Sample Page

I was going to close it as delete. None of the Keeps there was able to confirm that the cited book does, in fact, provide significant coverage of the subject. “Keep until we find out” has never been an acceptable argument. Anyway, I’ll leave this up to you. Owen× ☎ 14:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not quite at that point but I don’t mind you reclosing it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 11:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz. I just wanted to let you know about my discussion on the Deletion Review on the article on Chris Chan / CWC. No, I did not act as an off-site influence from a harassment campaign: if anything, I did not act on the campaign (I didn’t even hear about the term “lolcow” until now). I just thought that we could recreate the article and remain WP:BLP compliant (even if it meant WP:TNT). If you thought I was a member of these lowcow users who participated in harassment, all I ask now is forgiveness: forgive me for not realizing the whole thing behind the scenes and for not knowing the whole off-site interference that came prior. ZeroJaguar (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

so what gave you the idea for this right now at the time that another new user was trying to get undeleted some other way? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia talk page should not be deleted as it had a notable discussion and RFC with multiple participants. It could be moved elsewhere, but should not be deleted. Skyshiftertalk 22:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skyshifter – I didn’t see it, but I am ready to believe the deleting administrators that it needed deleting if it was a harassment campaign being coordinated on-Internet off-wiki. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WRT that particular person, that is the safest assumption. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 07:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: I do suggest you work on a draft and present it for approval. I don’t agree, and I don’t think that you agree either. We know that you meant that working on a draft is a less bad idea than just asking to undelete. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i hadn’t realised the full extent of the abuse at that point. Having gone through the background, I subsequently blocked some people and deleted some stuff to get this off Wikipedia. You are right, I no longer stand by that position. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This tends to come up every few years; my assumption is that they think we’ll forget about the previous talks (nevermind the existence of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests). Every time it comes up there’s a brief furore, then it dies down after the main people banging the table for it get 86’d and every draft/DRV/AN thread fails with minimal opposition. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 08:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 3 accounts so far…. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The day is young, and there is a new DRV to address… Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am a rep of Visuality Systems and saw that the AfD resulted in deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Visuality_Systems&action=history. Can the text be moved to the draft space so I can try to improve the sourcing to meet WP:NCORP ? Thanks for your attention, Raffawiz (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

what sources do you have that meet NCORP? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’d suggest the following independent, secondary sources:

1) Nelson, Jane (2000). The Business of Peace: The Private Sector as a Partner in Conflict Prevention and Resolution. International Alert / Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum. ISBN 1899159592.

The book mentions the company’s involvement in the “Peace Infotech” initiative alongside Hewlett-Packard and the Peres Center for Peace that had an impact beyond commercial operations.

Link: https://www.international-alert.org/app/uploads/2021/09/Economy-Business-Peace-EN-2000.pdf

2) Bachmutsky, Alexander (2006). System Design for Telecommunication Gateways. Wiley. ISBN 9781580536257.

This academic & technical book references the company’s NQ software as an alternative to open-source stacks.

Link: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Alexander+Bachmutsky%22+%22Visuality+Systems%22

In addition, there is an official collaboration announced by Microsoft: “Visuality Systems and Microsoft expand Server Message Block collaboration to storage systems” (Microsoft News Center). Although it’s a primary source, during the AfD stage some editors commented that it can be considered as reliable, confirming the technical impact.

Link: https://news.microsoft.com/source/2016/04/12/visuality-systems-and-microsoft-expand-server-message-block-collaboration-to-storage-systems/ Raffawiz (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

were these discussed in the afd? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked: not really, but the editors who voted to delete mentioned “press releases” as questionable sources while the two books are not press releases. BTW, I see that an editor who voted to keep the article also mentioned “Independent coverage in Globes, TheMarker, International Alert, Microsoft, and Wind River.” Raffawiz (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, getting an opinion and will then decide whether to give you back the content in a draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

well, I guess you got your response Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @K.e.coffman: & @Oaktree b: could you look at the above sources please and let me have your opinion? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for the ping. Source 1 is a one-sentence mention. Source 2 is a one-line mention. Microsoft is a vendor press release. BTW, drafts versions of article have been deleted in the past as G11 / resubmitted to AFC repeatedly, to the point of being deleted at MFD: log. There’s nothing that meets WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH here; not sure how it got through AFC that one time. Hope this is helpful. —K.e.coffman (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I echo what is stated above, neither is acceptable for sourcing to show notability, beyond confirming the “thing” exists. We need much more than that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Spartaz, K.e.coffman and Oaktree b for taking the time to review those sources and for digging into the article history. I just wanted to clarify that I have joined Visuality Systems in 2023, I was unaware of those previous attempts and deletions, and I tried to act transparently under Wikipedia’s COI guidelines. Raffawiz (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz, I don’t know if you’re aware of this but a false claim was made against me just before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Webb was closed and when I attempted to correct it I was reversed claiming I missed my chance since I wasn’t online. This seems unreasonable to me and I think an exception should be made and made a request here: Request change to discussion after unjustified false claim made Thanks for your input, what ever it is. Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

