Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 February 22
2007 February 24 >

23 February 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Binary Star (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The hip hop group of Binary Star (comprised of emcee's Sennim Silla and One Be Lo (OneManArmy)) is very important to the underground hip hop community, their first LP sold over 20,000 copies, a lot for an underground independant group. Many groups nowadays cite Binar Star as an influence, also their first album Masters of the Universe has a page, as well as One Be Lo a previous member of the group. It seems weird that Binary Star is unimportant but their album and one of its emcee's deserve a page. Anyways if the previous page does not cite its importance I will be willing to add information that will stress this groups importance. Many other, less popular groups have pages, some that are even longer, yet Binary Star's page is deleted. I am for reinstatement of this page, or if everyone pleases I will edit the original page. Either way the original page was very good and shouldn't have to be completely redone. All underground hip-hop heads please consider this. --HiphopisNOTdead 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If you can provide evidence that this group meets the notability criteria for musical acts right here in this deletion review, that would be very helpful. For example, what kind of media coverage have they received? Have they gone on a national tour? Have they released at least two albums on a significant independent label? Have they hit any of the music charts? If you can provide us right here with links to reliable sources to back up any of this, you will probably manage to have the original page restored or at least allowed to be recreated. --Metropolitan90 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Various online coverage on Binary Star: http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/2001_01_masters.html rap reviews coverage right here. http://www.onebelo.com/ , One Be Lo's (former Binary Star member) website citing several positive comments from people from the Onion, XXL and Scratch Magazine. Also check out the press page on his website citing several more articles on Binary Star/One Be Lo. http://www.chopsuey.com/dec06.shtml Seattle, WA venue showing the Binary Star show on December 2nd (Binary Star is from Pontiac, MI) Sold out show (I was there, front row AMAZING!), one of the many out of state shows that Binary Star has done since they broke up. Binary Star and One Be Lo have toured with MF Doom also of underground hip hop fame, playing at least two shows in Seattle. This should be enough proof that Binary Star is notable. There album and One Be Lo have pages, why not the original group? Whoever deleted this page did not do enough research on Wikipedia about related articles, or any research at all regarding the group. --HiphopisNOTdead 14:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would also like to add that the user who deleted this page has a strong bias against any form of hip hop, please scroll down this page to the section on "Go Too Far" and read Guy's comment on rap music. Guy or JzG is the user who filed this page for A7 speedy deletion. Someone who has an obvious bias against rap music deleting an article about a notable hip hop group, seem a little wrong? It does to me, as well as the fact he obviously did absolutely no research to back up his deletion, all of this shows to me that this deletion was based on a personal bias which is absolutely no grounds for deletion. --HiphopisNOTdead 14:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZOMG! Rouge admin abuse! Thing is, I didn't tag it, I only deleted it. It contained no assertion of notability (Criterion 7 for speedy deletion). The supposedly notable former member One Be Lo has two releases with articles, which sold 4,000 and 14,000 copies respectively. No independent non-trivial sources were cited. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice for re-creation if verifiable, reliable sources can be found. howcheng {chat} 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per User:JzG and User:Howcheng. No procedural error in the speedy deletion. Assertion of notability backed up by reliable sources would be welcome. EdJohnston 02:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Institute of Brand Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The Institute of Brand Science was previously named the Zyman Institute of Brand Science. At first I made a simple mistake. I tried changing the name by creating a new article with the new name, as I did not know about the move function in Wikipedia. Subsequently, I significantly updated the entry for The Intitute of Brand Science with completely new content. I am disapointed that this content was deleted, as it contained vital information about the academic research organization. There are many institutes listed in Wikipedia, including those listed in List of Research Institutes. As such, retaining a profile on The Institute of Brand Science will help make Wikipedia an excellent source of information on institutes. I am requesting either a reinstatement of the deleted material, or an official move of the original Zyman Institute of Brand Science to The Institute of Brand Science page. Jambaloop 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Although someone concerned about a deletion has the right to ask for a deletion review, I expect to see evidence of a real problem with the original deletion. I gather that the original article Zyman Institute of Brand Science was claimed to be a copyright violation. That seems to be the only unusual thing about the process thus far. Though I can't read either of the two articles, arguments in both first and second AfDs seem typical of what is often said when an article is too close to advertising, uses promotional language, and lacks outside sources. In User:Jambaloop's request for review I didn't see any acknowledgment of the issue or a proposal for addressing it. And as noted there seem no anomalies or bad process described that would justify overturning this deletion. EdJohnston 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own closure and deletions, if I'm allowed to do that. Valid AfD, IMO (duh, coming from the closer). Nominator hasn't explained how it was invalid, just that he thinks there should be an article. On a side note, the G4 was valid since the recreation didn't address the issue which led to deletion (lack of multiple external sources). – Steel 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems Steel is protesting because lack of sources in the article. That is simple to remedy. Reinstate the article and I will edit that. Jambaloop 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per EdJohnston comments, the copyright issue is not valid the new listing has not taken content from other published documents. The prior article was claimed as a copyright violation, but the institute endorsed the use of the text making that argument pacified. The text was written without promotional language in a neutral tone. EdJohnson is looking for outside sources. Those will be added as soon as the article in resinstated. Or if I can do that prior to reinstatement I am happy to do so. Jambaloop 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Sarkar, Christian, The Institute of Brand Science web, retrieved 2007-02-20

