Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:07, 2 June 2007

< June 1	Deletion review archives: 2007 June	June 3 >

2 June 2007

Mimi Imfurst

Article was suggested for deletion by others who dont have any knowlege on the professional drag queen industry. The longstanding staples of nightlife- contribute to the cultural diversity of New York City. Is notability relative?

The page is still there. There is no deletion to review. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The article has been recreated and tagged for speedy deletion because it has already gone through AfD. The author of the new version keeps asserting notability with no evidence and is arguing against speedy deletion, thus I suggested he come here. Corvus cornix 07:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If assessing this article requires specialist knowledge of the professional drag queen industry, that is an indication that there are insufficient independent sources from which we can draw an article. An article worked up in userspace with sources might elp, but looking at it, I don't think it will help much, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bindows

valid technical content Ronm4321 02:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, six deletions would say otherwise. It looks like an advertisement to me. --Core desat 02:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, no reason for review provided. As it is, looks like a valid AfD followed by valid G4s (the content was exactly the same, if I'm looking at the correct versions) that might have been G11s nonetheless, so for all practical purposes, endorse deletion as well. Blatant WP:COI and WP:SPA issues by creator/nominator (made evident here and by their contribution history) do not bode well either. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Kinu; no new information here and no apparent procedural defect (aside from the AfD's having been participated in by just two editors, which is probably not sufficiently significant as on its own to counsel reconsideration). I will AGF and observe that if the nominator, in consideration of WP:COI, believes he can craft an article about Bindows that meets our encyclopedic guidelines (most prominently WP:NPOV and WP:V, as well, here, I suppose, as WP:CORP), he should, to be sure, feel free to do so (or even simply to produce here the sources that would underlie such article and attest to the notability of the subject, in order that other editors might work with him on the article) in his userspace, with the provision that a maintenance in userspace of content that is unencyclopedic and shows no signs of trending toward the encyclopedic will likely be deleted. Joe 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the the most recent AfD was quite active, but as you note, the volume of activity is moot relative to the proper interpretation of the included arguments (WP:N/WP:RS beats WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Returning to this issue, however, I agree with assuming good faith, per above, but sources, sources, sources are a must. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, advertorial with a strong smell of WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
  {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~      -->
-====[[:Tanya Kach]]====
+====[[Tanya Kach]] (closed)====
+{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
+|-
+! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
+* '''[[Tanya Kach]]''' – Speedy close; will be listed on AfD, I'll open it and explain myself. – [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 14:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|-
+| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 :{{la|Tanya Kach}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Tanya Kach|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Tanya Kach}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Kach|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
@@ Line 22: / Line 30: @@
 You can take a look at a snapshot of the speedied article at the [http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:TfF0IZ-z7e8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Kach+Tanya+Kach&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=uk Google cache], you may feel it isn't notable, you may feel it is, it could definitely have done with improvement.  But what it isn't is an insta-delete with zero but one's input.  When I joined Wikipedia and started voting at RFA, Adminship was no big deal, I just don't trust admins to delete anything they want under the new WP:NOT-Newspaper directive without community input.  '''Restore''' the article, '''move''' it if you want, '''list at AFD''' if needs be, but speedy it ain't. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 11:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|}
 ====[[:Mimi Imfurst]]====

Revision as of 14:07, 2 June 2007

2 June 2007

Tanya Kach (closed)

Mimi Imfurst

Bindows