Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 29: Difference between revisions

Administrator instructions

Help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:48, 8 October 2010

< 2010 September 28

Deletion review archives: 2010 September

2010 September 30 >

29 September 2010

D'Penguineers (closed)

D'Penguineers – Speedy undone by nearly unanimous assent here; any editor is free to AfD the restored article if desired. – Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The article appeared to have been speedily deleted without much review. The reason given was that the notability had not been established to ANY extent; however, I believe it had been to a extent that would NOT warrant speedy deletion. Please undelete the article, and maybe submit it to AfD for discussion. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 14:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. Number one, can you tell us what the assertion of notability was? Secondly it appears you asked the closing admin about deletion after you filed the DrV. Let's wait a bit and see what they have to say first. As the directions at the top of DRV say, you really should talk to the closing admin first and give them a chance to respond. Hobit (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lede's second sentence is "The D’Penguineers have won multiple awards at the regional and international levels...", which (in my opinion) is a sufficient declaration of notability that A7 shouldn't have applied. Just my two cents. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability was established in several ways, including, among other things, that bestselling author Neal Bascomb wrote a book on them that will be released in 2011. It can be argued that those arguments were insufficient; but on those grounds, it should have been nominated for discussion, and NOT speedily deleted. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 16:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted although, strictly speaking, I don't endorse the deletion as written. It's a bit of a grey area, but there was a very weak claim of notability so PROD would have been better. That said, there is absolutely no chance that this would pass an AFD as written, and undeleting it just to inevitable re-delete it in 7 days as purely a bureaucratic exercise would not benefit anyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a fairly successful FRC team, they are having a book written about them, and their director is a MacArthur fellow. I believe it has a strong chance of passing an AfD. It arguably does not meet any of the criteria in WP:DEL#REASON. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 16:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Horrible A7 with assertion of multiple awards in competition, there's absolutely no way this is a good A7. I've restored it with {{tempundelete}}, but will probably come back in a couple of hours and just restore the article to its previous state if no one strenuously objects. The nominator and the deleting admin both need to re-read what WP:CSD says about A7; I myself have misunderstood this in the past, but I have a hard time seeing how anyone who'd actually read the article lead could have deleted it as A7. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at AfD Not an A7. I agree with Andrew that as it stands it's got no chance at AfD, but that's part of why we have 7 days--sources may spring into existence in that time. Hobit (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn-Multiple award wins, while not proving notability, easily qualify as an assertion of notability, which is all that is relevant in regard to A7.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Restore and possibly list at AfD. The editors of that page were not given much of a chance to appeal, much less substantiate the article in the face of concerns. I guess time zone issues were what ultimately got in the way. As I already mentioned, the notability should be established relatively easily. I can provide a long WP:N argument to keep this article...and I am sure there are others who would agree with me. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You really don't need to keep restating your case; you've already given your two cents three times so far in addition to opening the deletion review. You can take a step back now. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Haha sorry. I didn't have anything boldable before. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 15:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- clear assertion of notability, should not have been A7. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – definitely asserts importance to even satisfy our basic notability standards. –MuZemike 03:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or at the least list at AFD if one feels that the awards are not notable enough. However, I must point to this book that is out that documents this robotic team. –MuZemike 03:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn — Director of organization is a MacArthur Fellow and the team itself has won multiple awards at both regional and international events as previously stated. Qsito (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Bookland (closed)

