Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 22: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:19, 22 November 2006

< November 21	November 23 >

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

22 November 2006

Group-Office

One of the first office suites to be run entirely off the web. Notable for this alone. I'm not sure where the original deletion proposal was advertised other than the page itself. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, why does that alone make it notable? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Harris

I had a request from MartinBrook (talk · contribs) to restore the history of this article. Martin had created a new and then became aware of the previous deletions. Since this was a reasonable request I have done that, but you might want to have a think about whether we are content to simply allow re-creation. It looks to me to be somewhat above the usual crap-off-teh-Internets cruft, but I can't say I'm familiar with Harris or his work. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Previous afd seems fine. Bwithh. New article version is less substantive that one considered by afd. 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Films

Proto (talk · contribs) closed this as delete. Every single recommendation to delete was based off of WP:MUSIC, claiming the band didn't meet it. My recommendation to keep was based on the fact that the band does meet WP:MUSIC, specifically the touring requirement, which states "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2]" How did I get this information? Their official Myspace page (which is essentially a mirror of their official site, which lists the international tour they're on. According to WP:V, which would be what would govern a "verifiable source," as it's our policy on verifiability, "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as...it is relevant to their notability...it is not contentious...there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." This obviously meets the standard, and the recommendations obviously didn't read the guideline they were sourcing (many pointed to the album requirement, which is only one of many ways a band can be "notable"). This should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they are touring as support to the The Kooks, not in their own right. Released catalogue to date is stated as one EP. Already speedied once before as A7. See User:JzG/And the band played on... - why not wait until the claimed Warner album is released, rather than try to scoop everyone by being the very first to cover this apparently up-coming band? Guy (Help!)
- Not that the touring requirement insists that they headline, and not that the amount of releases means a thing if they reach the other parts. Being improperly speedied once means little, too. If we're not going to use the guidelines, let's dump 'em, y'know? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A little iffy, this one. But, Endorse close unless someone can point me to a non-trivial reliable source that refers to this band besides their own page, and another one that refers to them in conjunction with the tour. I understand where Jeff's coming from with his concerns, but it must be recognized that sometimes opening acts for more notable bands (The Kooks appear to fit that bill) aren't as notable as the ones they appear for. I recently was at a show by a very popular and notable band that was opened by a guy with an acoustic guitar and some CDs for sale on the table at the back of the venue, for example. I'd be more comfortable waiting for notability to be achieved on this one; we just plain don't know how this band is going to do, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do hate to badger, but if the article meets the standards at the guideline, as noted by a verifiable source per the policy, what's the issue? You're right - opening acts aren't typically as notable as who they're opening for, that's why they're opening. In one of the few intelligent parts of WP:MUSIC, the touring requirement does not differentiate between points on the bill. If we judge notability by WP:MUSIC, I don't understand the endorsement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relakks

I'm representing the Relakks Crew. We realized what was wrong in the article and want to correct it in order for et to be re-listed. As I understood it from cholmes75 who deleted the article it was the prize list in the article that was inappropriate. Of course we agree and would like the article to be re-listed with the modification that the prize list is removed. Martin 09:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Notability is not asserted, no outside coverage, WP:AUTO and WP:COI. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't quite understand the motivation. Would you mind explaining it again? Martin 14:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Autobiography strongly discourages users to write about subjects in which they "are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. ... If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later." Wikipedia:Conflict of interest further elaborates this situation where "editors ... are involved with the subject of an article."

The subjects of wikipedia articles also have to be notable (in the case of Relakks per WP:WEB and WP:CORP). This notability has to be asserted in the article itself, for instance by means of independent, verifiable, third-party coverage in reliable sources. Hope this helps, A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With or without the price list? Endorse either way. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. It would be very improper to delete the article instead of just removing the section if what you are saying is true. Thus, it's the subject matter that was the problem. WP:COI doesn't help. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate

Redundant article with little possibility of useful expansion. And I don't see how articles on discussions on mailing lists belong on Wikipedia, should we write articles on every online discussion involving famous people? Memmke 09:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second AfD, I didn't know about the Deletion reviewing when I renominated it. Memmke 09:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep. Consensus is clear, no process errors were made. User should be reminded that Deletion review is not AfD round two. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 09:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Process seems to have been followed, and even the nominator no longer appears to think the article should be deleted entirely, but rather merged. This isn't the place to achieve that. Check out Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, or be bold and merge/redirect yourself. (Given the discussion on the talk page and the recent AfDs, though, I would recommend the proposed mergers approach in this case, since a merge appears controversial.) Shimeru 09:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia:Deletion review. Now I've been bold, see [1] and [2]. Feel free to express your opinions on Talk:Tanenbaum-Torvalds_debate#Proposed merge! Memmke 10:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep and improve. This was an interesting debate of note to those in the feild. Chavatshimshon 12:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 *'''Endorse deletion'''. It would be very improper to delete the article instead of just removing the section if what you are saying is true. Thus, it's the subject matter that was the problem. [[WP:COI]] doesn't help. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 18:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-====[[4231 menu]]====
-:{{la|4231 menu}} — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4231 menu|AfD]])
-Although this is mainly a how-to, that can be changed. If that can't be done can it please be moved to my user page? I created the article. <FONT COLOR="blue">[[User:Flarn2005|'''FL'']][[User:Flarn2005/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:Flarn2005|''RN''']]</FONT> [[User talk:Flarn2005|(talk)]] 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-*All you have to do is ask an admin. As long as the article is not offensive they will recreate it it as a subpage of your user page. [[User:MartinDK|MartinDK]] 09:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-*Neither are necessary. Contested [[WP:PROD|PROD]], '''restored'''. Nothing more to be done here. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 11:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-*Article has been moved to AfD, at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4231 menu]]. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 11:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate]]====