Srivastava, Rajendra (2006-11-12). "State of the Institute". Colloquium on Internal Branding. Atlanta, GA.

Schultz, Don (September–October 2006). "Trash Trove". Marketing Management. 15. American Marketing Association: 10–11.

Thomas Jr., Greg (November–December 2006). "Suite Talk". Marketing Management. 15. American Marketing Association: 48–54. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

  • Endorse. All seem pretty small beer, and the AfD alsthough it notes the invalid page move does not rest on it, deletion is based on the unanimous opinion that notability is not established. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion Thanks, one look made it obvious. Apart from other considerations, we do not usually enter research intitutes which are ppart of individual university departments.DGG 04:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • contest of above comments

The original article (the one still viewable on answers.com) is not the article under consideration. The new article is the one that is under consideration. Can someone make that one visable? Please do not make a ruling based on obsolete information.

EdJohnson is mistaken thinking the only references are to the EmoryBI website.

Regarding the comment "we do not usually enter research intitutes which are ppart of individual university departments." Universities are departmentalize into their various disciplines. We list Haas Business School, which is a department of UC Berkeley, SRI (Stanford Research Institute) which is a department of Stanford Unversity, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing which is a department of Mysore University. We post information on departments like City University's Journalism Department We even allow the posting of information on individuals who are in sub-departments of Universities, such as Michael Porter. If there is a rule against posting information about departments of organizations, please reference that rule.

Regarding notability, Don Schultz has written about the organization. He is one of the most famous professors in communications, and is affiliated with Northwestern University. The institute is credited with the development of high level research that is publised in peer reviewed academic journals like the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, etc. This makes it notable as well.

24.98.156.245 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Please don't put strikeouts through other people's comments. The new references you have provided are not too impressive. (1) seems to be yet another reference to the university's own website. (2) 'Colloquium on Internal Branding' does not appear to be a book or a refereed journal, it appears to be a fragmentary reference, and the author, Prof. Srivastava, is a staff member of the Institute itself so clearly not a third party, (3) the citation to Don Shultz's article in 'Marketing Management' includes about 150 words of comment on the Zyman Institute, asserting that it will provide 'a truly holistic approach to brand comprehension', mostly discussing what the Institute will do in the future and not what it has accomplished thus far, (4) the article by Thomas and Parkhurst in Marketing Management is, in fact, a substantive 8-page article, but it is co-authored by Greg Thomas, who is a staff member of the Institute, so he is hardly an outside party who can comment on the notability of the Institute. If the Institute was only founded in 2004 it may have existed too briefly to have received substantive comment by outsiders, so it may not qualify for WP:N. EdJohnston 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion I said in the AfD it should be deleted on the basis that institutes as part of a university were N only in exceptional cases. SRI is an excellent example of what counts as an exceptional case--it might be almost as well known as the parent. City U. may conceivably also be an exception, but the present article in my opinion does not show N, has no 3rd party refs. & should be deleted. Alll India " is located in Manasagangotri (Mysore University Campus), Mysore, India. It is an autonomous institute under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare" --my emphasis. DGG 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    bolding on duplicate opinion struck GRBerry 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PLAYSTATION® Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I do not think it fit the criteria for a speedy deletion. There are articles for similar virtual markets and this one is just as big, such as the Wii Shop Channel and the Xbox Live Marketplace, which are competing online stores of the PLAYSTATION® Store, thus it is a notable page and should fit speedy deletion. DanB91 15:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of similar articles should not be interpreted to justify the existence of a particular article. Since it was speedied as NN, that suggests the previous article had no assertion of notability. Can you provide reliable sources demonstrating the notability of this website/business? —Dgiest c 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability can come from the Official PS Store site, content can come from a reliable source demonstrated here. Another example is here here which is content the PS3 will get via the PS Store. DanB91 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough justification for me. I see no good reason not to have this article! --24.154.173.243 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Notability (web), you can't use a subject's own website to establish their notability. Blog-like sites such as gamingbits.com generally fail the WP:RS test. Can you find some examples of the mainstream press writing about this? —Dgiest c 19:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Joystiq site, and here's a site that references the PS Store. Most sites that have anything to do with video games are blog like sites. If these sites are not good enough, can u give me video game sites that are not blogs? DanB91 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link you provided is to a blog posting. That would not be a reliable source anyway (per WP:RS), and what it says about the Playstation Store is only a few words, a very sketchy summary of what they plan to sell. Hardly enough to show that the Store is notable. I could even accept a blog as helpful if there was a truly critical entry commenting on the significance of the store, history of similar stores, strengths and weaknesses etc. Especially an entry that pulled together actual experience with the store from a variety of sources. The Xbox Live Marketplace article is considerably better than this one. Note that it includes some critical comments about the store. EdJohnston 05:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is an article (video rather) all about the PlayStation Store DanB91 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mr Stabby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

