Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 21

TestLink (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I expect that the article was deleted by people who know nearly nothing about software testing or on request of some SW company. I added explanation there: [1] Havlatm (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - No reason was given to suspect the closer's rationale was improper. Havlatam is simply assuming bad faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, despite inappropriate comments by the editor who opened this review. The !votes split evenly, making this presumptively a "no consensus" case, and few of the !voters on each side made nongeneric comments, again indicating no consensus. I see the IBM developer link cited by Downsize43 as sufficient justification for keeping the article, absent a consensus otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and speedy close There is no rationale to overturn the AfD, which was obviously closed correctly. SPA accounts were ignored, ILIKEIT votes were ignored, and sources provided were evaluated by other editors who still said delete. Leaving this open is a waste of time. It is a waste of time leave process open for accounts that want to remain willfully ignorant about basic Wikipedia guidelines. Miami33139 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure The closing admin correctly discarded "keep" votes based on WP:GHITS and WP:ILIKEIT. Another "keep" voter's argument was promptly discredited. The "delete" voters had the stronger arguments, and it looks like reliable sources were not added to the article before it was deleted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Nominator is not assuming good faith and has not presented a valid reason to overturn. There are also conflict of interest concerns based on their comment in the request they link to. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own close According to the notification on my talk page I took money to delete this article. IN fact the opposing side made highly detailed contributions that demonstrated thorough attempts to find sources and the keep arguments were neither policy based not anywhere near good enough to rebut the well founded policy arguments made by the delete side. Consensus is not nose counting, its assessing arguments against policy and by that basis I had absolutely no basis on which to close this in any other way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]