Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 28

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

28 August 2006

VeryLiberating

This article was deleted because the administrative reviewer said it was not noteworthy. I would argue against that as it is referenced in multiple other articles but does not have a formal write-up of it's own. In fact in the PostSecret history page, certain aspects associated with VeryLiberating were editted out by a reviewer with the remark item needs its own article.

There are portions of the article that should be removed as they are irrelevant, but the article as a whole should not be removed and locked. Perhaps it should be transferred to user space until a better write-up has been submitted for approval. SoftBlue 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I speedied this under CSD A7, since it made no attempt to establish notability for the website. The article comprised of three sentences, a list of 'features' (such as '1 of 20 random Banners at the top of each page'), and an external link. This seemed very much like spam to me. There's also no chance this website meets WP:WEB, so I believe the snowball clause applies here. The user was informed that we don't appreciate spam here, but then reposted the article, so I had to salt it. So, yeah, to make it clear: Wikipedia is not a device to advertise your website. - ulayiti (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply I am fairly new to Wikipedia and did not realize you had sent a notice, I thought I had made an error creating it and therefore I reposted it. I am not using Wikipedia as a device to advertise, I saw that multiple other articles linked to a non-existant article so I attempted to create one to better define and explain the site. I understand that some of the content I added is not relevant to the purpose of Wikipedia and I would gladly remove it, however I don't think the entire article should be removed. SoftBlue 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardware Store (song)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardware Store (song)

This article was nominated for deletion, and it was decided that there was no consensus. However, the Delete votes had Wikipedia policies behind their reasoning, but the Keep votes did not have very strong arguments. So I think the action should have been delete. Joltman 19:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. I concur the deletion arguments were much stronger. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/Delete. Deletion arguments are stronger, and songs, with very rare exceptions, are not noteworthy. --Improv 06:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). At least one person in the debate argued for a rewrite. While very few songs deserve a stand-alone encyclopedia article, we can afford to give this a little time to see what the user can make of it. If the article is unimproved after a reasonable time (a few months), we can always renominate it and delete it then. Rossami (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Technically this is a Delete (3 Keep and 1 Delete arguments are crap) but I recommend Redirect to Poodle Hat. This way the editor who opted to keep and expand can use the edit history to potentially turn this into a viable article. ~ trialsanderrors 09:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per T&E, that seems to most accurately reflect consensus. Just zis Guy you know? 10:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I feel the close was within reasonable bounds based on the one "good" keep argument. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If you are talking about the Keep and rewrite argument, I would never consider that on the good side unless the editor follows up on it with some preliminary edits. My guesstimate is that 80% of "keep and expand" closes are never touched by anyone who participated in the AfD and the article continues to stink up the article space until someone else happens upon it and tries to fix it up (which might very well be in t = ∞). For most articles the five days under the spotlight of AfD are the days when they have the highest (or only) chance of being improved. ~ trialsanderrors 17:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Delete & Redirect if desired. The one "good" keep argument is only good in comparison with the others. No one asserts any kind of notability. Eusebeus 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Poodle Hat. The information in this article could easily be incorporated into the tracklisting in that article, just like most of the other songs. --DCrazy talk/contrib 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Amy Zidian

Repeatedly speedied and remade on 30 July[1] leading to salting[2] due to that the person in question was seen as not notable, including after an afd at the time (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Zidian).

Recent events however have an impact on the salting as recently she was signed to a WWE contract as well as a re-evaluation of criteria for notablity as per Amy Weber's afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy_Weber. As these have happened after the salting the protection also prevents people from making the new case of notability. --- Lid 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was the admin who salted Amy Zidian. I did so because the page was being repeatedly recreated in defiance of the clear consensus at the AfD. If the deletion review decides that the page should be unlocked to allow recreation, that's fine by me; but for now I don't see why any new argument for notability can't be made at Talk:Amy Zidian. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep protected until a viable version is created in user space. ~ trialsanderrors 06:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of the present article which says: Amy Zidian Was Born In Orlando, Florida. She Was A WWE Diva Search Contestant. But She Got Eliminated 1st. She Was A Hawaiian Tropic Pageant Girl. - plus an external link. As T&E says, a valid article in userspace can be moved in later. Once again we seem to have inexplicable haste to create an article ahead of the subject actually achieving any objectively measurable importance. There is no deadline, we can wait six months or a year to see what happens; it's not like there is any shortage of websites documenting WWE trivia for those who hunger for such. Just zis Guy you know? 09:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above.Voice-of-All 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep protected just because you get signed to a WWE contract does not mean instant notability, WP is not a crystal ball. Renosecond 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep protected per JzG's arguments. We can afford to wait for clear evidence that she meets Wikipedia's recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. The argument that Amy Weber constitutes precedent is weak. First, we don't automatically keep or exclude content for that reason. It may be that we got it wrong in the other case. Second, Weber has a significant TV career, making her a poor precedent regardless. Rossami (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)