Bookland – AFD decision endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

In the AfD, there was one argument for deletion due to lack of notability (mine), two arguments to merge due to lack of notability, one 'argument' to keep which was completely unsubstantiated despite significant dialogue, and one argument too keep which provided one or two vaguely reliable sources.
The closing admin's statement observed that the "need for more independent and reliable sources to establish notability [is] noted, and it appears that other editors are locating those." However, not a single third party reliable source has been added to the page before or since: since it is completely devoid of such, it transparently fails the general notability guideline, and I therefore consider the decision to have been misguided, and I wonder whether we should consider changing it?
(The closing admin advised me to bring the issue to this forum.) ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 08:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I'm unclear why the sources provided are only vaguely reliable. The one I can fully read [1] is an academic journal and provides significant coverage. Could you explain your issue with it? That no one has added the material to the article is non-ideal, but we don't delete things based on the current state of the article. If it offends then you, like everyone else, are welcome to add the sources to the article. Hobit (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the article is justified, and I agree that no further refs are really needed. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me which sources meeting the GNG are currently in the article? ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage" (emphasis added). It doesn't say the current article needs have said coverage in it... Hobit (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So please point me towards the "significant coverage" which the topic has received. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 07:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD has a number of sources. One I specifically mention in my !vote above [2]. That is easily significant coverage. Hobit (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail." The only direct reference to Bookland as a concept (as opposed to the EAN as a concept) is the following passage: Their efforts resulted in what came to be known as the "Bookland EAN" bar coding standard, which gets its name for what may appear to be an unusual reason. "Since the book industry produces so many products", [sic] a trade source explains, "it has been designated as a country unto itself and has been assigned its own EAN prefix. That prefix is 978 and it signifies Bookland, that wonderful, fictitious country where all books come from". [sic] This is clearly not significant coverage. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 12:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly more. Extended quote placed on talk page. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3] is also significant coverage, [4] has a whole page. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse although, keep in mind you can still merge it if you feel like it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion was not an option given the !votes, and merge is still a valid editorial option not needing AfD/DRV oversight. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Existence of reliable sources was shown in the AfD, and therefore the closing admin was correct not to delete it, even if those sources haven't yet been copied into the article. (This, of course, doesn't preclude a merge to EAN.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse, as I did not know about this and it is interesting. he he. Turqoise127 18:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse-The close was a valid interpretation of the consensus. As others have mentioned above, the fact that this close doesn't proscribe a merge doesn't preclude one, especially if consensus for that action exists.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The close was valid, no view on a merge. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have gone for a no-consensus closure myself, but it has an equivalent outcome. Per others above, you can still merge. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Artist vs. Poet (closed)

Artist vs. Poet – Restored by unanimous consensus; no need to keep this open. – T. Canens (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The article was deleted via AfD, then recreated, and G4'ed by the closing admin of the AfD. The new article made claims to notability that the original AfD could not account for, because they happened since its closure; the group received mention in paper mags such as Alternative Press and reached a Billboard chart. The article included references at the time of G4'ing, and as such should have been ineligible for a G4. The closing admin asked that I come here to recover the article. Requesting Restoration of the G4'ed version. Chubbles (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per new references. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a link to the sources in question for the non-admins out here? The use of the word "mention" implies they could be trivial in which case G4 might be reasonable. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They're in the article, which has been deleted...that's why I came here. I didn't add all the sources myself, nor did I create the article. The Billboard data is available here. Chubbles (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm at it, here's Dallas Observer, Interview with Music Remedy, Absolutepunk review, one of several pieces of coverage Alternative Press has given the band, and, most curiously, WonkaVision, a paper publication discussing the band's Wiki page from before the initial AfD. Chubbles (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore still not clear what was in the article at the time of the G4, but clearly if all these sources are added we've got a solid article where notability would be at the least be better than it was at the time of the deletion. I'd actually go so far as to say notability is clearly established with these sources... Hobit (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore doesn't look hugely notable to me, but I'm always willing to give Chubbles the benefit of the doubt. Dude knows music. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore/allow recreation-New references seem to address the complaints in the original AfD. A second AfD is, of course, an option if someone feels so inclined.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_September_29&oldid=389483455"

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 <!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
+Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~      -->
-Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<Nomacorc, LLC>|xfd_page=<Nomacorc, LLC>|reason=Hi, The Nomacorc, LLC page was deleted after I made two factual additions to the article citing a Wall Street Journal article. After discussing this with Fastily (adminstrator that deleted the page), he said that he would reinstate the page without my two editions (see discussion below). However, it looks like Fastily retired without actually following through. Can this page please be reinstated. Thank you. Here is my conversation with Fastily: "Hi Fastily,
-I see that you deleted the Nomacorc, LLC page immediately after I added two facts with direct references to The Wall Street Journal. You cited that the page was "advertising" or "promotion." Can I ask how two facts that have been added straight from the Wall Street Journal flagged the entire article for deletion?
-Best regards, Capagody (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Capagody
-User_talk:Capagody#Re:Deleted_Nomacorc.2C_LLC -FASTILY (TALK) 19:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC
-Re: Nomacorc LLC
-Hey Fastily,
-Thanks for letting me know, however I didn't create the page, I simply added two edits to it. Is there a way to reinstate the page without my edits?
-Please advise. Capagody (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Capagody
-Without your edits? Yes, there is, but the revision of the page before your edits is still somewhat promotional in nature. That version is marginally passable, so I'll restore it if you like. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
-Thanks, Fastily. I would greatly appreciate it if you would restore the page without my edits. Once it is reinstated, do you suggest that I edit some of the content of the original page to make it less promotional in nature? Thanks againCapagody (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Capagody
-Fastily, will you restore the original article without my edits as you mentioned above? Thanks, Capagody (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Capagody." >}} ~~<noinclude>Capagody</noinclude>~~      -->
 ====[[:D'Penguineers]] (closed)====
 {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"