Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 29

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

29 October 2006

Secret Maryo Chronicles

The article was deleted without a new AfD by User:Andrevan the basis of his AfD was over a year old since then the Article was completely rewritten. The article should be kept because the deletion was without Reason nor an AfD !

• Keep deleted. No assertion of notability was made in the current article; not only has nothing changed to justify overturning the AfD, but the article as it stood fell under A7 speedy deletion anyway. Might reconsider if notability is asserted and verified by credible credible third-party sources in this deletion review. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• It was re-created following an old VfD (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Secret Maryo Chronicles) and thus was eligible for a deletion. Keep deleted. Andre (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per Sam Blanning. - Crockspot 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Armand_DiMele

Ok, I am an experienced web developer, but still getting used to Wikipedia. I am trying to post a bio for a client who is a radio host in New York with over 100,000 listeners. He is therefore noteable, but on my first post I apparently didn't prove to Wikipedia that he is. On the second post, I attempted to prove notoriety by adding href links to various books, content archives, etc. The message was therefore declared as SPAM by Nihonjoe. My username is bootzero.

Could you un-protect the page and let me attempt to format it so it can be accepted?

• Endorse deletion Wikipedia is not for PR people. Sorry. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rschen, although if you can come up with an NPOV article showing that he is notable, talk to an admin and they can unprotect the page if they think it's OK. David Mestel^(Talk) 12:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Thanks for the help. Armand has a large, loyal listening audience. He could motivate people to Wikipedia to prove notoriety. Would this help? Where would we send them?bootzero(talk)

• Not under any circumstances. That is called meatpuppetry and will most likely have the precise opposite of the desired affect. What you need to do is provide evidence of this individual being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. A magazine article on him would be a good start. Guy 17:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

- I appreciate all of your help. It's no fun being a noob. I have posted a copy of his CV. He has crudentials. If I can appeal to someone to un-protect the document, I can modify it and add references. Do I do that here? -- bootzero(talk)

Your best bet is to write a new version of the article at User:bootzero/Armand DiMele and then come to deletion review to have the article unprotected so that you can copy your new version there. That way you can take as long as necessay to write it without fear of deletion and people considering the undeletion request can reafily evaluate the article against the apropriate criteria. Eluchil404 23:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• endorse deletion and endorse Eluchil404's solution - Suggest that bootzero read WP:BIO. - Crockspot 03:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and Eluchil404's proposal, and also, prose-ified CV's are frowned upon, especially when they're work-for-hire. ~ trialsanderrors 07:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:3di 16

This template was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 12; however, it was an IP nomination and one vote for deletion, which is not consensus. Furthermore, this template is needed by WP:IH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion. The fact that the TfD nom was made by an IP is irrelevant to an extent, but the lack of voting is not irrelevant. There was no harm in keeping the template, and, as per nom, WP:IH specifies that these templates must exist. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion per TwinsMetsFan. This deletion screws up {{3di|16}}. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 09:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This template provided no additional content, since there is only one spur of I-16. See [1] and [2] for the two places it was used, both redundant to the link directly above. --NE2 20:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion per TMF and Aecis. - Crockspot 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Welcome to the world of TfD, where one nomination and one !vote are the norm rather than the exception. Both arguments are persuasive, so no issue with the closure. ~ trialsanderrors 07:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, or at least relist for the purposes of better gaining a consensus. "Vote" stricken, comment only. The template and its bretheren are well-used by the WikiProject -- the superfluous text-only links should have been removed from the articles instead of the templates. I agree with Trialsanderrors' explanation of the way TfD works; TfD often sees far less traffic and far fewer votes. Usually one vote is enough on TfD, but here it just didn't match consensus. -- NORTH ^talk 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• oh for god's sake someone wants to use the template. would it freaking kill us to restore it without a bunch of debate and let them get about their business without engaging in some silly process-fetish? really who cares if it's only used a few times? what difference does that make? Derex 10:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Other people don't want to use it, and have good reasons for that. The only reason I've seen for using it is that it's "needed by WP:IH". --NE2 21:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Really? Name one good reason. What harm does it do? Derex 06:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It makes the page larger without adding any content. --NE2 07:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Considering that it makes the page one line larger, I don't think that's a good reason. I don't particularly approve of the way Rschen's wording his reasons for keeping it either; I think the truth of the matter is that we're not going to gain anything by overturning the deletion of this one, nor are we going to gain anything by deleting the ones that are currently at TfD. I'd like to just maintain the status quo until we reach a compromise at WT:IH. -- NORTH ^talk 00:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)