Endorse Clear A7, all references from website owner's own site, apart from Alexa rank - but that is misleading, as the Alexa link given is for ismywebsite.com (i.e. all subdomains of it - this website is just one of those); and putting the article name into alexa gives nothing. Incidentally, the main claim to notability is that the website is not blockable by school filtering systems, but if the website owner thinks that logging on from a shifting IP will achieve that, they're going to have a bit of a surprise. Edit: I note that the author has now been blocked for repeated recreation under different names. Black Kite (t)(c)12:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the article and it's significance and important ISN'T clear, in the sense wikipedia means it even less so. Has this been written about in a non-trivial way by reliable third party sources? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. The only references out there are; Wikipedia, the website itself, the site's Facebook page and a couple of the IP login pages. And that's it. Black Kite (t)(c)13:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I notice the lister here has now been blocked, the other article they've created Mexicos Got Talent I've listed that as a hoax, since the references used were broken (the official website being a parked domain, a new link being broken and to a tv products company not a news site, the facebook fans being empty etc.) can't believe the series winner receives a burrito... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I have a new accurate version of this article and I would like to publish it, but it is protected and can be only done by administators.
Can any administrator verify my article and guide me if something is not right? I would like to help and be helped to increase the wikipedia.Marj9543(talk) 13:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the article wasn't deleted for being "inaccurate", it was deleted for lack of notability. Unless you can prove that things have changed substantially in the less than a month period since then, rewriting it isn't going to help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind14:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! Marj9543(talk) 9:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
C.Fred, surely this is the correct venue for the request?
Endorse my deletion. Nothing has changed since the AfD closed only three weeks ago. The new draft contains no extra evidence of notability - the three PDFs referenced do not mention the product at all. — RHaworth(talk·contribs)16:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another references added: University of Surrey book talking about Sironta. Tamperee University link added, DEN4DEK project links added, OPAALS projects PDFs added, all of them referencing Sironta. More external links added. In my opinion, this article (User:Marj9543/Sironta) has the needed notability and references to be republished. Waiting to some admin to endorse it. --Marj9543 (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Marj9543 (talk·contribs): Please provide the specific page numbers of the PDFs that you believe establish notability. Because most of the references are PDFs, some of which are very lengthy (over 200 pages), it is difficult to evaluate them to determine if they are reliable and have in-depth coverage of the Sironta.
The PDF I checked did not establish notability because it didn't seem to be a reliable source. On page 36 of the pdf (non-PDF version for easier viewing), the source says: "Our information about Sironta is from the Sironta development wiki, discussions during OPAALS conference in London in May 2008 and online discussions with the developers of Sironta." This doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In strict DRV terms, my answer is endorse, because I'm simply not seeing the sources that take this over the bar for WP:N. But considering this is free and open source software that conforms to Wikipedian ideals, I think it behoves us to be a little more helpful to the nominator than just parroting "Endorse" at him. So to Marj9543, I'd say that the fact that Sironta isn't notable enough for its own article doesn't mean that all information about Sironta should be removed from Wikipedia. It just means that Sironta shouldn't have an article of its own. So, for example, it may be appropriate to add Sironta to the List of free and open source software packages—assuming it meets all the relevant criteria—in which case, this article title might reasonably be converted to a redirect. Or if that doesn't work, there will likely be another appropriate list to which Sironta can be added, because individual items on a list do not have to be notable in their own right.—S MarshallTalk/Cont13:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