"Mr Stabby" as an article has rightfully been deleted, however Wikipedia does already carry information on Mr Stabby, at Weebl's cartoons#Mr Stabby - why not make a protected redirect from Mr Stabby to Weebl's cartoons, as is already the case for other entries, like Magical Trevor? 62.31.67.29 15:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Brian Peppers (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|AfD)

Like many editors, I hope to work on establishing a notable and verifiable entry for internet celebrity Brian Peppers, so now that the Grand High Poobah deigns to let us to write about it again, I was upset to find that admins have deleted and blocked the Brian Peppers talk page. There is no reason why this should be the case - the arbitrary year's embargo has lifted, we should get on with creating a good article on Brian Peppers. If we can't go about this collaborative editing process in the article itself, we at least need a talk page. 62.31.67.29 10:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The only reason that it wouldn't happen would be because of abuse of WP:SNOW (or other methods of closing discussion early) or people not wanting the page to exist due to some vague notion of "unencyclopedic" content. --Dookama 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This has gotten too long for transclusion. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
World Trade Center in film and media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

While the nominator is under no obligation to notify the article creator, it really would have been helpful if someone notified me about this AFD when it was posted back in November. My watchlist is massive, thousands of pages, so I missed this one. The AFD wasn't a unanimous 100% delete. 2 of 6 said keep, and I would have said strong keep, and then it would have been kept as no consensus. The subarticle was created per WP:SUMMARY to keep the "film and media" section in the main article pared down to ~two sentences. Since it was deleted, trivia is starting to creep back in and becoming a nuisance to maintain. Someone even started re-adding a list of films with the WTC in them, and was "offended" when I cut it out. (See the top of my talk page) As primary maintainer of the main article and creator of the subarticle, I strongly prefer having a subarticle where people can put stuff like this, as it makes maintaining the main article more manageable. Per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles, the WTC article is getting to #5. We need to go back to #3, with just a very brief summary in the main article. At some point, as the main article reaches featured article status, I would go through, cleanup, and pare down this subarticle if we could have it undeleted. Please let us have our subarticle back. --Aude (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please restore per my nom. --Aude (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse since AfD is not a vote™ the addition of another keep argument would have changed the result only if it was persuasive. Instead of restoring the highly problematic old list I would suggest simply recreating a list with clear and exclusive inclusion criteria. The "we don't want this material in our article so we need a place to put it" argument is generally unpersuasive. If it is unencyclopedic it should be excised not quarintined. Eluchil404 09:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc (a featured list) and Joan of Arc (featured article). Ultimately, if the WTC gets to featured article status (may happen in the next couple months or sooner), the subarticles will all be made at least good articles if not featured themselves. In the case of pop culture references, it would be a featured list. Now, do I have to start from scratch and make up a new list or can I please work with what was there, try to find references, and cut out what's not notable. It would be much easier (a big time saver) for me to do the latter. --Aude (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case I have no objection to userfication. You can work on the list in your userspace and when it meets minimun standards move it back to the mainspace. It doesn't need to be FL ready but some basic standards on inclusion and some secondary sources would be a big help in convincing people that it has potential. Eluchil404 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The two keep comments didn't provide any arguments to why the list should be kept. So they had almost no weight in the discussion. Also AfD is not a vote, but a discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore; per Aude above, we need something like this. Tom Harrison Talk 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • YEah the DRV nom is rather vote-ish. The two keep "votes" in this AfD were rather weak ("useful list", "interesting list"... arguments not based in policy but just WP:ILIKEITs), if another weak reason for keeping had appeared I probably still would have deleted. All four delete "votes" linked to or at least mentioned policy. But the DRV nom is not all that weak of a reason. I would be okay with restoring it if the people really think it could be improved, but the article does need a huge overhaul... glancing at the deleted version, I can't really imagine who would possibly want to read that entire laundry list of trivia. --W.marsh 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think/hope the opinion of the subarticle creator and maintainer(s) of the main article who is working to get it to featured article status would carry some weight. It's difficult enough as is to get an article like this to featured status, and dealing with the pop culture aspects isn't fun for me. But apparently Wikipedia attracts people who are interested in it that sort of information, and some of it is notable such as King Kong (1976 film), with the Empire State Building in the original film and the WTC in the 1976 version,[1] and Godspell.