Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 25

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

25 November 2006

DM_Ashura

DM_Ashura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

This article was deleted claiming: "Subject may not be sufficiently notable to merit an article, see notability guidelines." DM Ashura is a well known independent electronic artist. His music is featured in such games as Flash Flash Revolution, O2Jam, and StepMania. Most of his music is available on his website for free and he is currently working on a CD as well. DarkProdigy 16:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it in accordance with WP:PROD. Had you protested the deletion then by removing the template, that was all that needed to be done. You are welcome to recreate it provided it complies with WP:BIO, and the new article is actually good, rather than just another stub to worry about. You should read Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles.--HereToHelp 17:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also: get rid of the underscore (far more Google results came up without it). Follow this link: DM Ashura to get to the new article.--HereToHelp 17:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

HTH, you know full well that's not how prod works. This should be speedily undeleted and, if necessary, sent to AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Had I visited the article while the template was there I would have. Apologies, the underscore in this listing was a mistake. The original article had a space in its place. Please speedily undelete the article, as suggested in the comment above by Badlydrawnjeff and I will make sure it is contributed to further. DarkProdigy 04:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As Jeff says, contesting a prod after the deletion still counts as a contested prod, which requires undeletion and possibly AfD. So speedy undelete this article, potentially sending it to AfD. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Restore, since this was a PROD and is now being contested, granted DarkProdigy was too late, but the principle holds. Send to AfD if desired. Herostratus

Martin Randall Travel

Martin Randall Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

I carefully researched this article, wrote it in an unbiased way, cited my sources, linked relevant pages to it and explained why it was an important article: MRT has won a large number of awards and much lesser articles live on. It was fairly long, had headings and was a fine article in my opinion: my best. At this point I moved school (yes, I'm at school, but don't hold that against me) and left the page alone for a week. In this time an admin deleted it. Please look into this. Fuzzibloke 14:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the history of this is such that it was deleted via prod, restored on request and sent to WP:AFD. After three days the article was then Speedy Deleted as Spam in line with the AFD comments up to that point. --pgk 14:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can't really recommend undeletion without seeing the text of the deleted article, but I would point out this company does get independent press coverage (e.g. [1][2]), so probably falls within the usual notability criteria for corporations. We should have an article about it; whether the one that was deleted is a good base to work from, I don't know. JulesH 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  Those two don't seem to be "non-trivial" as required by WP:CORP --pgk 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • That raises an interesting point: are supplements to non-trivial sources non-trivial as well? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

    That wasn't really what I was getting at. "or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" for those articles the company is certainly not the subject, the coverage of the company itelf is trivial. This I would suggest falls under the exceptions "Works carrying merely trivial coverage..." --pgk 14:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion Umm, what's the issue here? The article was moved to AfD where consensus was overwhelmingly to delete. Nothing was out of process and the arguments raised there were germane. Eusebeus 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD was valid, article was advertorial in tone, so deletion is entirely proper. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist for a full discussion about the merits of the subject. Spam can be edited out just as easily. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• CommentLook, I don't know how it was deleted, just by the time I arrived it was gone. It was not spam, I can't beleive it was listed as such. Categories included inroduction, history, directors, standards, trivia. I spent hours researching. If there is an article on the subject, use mine as a base! Fuzzibloke 16:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gin-Sung

Gin-Sung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

User:Jaranda deleted this page saying that it was unsourced and probaly a hoax. The article was sourced and was not a hoax. If he didn't think the sources were reliable enough many other articles on Wikipedia use it as a source. Also the reasons he said he deleted it for are not proper criteria to speedy delete an article. The article was also deleted instantly within hours of its creation not giving enough time to properly source it and edit it. The article was not a good canidate for speedy deletion and should of been a normal AfD.Zalgt 14:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the single source is [3] --pgk 14:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list of AfD. AFAIK, being poorly sourced is not a reason for speedy deletion -- in fact, the idea seems to be heavily opposed. See WP:CSDUA and its associated talk page. JulesH 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion It looks very much like a hoax, thus WP:V comes into play; looks to me like Jaranda made the right call. Eusebeus 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't speedy delete hoaxes, and for good reason. I don't know if this is a hoax or not, more reason to have a full discussion on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Coment You didnt see the text of the page. Zalgt 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, even if the reason given was not good. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)
• The only source isn't no where near a valid source see WP:RS, nothing else on google, that type of article should have gotten many google hits for China's Bigfoot looks like a rather obvious hoax on that page see WP:V, no point in relisting this in AFD only to be deleted again, Endorse my deletion. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Stanford

Peter Stanford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

User:Naconkantari deleted this page claiming criterion A7 of WP:CSD. This states: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." An assertion of notability was made in the article. The subject has been the editor of a newspaper and has had books published. This was stated in the article, and citations to the books were given. Criterion A7 goes on to state: "If the assertion is controversial...the article should be nominated for AfD instead". I contested speedy deletion because I believe it meets a relevant WP:BIO guideline, namely: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Another editor also contested speedy deletion using the "Search engine test" of WP:BIO. AfD was the correct procedure here. Alan Pascoe 13:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and send to AfD. Nom nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• AfD it. I would not have speedied this - although being editor of the Catholic Herald almost certainly would not qualify, I think the Longford book may be the one which has sparked a bit of debate lately and that could tip the balance. Either way, notability is asserted, and whether or not the claim is accepted is a job for AfD. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD, for the above reasons. Chris cheese whine 19:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Send to AfD as above Bwithh 00:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• List on AFD, per everybody. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ZENN

ZENN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article deleted by user:Naconkantari, reasoning: deleted "ZENN" (G11). Article was created by a third party and should not have been considered spam. The only 'spam' like attribute was the externa link to companies specifications. I, not the origional creator, placed a hangon and proceeded to add links providing notability. Article was quickly deleted without any debate. RichMac (Talk) 09:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note the talk page is still intact with notice fo my intentions. RichMac (Talk) 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment When you say third party you mean third party to you and Naconkantari? If you mean someone other than the company/person involved I don't see how you can be so certain. The article itself was a very brief stub, if you have reasonable sources why don't you just recreate the article with those reasonable source, it would have probably have been quicker than listing it here. Speedy deletion does not mean that anything under that article will forever be considered spam, just address the issue and it shouldn't be a problem. (I can see why you might want the text restored if it were something more substantial). If you want the text let me know and I'll retrieve it for you into your userspace, you can work on adding some links etc. and then move it back --pgk 12:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• What Pgk said. This one sits on the border between valid stub and spam, so I'm sure that with a bit of work and some sources it can be made to comply with policy. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. I placed the speedy deletion template on ZENN. At that point, the page had one external link, to the product's manufacturer's website, and some text that could very easily have been written by the public relations department of the company. Neutral point of view was nowhere in sight. Simple solution per Pgk; write a neutral article, repost, you're good to go, probably with zero emissions. Darkspots 02:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)