Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 30

< September 29	October 1 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

30 September 2006

TaskJuggler

I believe the deletion of the TaskJuggler article was a mistake. It is a widely used software. On UNIX/Linux it is _the_ MS Project equivalent. The project description language that was developed for the program is a major innovation to break out of the limitations that commonly used GANTT chart editors impose on their users. It is shipped with almost all major Linux distributions and has a Freshmeat popularity ranking of around 830. It has been covered multiple times by the international Linux press. Articles in English can be found at [1] and [2]. So, I kindly ask you to restore the article again. There is an equivalent articles in the German Wikipedia as well.

Albert Piddington (Australian politician)

There was a mass deletion of stub articles for Australian politicians, apparently because they were cookie-cutter stubs, which is not grounds for deletion. I believe that each of the politicians is or was an elected member of a state or national legislature, and hence would normally be considered notable, even if they are no longer in office. I am asking that the following articles be restored, together with any others that were deleted at the same time. Information on them ought to be available from the legislative body to which they belong or used to belong and from the Australian news media.

--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion. All of these people are undoubtedly notable, but all of these pages were worse than nothing. Someone mass created hundreds of nanostubs, which consisted of exactly the same page with only the names changed, which told people absolutely nothing they didn't already know. In many cases, it wasn't even clear which person was being referred to without further research. I retained numerous pages where someone had later added information as basic as what party they were from, or what years they were in office, or even what electorate they represented - information that actually helped us work out who the person was (any two of these three would suffice). Without this, however, they were worse than nothing, and I thus speedied them as "no context". I have no doubt that they'll return someday (chances are that I'll ultimately write them), but please don't reinstate this crap. Rebecca 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted I agree with Rebecca, these article had basically no content, and provided no real context to actually be useful for later expansion. Since most of these people are presumably living (but who can tell since the articles contain no dates or other points of reference), these also create issues with BLP that are not acceptable given the hit and run nature of the stubs.--Peta 06:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted -- agree. no content, other than the subjects name, and their role in parliament. Simply a reprhasing of the title with a one-liner tidbit. - Longhair\^talk 08:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I agree with Rebecca, Peta and Longhair. These aren't articles or valid stubs. Stub guidelines recommend a minimum of 3-10 sentences for stubs, but these are just single sentences that, except for the name and house, are identical to each other. There's nothing stopping anyone from writing articles on these politicians, but we don't need 40-whatever near-identical single sentences to do that. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. TruthbringerToronto|:...they were cookie-cutter stubs, which is not grounds for deletion. Wrong. From the {{db-empty}} template: It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever (CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3). Someone can write actual stubs which include actual information, but these ain't them. --Calton | Talk 12:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, do not appear to meet any of the speedy criteria listed above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted but Allow re-creation by TruthbringerToronto or anyone who wants to write real articles about them. Sometimes, in deletion debates about marginal topics, somebody says "Yeah, well what if somebody used cut-and-paste to create dozens of stubs about every [whatever the topic is]? While usually nobody expects that to really happen, it seems this is an authentic case. Stubs of one sentenece or less are generally speediable under A1 anyway, and cut-and-paste shenanigans should not be encouraged. If they are notable and verifiable, create real articles about them using verifiable sources. Dozens of articles that just say x is a y make us all look bad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]