[2] Per WP:SUMMARY, there should be a brief summary in the main article (1-2 sentences) and a subarticle. Since pop culture isn't my strength, having something to work from and find references/notability would be much preferrable. --Aude (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there were certainly a lot of uncited items to work from in the deleted versions of this article. It would take a vast amount of work to get this article to the point where I'd support it as a featured list. Anyway, would you like me to restore this to your user space so you can work on it there? And unless there are any objections we could close the DRV and you could move the list back to the article namespace once you're ready. --W.marsh 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to my userspace is okay. I tend to agree that this stuff isn't really interesting. But it is notable and interesting to some people. Since pop culture is outside my expertise, it will take work to find appropriate references (especially for films from the 1970s). I think Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is the example to follow. The new "sortable" table thing there would be good to use too. --Aude (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's at User:AudeVivere/World Trade Center in film and media now. --W.marsh 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Aude (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore This is a subarticle of World Trade Center and was created to ensure the main article wasn't overcrowded with peripheral information. I can't now see the deleted article, but I remember it being well referenced and definitely encyclopedic.--MONGO 18:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were about 200 items listed, and just 2 references, in the last versions of the article. Personally I can't imagine a list of all the video games where the WTC appeared in a background image for a few seconds is all that interesting to anyone except fans of that game maybe. One of those lists where everyone wants to add something, but no one wants to actually read the list. But really that's just my opinion and I wouldn't enforce it to keep the article deleted against consensus, since there's not a serious policy problem with this article. --W.marsh 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per nom. --Tbeatty 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Go Too Far (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article has been deleted for prevention of recreation. The single has been confirmed. A music video has been released and the single as already started charting. What more is there to say. This page should be unprotected and recreated for the benefit of fans and other artists etc. User:Zz128 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse again, for the same reason as on 11 Feb. What's changed since then? Guy (Help!) 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinion on Feb. 11 was "Endorse absent credible evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a directory, so the school of thought which has it that foo is notable therefore all albums by foo are notable therefore all singles from albums by foo are notable is seriously flawed. This artist has released precisely one album. This single has not, according to the article, charted. It was pretty much a one-sentence stub, adding nothing which could not be covered at the entry for the album, which should probably, given that it is his sole output to date, be merged at this time to Jibbs. Articles on individual non-chart songs by barely-notable acts definitely Go Too Far. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)". That DRV closed as request withdrawn. GRBerry 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I would strongly suggest endorse deletion but as my userpage states I'm extremely repulsed by any rap/hiphop song so my endorse vote would border COI. So no opinion here. Wooyi 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wooyi, someone I greatly respect, C. S. Lewis, wrote (among other things) book reviews, but declined to review mysteries, saying that because he disliked the genre he could not fairly judge whether any given book was a good or bad example of it, and he wished not to write any unfair reviews. It's nice to see that you share the same scruple. -- Ben 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The video has been released; "Go too far Jibbs" gives you something like 230,000 ghits. And, btw, this is not "gangsta rap" - this features a member of the Pussycat Dolls and is strictly tame suburban rap/r&b - this would not sound out of place on a KISS-format station. --Brianyoumans 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:BinSL.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore)

