake is a waste of everyone's time"
196:
It is respectfully submitted that what has been done by
1751:
846:
844:
842:
833:
830:
827:
815:
560:
556:
552:
296:
292:
227:
response below), no response has been forthcoming from
161:
157:
153:
598:, whether or not the TurnKey Linux article should be
626:
consensus exists to properly validate the deletion.
211:
Also, important is the exchange of messages between
1442:criteria of notability, which seems to be higher)
1032:- This is blatant nonsense. You are setting up a
1663:qualify as independent and reliable. Those are
590:This is an unusual deletion review in that I am
1066:Revealing that you have a conflict of interest
752:So you've got overwhelming numbers against him
1040:clearly) and attacking me personally against
8:
508:The following is an archived debate of the
110:The following is an archived debate of the
1402:and themselves as part of separate, elite
938:New PostgreSQL appliances (ghidinelli.com)
478:
257:has done. As stated in the posts made at
235:, namely to delete the Web page at issue.
69:
1420:is notable. So is it's official web site.
41:
1406:), in which case it most definitely is.
50:
934:("Alternative to manual installation")
33:
874:PostgreSQL downloads (postgresql.org)
7:
932:mediawiki.org main Installation page
1781:of the page listed in the heading.
928:software appliances (mediawiki.org)
467:of the page listed in the heading.
275:'s response to discussion between
28:
1669:UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter Issue #115
1665:UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter Issue #108
924:TurnKey MediaWiki (mediawiki.org)
1777:The above is an archive of the
1307:) at their pleasure by abusing
463:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
757:much arm-twisting and evasion?
645:This deletion review is not a
614:. The author of the article,
415:the administrators noticeboard
1:
1768:22:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1736:21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1701:19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1643:18:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1622:08:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1604:04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1559:16:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1544:08:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1526:05:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1511:04:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1490:04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1476:03:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1452:03:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1434:I challenge you to find just
1380:03:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1346:01:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1184:11:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1081:08:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1054:03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1016:). I think you are violating
499:18:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
391:and ban the nominator as per
30:
1753:Its getting rather tedious.
1266:17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
1243:15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
1224:15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
1206:15:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
974:13:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
956:12:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
930:, which is linked to from (
806:11:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
775:10:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
703:09:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
670:09:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
596:deletion review instructions
454:15:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
447:DON'T ABBREVIATE AS WIKI!!!!
430:15:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
405:15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
384:14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
362:14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
346:13:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
101:15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
1462:, Articles for Deletion is
1458:If you feel other articles
899:New Distributions (lwn.net)
894:TurnKey Rails on VirtualBox
884:Issue 115 Ubuntu Newsletter
879:Issue 108 Ubuntu Newsletter
366:Looks like Gastroturfing.
1804:
1679:deletion. Accordingly,
1100:"hypocritical meanderings"
494:have come up with here. –
1632:Overturn and list at AFD.
409:Fyi, this entry has been
1784:Please do not modify it.
1687:meet our test for being
515:Please do not modify it.
470:Please do not modify it.
117:Please do not modify it.
43:Deletion review archives
1671:, and the paragraph at
419:policy on legal threats
1363:based on a post by you
512:of the article above.
114:of the article above.
914:ODP Live CD category
1747:virtually no chance
1726:increase a lot). --
1496:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
612:previously reviewed
293:an article he wrote
1588:Software appliance
1494:From your link to
1286:if I ever saw one.
1168:poisoning the well
1106:. Let's keep this
128:Timothy D. Naegele
77:Timothy D. Naegele
1791:
1790:
1691:if tested at the
1557:
1524:
1474:
1460:shouldn't be here
1378:
1264:
1096:"Paranoid piffle"
854:Ubuntu derivative
701:
610:This article was
491:Deletion Endorsed
477:
476:
190:MULTIPLE REASONS
99:
60:
59:
1795:
1786:
1766:
1743:Endorse deletion
1706:Endorse deletion
1689:reliable sources
1681:endorse deletion
1553:
1520:
1470:
1374:
1260:
1254:endorse deletion
962:Endorse deletion
695:
583:
568:
550:
517:
479:
472:
359:
184:
169:
151:
119:
97:
91:
85:
81:
70:
56:
36:
31:
1803:
1802:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1782:
1779:deletion review
1754:
1614:CalendarWatcher
1073:CalendarWatcher
966:CalendarWatcher
926:linked to from
639:policy shopping
569:
541:
525:
513:
510:deletion review
468:
465:deletion review
417:as a breach of
355:
314:American Banker
277:KillerChihuahua
266:KillerChihuahua
259:KillerChihuahua
255:KillerChihuahua
244:KillerChihuahua
233:KillerChihuahua
229:KillerChihuahua
221:KillerChihuahua
213:KillerChihuahua
202:KillerChihuahua
198:KillerChihuahua
170:
142:
126:
115:
112:deletion review
95:
89:
83:
68:
65:9 February 2009
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1801:
1799:
1789:
1788:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1739:
1738:
1714:
1713:
1703:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1607:
1606:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1492:
1455:
1454:
1432:
1424:
1421:
1414:
1407:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1321:WP:Wikipedians
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1246:
1245:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1209:
1208:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1147:Pretty please?
