Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 31

31 January 2012
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
 * Verismic Software – Speedy deletion overturned. May be nominated at AfD at editorial discretion. – T. Canens (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

The article Verismic Software had been approved through Articles for Creation process and then deleted by user:fastily. The editor gave the reason as G11, but everything stated in the article has a reliable outside source and is written in a factual tone. I placed a message on Fastily's talk page but they are out until Feb. 8th. I then placed a message on the admin who originally approved the article and they suggested I post a request here. Not sure what else to explain? Thanks, HeidiSmith (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Restore. The article was not written in a promotional tone; it appeared more or less factual and neutral. The G11 criteria are not met, nor are any other speedy deletion criteria that I can see. Is it only me or do we recently see a lot of questionable speedy deletions by on this board?   Sandstein   21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Restore per Sandstein. Fastily's been very active in deletion of late, and I've been assuming that the high number of Fastily-related DRVs probably has more to do with the amount of work he's done than with a decline in quality.— S Marshall  T/C 22:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As of late, Fastily has done more deletion work than any other admin. Almost all of his work on Wikipedia is deletion related. Given the amount of work he does in the area, it is unsurprising that he has more actions brought up at DRV. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  04:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review   DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Restore - the article as it stands is rather brief, but it's well-sourced so there's scope for improvement.  Bettia talk 10:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Take to AFD as it wasn't a G11. But reading at the sources there's clear notability concerns. Source 1 is a type of press release by the creator of the Company. Source three is a press release and the rest of the sources are passing mentions, or don't mention the subject at all like . The only source that may be reliable is this, but honestly and most of these local business news sites content is press releases, which this article sounds like. Secret account 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * List at AFD. This did not meet G11, because while there was clearly a promotional intent, the article is not solely promotional. However, per Secret it is questionable whether notability is established by the sources, which all seem to have problems of independence and/or lack of substantial coverage.  This needs scrutiny at AFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Secret, Verismic IS mentioned on this page, it is the one of the bullets above the fold 'Sparxent's Verismic Software' and I think being named one of InfoWorld's top 15 Green IT projects of 2011 is pretty notable. Not exactly a 'passing mention'. HeidiSmith (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the company didn't win the top 15 green projects award. The Boulder Valley School District was the winner with a small passing mention they used the software, so that is misleading. The other source I just saw the mention, and that's clearly not a claim of notability, or a significant mention of the company. Secret account 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Overturn, list at AFD if desired As already argued by the people above: not a G11 candidate, but unclear whether the subject is notable. Yoenit (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should get rid of this page right away, it's ridiculous, come on, why even thinking if it should be in the Wikipedia or not? It lacks decent sources and is unreliable. Seriously. Wikipedia's IQ is dropping by the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutshell1111 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)