Image was deleted for not complying with Fair use, although it did comply, and it is needed as a citation. TheGreenFaerae 07:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment image can't be used as a citation. If you upload it to wikipedia you'd then be using wikipedia as a source which is circular. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for wikipedia articles. (Images can be manipulated so its appearance on wikipedia proves nothing). --pgk 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. "Proving existence" is not a valid fair use claim, nor does a picture that could be doctored actually prove existence. -Amarkov moo! 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph's authenticity can be proved by logging on to second Life and searching with the same terms i used as typed. the photograph is not the citation, the text in Second Life is the citation. The photograph is simply the only way to transfer it out of the Second Life client and to Wikipedia.TheGreenFaerae 09:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that was just the reason it was on Wikipedia. It is not the basis of the fair use claim. i had broken down and itemized how the image was fair use on the image page itself before Ryu deleted it.TheGreenFaerae 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Logging in ... would be Original research as for your not the basis of the fairuse claim, reviewing the deleted page under the section entitled fair use rationale " Purpose of Image : This image is used to show that there are groups that call themselves either /b/tards or some derivative of /b/ in second Life." --pgk 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you still feel as if it has no place on WP, I will respect your decision. I am thankful that you took the time to fairly review it however.TheGreenFaerae 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC
It's not my judgment which counts, it's if it is verifiable, i.e. are there multiple independent reliable sources who have covered this in a non-trivial way, it there is it is verifiable and you can cite those as to the significance and existance of this groups, if there isn't then it shouldn't be in the article. --pgk 04:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the reference itself isn't the subject, but I think I am beginning to agree with the photo side of things.TheGreenFaerae 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The deletion of this list was discussed with two marginally related pages in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Final Destination 3. The conclusion "delete all" didn't take in account that some opinions favoring deletion very mainly about Deaths in Final Destination 3 and opinions for keeping specially the above list weren't examined. -- User:Docu

I found both this list AND the Final Destination one helpful. It just really boils my blood when I try to relocate a good article and it's magically disappeared because of some random goofs who want to ruin this site for a widespread audience. If people are interested, keep these things and if YOU don't like the article than just ignore it. Gosh! --24.154.173.243 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of supercars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Don't bother going to the link, someone has started a new page with the same name. The AfD was a very weak delete with no consensus (5 to 4 by my count) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_14#List_of_supercars My particular objection is that that that article was on my watchlist and yet the AfD notice did not appear in it, which I check every day. Also the deletion summary was not filled in thereby forcing me to do a manual search for the AfD debate, which is a waste of time. Greglocock 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • While a vote may not be mandatory, a consensus is, by my reading. I see no consensus. Also I have checked my watchlist for that date, and taken a screenshot of it. No proposal for deletion was posted on that page, so far as I can tell. Greglocock 04:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD notice would've been posted there, but you'd no longer see that. Since the page was in fact deleted, its history would be gone as well, and not show up on your watchlist. An administrator could look at history of the old page and verify that the AfD notice was posted. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. If a magazine or two calls a car a supercar, then add it, otherwise remove it. There are plenty of lists that have subjective inclusion criteria. Placing a movie or band in a certain genre is a judgment call, but we do it based on statements in reliable, published sources. Recury 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) deletion. Consensus must always, on Wikipedia, take into account policy. The 'keeps' were ignoring the issues about the Wikipedia requirements for articles to be neutral and referenced. Proto ► 00:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Drawball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AfD 2)