1138:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
977:
976:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
935:
921:
916:
911:
906:
901:
896:
891:
886:
881:
876:
866:
865:
837:
836:
823:
822:
811:
810:
809:
808:
780:
779:
778:
777:
761:
760:
759:
758:
747:
746:
745:
744:
733:
732:
731:
730:
723:
722:
721:
720:
706:
705:
586:
524:
520:
519:
504:
503:
502:
501:
475:
474:
459:
458:
457:
456:
432:
407:
386:
364:
348:
223:’s Wiki page (
187:
122:
121:
106:
105:
104:
103:
67:
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1800:
1787:
1785:
1780:
1775:
1774:
1769:
1765:
1764:
1762:
1757:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1741:
1740:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1724:
1722:
1719:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1704:
1702:
1699:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1584:
1583:free software
1580:
1579:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1532:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1456:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1430:
1425:
1422:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1368:
1364:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
998:
994:
990:
986:
981:
980:
979:
978:
975:
971:
967:
963:
960:
959:
958:
957:
953:
949:
939:
936:
933:
929:
925:
922:
920:
917:
915:
912:
910:
907:
905:
902:
900:
897:
895:
892:
890:
887:
885:
882:
880:
877:
875:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
863:
859:
858:free software
855:
851:
850:free software
847:
845:
843:
839:
838:
834:
831:
828:
825:
824:
820:
816:
813:
812:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
784:
783:
782:
781:
776:
773:
771:
765:
764:
763:
762:
755:
751:
750:
749:
748:
742:
737:
736:
735:
734:
727:
726:
725:
724:
718:
714:
710:
709:
708:
707:
704:
699:
694:
693:
687:
683:
679:
674:
673:
672:
671:
668:
666:
659:
657:
652:
648:
643:
640:
635:
633:
627:
623:
621:
617:
613:
608:
607:
605:
601:
597:
593:
587:
584:
581:
577:
573:
566:
562:
558:
554:
549:
545:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:TurnKey Linux
522:
521:
518:
516:
511:
506:
505:
500:
497:
492:
488:
487:
486:TurnKey Linux
483:
482:
481:
480:
473:
471:
466:
461:
460:
455:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
431:
427:
423:
420:
416:
412:
408:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
387:
385:
381:
377:
374:of author. --
373:
370:deletion and
369:
365:
363:
360:
358:
352:
349:
347:
343:
339:
338:Bali ultimate
335:
332:
331:
330:
329:
325:
321:
317:
315:
311:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
285:
284:
282:
278:
274:
269:
267:
262:
260:
256:
251:
249:
245:
240:
236:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
209:
207:
203:
199:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
167:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
141:
137:
133:
129:
124:
123:
120:
118:
113:
108:
107:
102:
98:
92:
86:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
48:
47:2009 February
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
1783:
1776:
1760:
1759:
1742:
1705:
1684:
1680:
1660:
1649:Keep deleted
1648:
1631:
1628:
1531:"I see spam"
1530:
1499:
1439:
1435:
1428:
1366:
1330:WP:NOBIGDEAL
1253:
1146:
1141:
1099:
1095:
1067:
1037:
1029:
1009:
961:
946:
861:
818:
785:
772:andersnatchâť©
769:
768:❨Ṩtruthious
753:
740:
716:
690:
667:andersnatchâť©
664:
663:❨Ṩtruthious
660:
644:
636:
632:Ubuntu Linux
628:
624:
609:
599:
591:
589:
588:
523:
514:
507:
490:
484:
469:
462:
442:
438:
434:
410:
389:Speedy close
388:
371:
367:
356:
350:
333:
322:
318:
309:
305:User:Crohnie
301:contibutions
289:User:Crohnie
286:
281:User:Crohnie
271:
270:
263:
252:
248:User:Crohnie
241:
237:
224:
217:User:Crohnie
210:
205:
195:
192:
189:
125:
116:
109:
75:
64:
1728:Enric Naval
1693:noticeboard
1404:aristocracy
1334:aristocracy
1282:. That's a
993:WP:Civility
798:Usrnme h8er
786:Endorse CSD
729:notability.
