Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Property Specification Language (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aranda56 wanted to renominate this. He didn't know how so I'm starting this off. He can fill out the reason himself. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 04:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

first nom I have my doubts about that closing of the first nomination with 4 deletes 1 weak keep and 1 keep so Im relisting and for the same reasons for the first nomination Delete --JAranda | watz sup 04:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend that this nomination be procedurally closed and that a request be made to submit the original discussion to Deletion Review (which, for now, still uses the VfU page and process). The original discussion had 4 clear "delete"s and 2 "keep"s, one self-described as "weak". The concerns raised about the verifiability of the content were never successfully addressed by either "keep" voter. It was closed by Rich Farmbrough as "keep" without further explanation. If we do not choose to make the procedural move, I must argue to delete this article unless and until someone can present specific evidence addressing the concerns raised by Gtabary and DESiegel during the first discussion. Rossami (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Rossami above. If not taken to Deletion Review, delete for the same reasons as listed before. DES ^(talk) 08:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How you take it to deletion review? --JAranda | watz sup 16:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Am I missing something? See e.g. [1] Dlyons493 Talk 10:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Thv's edit on October 11th identified the IEEE standard for this language: thus Gtabary and DESiegel's specific concerns were in fact answered in full five days before Rossami's request above that they be addressed, were they not? Haeleth 19:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I don't see any reason to delete short, but good article. --Thv 07:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Thv. Trollderella 19:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I really don't see what the problem is with this.--Mpeisenbr 01:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.