my read is that you accidentally edited the discussion while logged out. Are you saying that you were not either temporary account? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not, I went through this with both George Ho and the editor that reversed it. Those accounts weren’t me, and I already said I wouldn’t object if they checked that. There were over a dozen comments or edits from one account which wasn’t me. Furthermore that’s not what George Ho clearly implied. Even if that were the case would any reasonable person try to create rules so strictly enforced that it provides incentives for smears or last minute complaints? Would anyone that makes a mistake object to correcting it if they’re acting in good faith?

P.S. I didn’t see this comment when I left the last one. Zacherystaylor (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was started at a different location. I don’t know why people want to make it difficult when I was more active this rarely happened. Zacherystaylor (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Were you going to answer my question? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I indicated above I didn’t see that comment until after leaving my other comment, perhaps a computer glitch that didn’t reload it. Zacherystaylor (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

probably, but now you see that I immediately understood what had likely happened and could clearly see no foul, maybe you don’t have a slight that that you need to respond to anymore. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I don’t know if you checked the discussion but the issue appears to have been resolved, although another anonymous account seems to have raised doubts, but that is probably resolved as well. Have a good day. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Source assessment/CWC. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mention, first and foremost, that I entirely agree with your deletion of that page per its hosting of BLP-violating content. What I came here to inquire about is this — do you believe that blocking the editor who created it (Cerrathegreat) was necessary? Once again, I certainly believe the removal was thoroughly warranted, but perhaps they could have received a stern warning (even an only warning) about BLP and harassment instead? Nonetheless, thank you for taking that page down; no need to keep that sort of disgusting enabling of a particularly distressing, vicious harassment campaign around. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at the DRV. I blocked the account because they are a single purpose account whose sole purpose was to promote the publication of a harassing article and perpetuate the victimisation of a highly vulnerable individual who is the target of years of vicious online abuse. Such an account has no place here. You might find this comment as the previous DRV relevant too Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing — I saw that they had actually previously been given an only warning about this exact situation a few years back by Ohnoitsjamie, but they had removed the warning from their talk page. Deserving block, I’d say, on top of what you note. In fact, given this extra context, I’d say Pppery was almost too lenient in not indeffing those accounts right there. But as a non-admin, what do I know… JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a tricky thing to balance. I think it was easier for me to do it, as I did it off the back of deleting the material under BLP. Just dropping in and throwing banhammers might not get the same acceptance. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spartaz, I understand that the AfD for World Economic Journal was closed as delete. I am not asking for the article to be restored directly to article space. Could you please provide a copy of the deleted article in my userspace or draftspace, if appropriate? I would like to work on a neutral version and look for independent reliable sources before considering any future submission. Thank you. Robert Gubernatorov (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i have moved it to draft Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Spartaz. Robert Gubernatorov (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may have been a valid consensus available rather than a procedural close. The sock !voteds are hatted, thus potentially discounted except on editor one vote. You may disagree, and I don’t feel strongly about it either way. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m more of a fruit of the poisoned tree type and voiding a deceptive afd is the best outcome for me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer. The article itself is poor, but person is just notable. The outcome is thus fair and equitable 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m curious how you came to the conclusion that there was a consensus for a redirect to an article on another band, given the very limited comments on this option. Could you explain your thinking? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the nomination requested restoration of the redirect and noone wanted to keep the article. I could have deleted of course but DRV has recently trended to supporting ATDs and restoring a longstanding redirect is surely better than leaving a gap that could tempt a recreation. The unsourced text has been removed from sight and if I closed as delete I can’t see that a redirect is not a reasonable final outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that reads like a Wikipedia:Supervote to me. I suggest you self-revert. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

so basically you want me to delete it and then when I put in the redirect the functional outcome is exactly the same? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I want you to do is follow the correct procedure regarding AfD closures. Redirecting a non-notable subject to an article which improperly promotes said subject (which is clearly the case here, given the proportion of the Blackhouse (band) article which discusses the Psyclones) appears contrary to the consensus at AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Spartaz’s interpretation of the community opinion at deletion reviews to supporting Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and strongly support the close as redirect given the discussion at the AfD.

I provided significant coverage in reliable sources at Talk:Psyclones#Sources. Psyclones is a notable band that should have a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

a standalone article is definitely not part of any consensus but I appreciate your confirmation of how DRV looks at things like this Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 June 13#13 June 2026

Having pondered the last couple of days I have self referred myself to DRV for a steer Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]