449:Thank you,
443:indef block
422:Usrnme h8er
372:support ban
52:February 10
1745:- There's
1677:WP:CSD#G11
1464:over there
1418:postgresql
1367:definitely
1172:ad hominem
1018:WP:HONESTY
713:WP:PROCESS
682:WP:CSD#G11
651:WP:PROCESS
602:ed in the
310:inter alia
206:inter alia
38:February 8
1657:WP:CSD#A7
1596:LirazSiri
1536:LirazSiri
1503:LirazSiri
1482:LirazSiri
1444:LirazSiri
1338:LirazSiri
1176:LirazSiri
1046:LirazSiri
1034:straw man
948:LirazSiri
686:WP:CSD#A7
616:LirazSiri
1635:Jtrainor
1551:Tony Fox
1518:Tony Fox
1468:Tony Fox
1413:release.
1372:Tony Fox
1326:plebeian
1284:Catch 22
1258:Tony Fox
1108:WP:CIVIL
647:WP:POINT
606:process.
451:MuZemike
411:reported
96:contribs
20: |
1717:lwn.net
1710:WP:BURO
1698:GRBerry
1673:lwn.net
1410:lwn.net
1365:. That
1317:WP:SPAM
1305:WP:PROD
1235:Rfwoolf
1216:Rfwoolf
1131:WP:PROD
790:WP:SNOW
572:restore
544:protect
539:history
496:Spartaz
435:Endorse
368:Endorse
357:yandman
334:support
324:naegele
273:naegele
173:restore
145:protect
140:history
1555:(arf!)
1522:(arf!)
1472:(arf!)
1376:(arf!)
1313:WP:CSD
1309:WP:CSD
1301:WP:AFD
1280:WP:COI
1262:(arf!)
1198:Stifle
1127:WP:AFD
1104:WP:NPA
1042:WP:NPA
1014:WP:VPP
997:WP:AGF
989:WP:NPA
985:WP:COI
794:WP:RfC
678:WP:COI
656:WP:COI
548:delete
441:, and
397:Stifle
393:WP:NLT
149:delete
84:seicer
1592:RPath
1400:plebs
1135:plebs
1068:still
698:Help!
576:cache
565:views
557:watch
553:links
439:close
351:Close
177:cache
166:views
158:watch
154:links
55:: -->
16:<
1732:talk
1653:here
1639:talk
1618:talk
1600:talk
1540:talk
1507:talk
1486:talk
1448:talk
1440:your
1342:talk
1239:talk
1220:talk
1202:talk
1180:talk
1170:and
1098:and
1077:talk
1050:talk
1038:very
1000:eye.
995:and
970:talk
952:talk
862:does
802:talk
600:list
561:logs
535:talk
531:edit
426:talk
401:talk
380:talk
342:talk
328:talk
279:and
246:and
215:and
162:logs
136:talk
132:edit
90:talk
35:<
1763:man
1756:Mr.
1685:not
1661:may
1436:one
1429:our
1315:as
1142:one
856:or
754:and
717:try
692:Guy
620:VPP
604:AfD
592:not
580:AfD
413:to
225:see
181:AfD
22:Log
1761:Z-
1734:)
1667:,
1641:)
1620:)
1602:)
1594:.
1542:)
1509:)
1498::
1488:)
1466:.
1450:)
1344:)
1303:,
1256:.
1241:)
1222:)
1204:)
1182:)
1129:/
1079:)
1052:)
991:,
972:)
954:)
835:).
832:,
829:,
817::
804:)
741:is
622:.
578:|
574:|
563:|
559:|
555:|
551:|
546:|
542:|
537:|
533:|
489:–
437:,
428:)
403:)
395:.
382:)
344:)
299:,
295:,
179:|
175:|
164:|
160:|
156:|
152:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
93:|
87:|
45::
1730:(
1637:(
1616:(
1598:(
1586:(
1538:(
1505:(
1484:(
1446:(
1340:(
1237:(
1218:(
1200:(
1178:(
1149:.
1075:(
1048:(
968:(
950:(
841:(
821:.
800:(
770:ℬ
700:)
696:(
684:/
680:/
665:ℬ
585:)
582:)
570:(
567:)
529:(
424:(
399:(
378:(
376:B
340:(
326:(
283::
186:)
183:)
171:(
168:)
130:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.