I recreated this after searching for the original deletion reason. The only thing I could find was that it was frequently vandalized and that nobody could be bothered protecting it. I don't believe that this is a valid criteria for deletion, otherwise we would have deleted George W. Bush some time ago. It seems like the beginning of a reasonable article on a notable enough subject (an example of web 2.0 emergent behavior) to me so I recreated it. Seraphimblade speedied the article pointing out that it was probably deleted for a reason. The AFD was "No consensus". I originally searched for Drawball on Wikipedia as I had read of it elsewhere and wanted to know more. This seems like a good criteria for an article to me. AntiVan 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes and clarifications It was actually Lectonar who deleted the article, though I did G4 tag it (and Coredesat who closed the AfD). I'll notify them of the DRV. Also, while the first AfD was indeed a no consensus result, this did not lead to deletion-no consensus results default to keeping. It was the second AfD which led to deletion, this time on the basis of lack of notability due to no reliable secondary sourcing available. I endorse deletion unless those sources now are available and can be cited, but am willing to change my mind if they are. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Seraphimblade for incorrectly attributing the deletion to you, and thanks for notifying the others. Obviously I am not familiar with this process. In support of secondary sources I offer these: SmartMobs, The Wilx Collection & AdRants. I appreciate these are not the same as a front page story in the Times, but I feel it should be enough to support a little stub of an article. Thanks, AntiVan 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the most recent AFD was valid. I have linked it in the nomination statement. Blogs are also generally not considered reliable sources. --Coredesat 03:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion valid unanimous AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I have not heard that there were any process anomalies with the second AfD, and the lack of outside sourcing is commented upon everywhere. Does anyone participating in this review know of new third-party sources that might justify a revived article? In proposing the DRV, User:AntiVan noted the difficulty of protecting the original article against vandalism. A valuable article might be worth the ongoing labor of protection; this one seems unlikely to be worth it. These are AfD-type arguments in a DRV but it's hard to keep them completely separate. EdJohnston 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Materialization (science fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Materialization (science fiction) just redirects right to teleportation, but that is not always how it's used in sci-fi; there are examples of materialization of matter from energy or from nothing, for instance the replicator (Star Trek), the Grails from the Riverworld novels, in the tv series Ark II, a major plot point from one of the Tom Swift books from the '80s, and probably a lot more that I've forgotten. It deserves its own separate entry, I think. -- Noclevername 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There doesn't seem to be a deletion to review here. The old article went through Votes for Deletion but was closed with no consensus. You can simply replace the redirect with new text. —Celithemis 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IndieTits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
  • Overturn Article had an AfD with a clear consensus to keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Deletion was out of process. It had survived a fairly recent AfD. JuJube 01:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment logs say it's an A7 speedy deletion (doesn't seem to be related to the AfD decision). The last AfD was almost two years ago; consensus may have changed so relist it. ColourBurst 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article had no sources and claim of notabily, the deletion wasn't really out of process as I doubt the admin who speedied knew about the AFD so JuJube please WP:AGF. The prior AFD or VFD when it was called back then also wasn't fairly recent, it was over a year and a nine months ago. AFD had much weaker standards back then, same with sourcing, so that VFD is moreorless moot. Endorse Deletion. But if any valid, reliable sources can be found for notabilty, than I would think over Jaranda wat's sup 03:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy. The article states in two lines that it is a webcomic, who writes it, when he started, and how often it's updated. In between, the entirety of the article is a description of the comic's content. No sources are given other than a link directly to the comic itself, and no claims of importance or significance are made. This is a textbook A7, and even if it had a claim to disqualify it as a speedy, I would remove the bulk of the article as original research. The vfd is ancient and the opinions given not based in any sort of policy, even as it existed then. As usual, nothing's stopping anyone from creating a new article that either meets WP:WEB, or at least contains the barest minimum hint that it might possibly. —Cryptic 10:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. I'm confused, what happened between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndieTits and now? If there is a concern over notability, bring it before the community and perhaps they can address those concerns. If not, it can be deleted properly -- through consensus. (jarbarf) 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin here, no vote. No, I didn't know about the AfD, there was no talk page tag. If I had, I'd not have deleted it. Anyway, I think the solution is simple: recreate it with some WP:WEB-compatible sources. I'd be glad to provide someone with the text in their userspace to do this. Otherwise, it'll just go straight to AfD (again) once recreated. Sandstein 19:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Jeph Jacques if that's a valid !vote here. Otherwise overturn and relist in the hope AfD does that. the wub "?!" 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 speedy, no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have made it a redirect, as it seems like useful one. I have no opinion on whether it should be relisted at AfD, but since there's already some material in Jeph Jacques, I'd urge you all to leave it as a redirect and consider it done with. Chick Bowen 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. By that I mean, keep the original article deleted, but retain the redirect to Jeph Jacques per User:Chick Bowen. I would consider changing my vote if anyone in this debate can list here some 3rd-party sources that could be added to the article, for example, some press coverage. The speedy deletion based on A7 seems correct. Looking at the AfD from June, 2005, I'm puzzled that no-one in that debate complained about the total lack of outside sources. (At least, there are no sources included in the copy of the article that is currently visible at http://www.answers.com/indietits ). EdJohnston 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_23&oldid=1142605321"