Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:08, 2 September 2006

< August 31	September 2 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

1 September 2006

Futuristic Sex Robotz

FSR deserves an article; currently 38,700 matches on Google, also recently featured in Electronic Gaming Monthly. Apparently the initial article was written poorly, and at a time when FSR was not as popular. Should be okay'd for rewriting! Mystere 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Rewrite in userspace, Keep protected until a new version is ready for review. ~ trialsanderrors 07:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, for the love of god. Meets what it may not have met originally, and there is absolutely no reason to hold it back anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electronic sports games

Was discussed a month and a half ago here: [1]. Debate clearly is not no consensus, and it is a tremendously misleading category name. Should be deleted. Phil Sandifer 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then renominate it at Categories for Deletion. A Deletion Review discussion is unnecessary. Rossami (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freaklüb

This stub article was speedy deleted on 1st August by Lectonar, with no debate or discussion or notification. Reason given in edit log: 'deleted', failing the speedy deletion administrator guidelines of giving "a specific reason for speedy deletion" and "Admins should specify the deletion criteria in their edit summary and should notify the article's creator about the deletion, where applicable". In an email to myself today when I questioned why it was speedy deleted, he gave "it met, IMHO (and the administrators have got a certain disgression here), the Wikipedia:criteria for speedy deletion, failing the policies of Wikipedia:Noticeability and Wikipedia:Veryfiability".

I don't believe the article met criteria for speedy deletion. The only one of the many criteria it might be argued it met would be 'Unremarkable people'. However, Lectonar's assertion about 'noticeability' [sic] actually falls into the non-criteria for speedy deletion, i.e. a false reason for speedy deletion; 'Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject"'.
I believe the subject of the article to be notable. Freaklüb are a well-known (in graffiti circles) graffiti artist collective, who have been featured in several books about graffiti, e.g. Street Art: The Spray Files (their work is on the cover). A quick search on Google for freaklub or freaklüb verifies their notability.
Verifiable. I don't recall what sources I used in the article. It would have only been online ones, although I would now add in some print sources too (didn't know how to do this at time I created article). If all that was needed was some more verifiable sources, using {{fact}} would have been enough, not a speedy deletion.

So, I propose the article be undeleted, I'll add some more sources and make sure their notability is asserted. --duncan 10:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and undelete Seems a pretty contested speedy. I have no objection to this being AfDd after the undeletion. --ais523 11:26, 1 September 2006 (U T C)
I have no objection against recreation with the mentioned source. Not many grafitti artists can claim to have their work included as the focus of a book. But the article that was deleted was unencyclopedic and unverifiable in nature. I don't think the previous article is worth undeleting. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Deletion was incorrectly done. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy, article made no credible claim to notability. Allow recreation of new article with sources and credible claim to notability; allow undeletion if this will save significant time. Just zis Guy you know? 15:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, send to AfD. I don't care if the article only said "Freaklüb is a bunch of graffiti artists". The deleting admin clearly shows no knowledge of WP:CSD. ~ trialsanderrors 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list on AfD does not appear to clearly meet A7 and should be fully aired. Eluchil404 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy at time of deletion; I stay by my decision; no claim to notability, was not verifiable with the links provided. I don't mind if this is afd'ed or recreated with the (now) enhanced content. Lectonar 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability is not a speedy criterion. The only places where verifiability comes into play is A1 - no context (where verification cannot be undertaken) and hoaxes, which are expressly not speediable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-deletion case A7 should be used with more than a little caution but even by a very conservative interpretation, this article (as it stood at the time of deletion) qualified under that case. The entire contents at that time read "Freaklüb are a street art collective based in Barcelona, Spain. Formed in 1998, they now consist of two core artists: G1 and Empty. They are best known for Aunara, an orange-haired girl. The group splited up in 2005." plus one image and one link. There is no assertion of notability in that content. The evidence presented in this discussion does qualify as an assertion of notability and justifies an undeletion although an AFD discussion may be appropriate to bring closure to the question. Rossami (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 * Then renominate it at Categories for Deletion.  A Deletion Review discussion is unnecessary.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 20:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Funkitron]]====
-Was deleted once per prod, then after an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funkitron|AFD listing]] of which at least one comment was faulty. I found at least one source [http://www.gamezebo.com/2006/04/gamezebo_interviews_dave_walls.html] that could at least partly verify the article. I've seen at least one of their games featured on Shockwave.com too. Since the previous deletion discussions did not yield sufficient participation and since I've found a source, I would like the deletion of this article to be reviewed. (I'm nominating this for the page creator who doesn't know he should ask for review instead of recreating the article. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 12:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-*If the article that is still on WP mirrors is the same as the one that was deleted, it seems like a clear '''endorse and rewrite''' to me. Not much of an article, not much of a discussion, not much evidence offered on either side. Good enough to start from scratch. Closure was valid. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted).  The core question in the AFD discussion was whether this company met the recommended [[WP:CORP|inclusion criteria]].  No new evidence has been presented either in the AFD discussion nor here that would convince me that the AFD decision should be overturned.  One interview by an on-line gaming site does not constitute "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."  <br>In addition, the version created between the prod-deletion and the AFD decision was a copyright violation of the [http://www.funkitron.com/corporate/index.php company's website] and could not be restored even if the AFD decision were overturned.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Freaklüb]]====