User talk:Hm2k/psyBNC

Improvement
"The result was delete. The discussion demonstrates convincingly that coverage of the subject is superficial, not independent and/or unreliable. Userfication declined because what the article needs is sourcing, and that does not require userfication. Sandstein 06:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)"
 * From Articles_for_deletion/PsyBNC_(2nd_nomination)

In conclusion, it claims a lack of coverage and that independent and reliable sources are needed. Once addressed, a deletion review can be requested. --Hm2k (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review
In light of recent evidence at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf I feel that this AfD is the result of a targeted effort to remove pages that tothwolf has been involved in.

I see 5 keep requests and 4 delete requests, yet the article was still removed. The delete requests were made by JBsupreme, Joe Chill, and Theserialcomma, plus Miami33139 who raised the AfD who are all clearly involved in a case against tothwolf, which is clearly a COI and does not assume good faith to those impartial to this case. If these were ignored, the article would have been kept.

In addition to this I will address the other issues raised by the AfD. psyBNC is clearly a notable software application, it's inclusion in Freebsd's ports is enough to suggest this. There are over 12 references which does not signify a lack of coverage. After reviewing the sources again, I am satisfied that they are in fact independent and reliable. Despite this, a lack of reliable sources does not signify lack of notability.

The next step will be to raise a deletion review request.

--Hm2k (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have submitted the deletion for review here: Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_23 --Hm2k (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * With regards to Joe Chill, he !votes delete on a lot of software articles and I think at the time his AfD editing may have unfortunately just overlapped with that of Miami33139. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence for my brief take on it. On the other hand, with the other three editors, it seems pretty hard to refute the diffs I included on the Evidence subpage showing the overlapping patterns. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the closing admin of the DRV didn't even check the DRV, else they would know the page was already userfied:
 * Deletion Endorsed. If nom still needs this userfied please drop me a note on my talk page – Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 

Just so you all know and clearly nobody on the DRV reads this anyway, I will be raising a DRV again soon, but this time with the claim that the article is now up to standard, which it is and should be allowed to be relisted. This DRV did not address these issues. --Hm2k (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review (again)
I came across this article again recently and I couldn't understand why there isn't a psyBNC article already and/or why this hasn't already been moved.

I'm satisfied that the article here now deals with the issues raised in the deletion nomination and is ready to go live.

I have reached out to Sandstein seeking his approval to go ahead with another deletion review, but he hasn't replied yet.

--Hm2k (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As per Sandstein's advice, a DRV isn't suitable at this time. I have decided to follow a different path and focus on the BNC (software) article instead. --Hm2k (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)