Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 27: Difference between revisions
→[[:Xpression FM]]: closed - deletion endorsed |
→[[:John Stehr]]: closed as overturn; relist |
||
Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
====[[:John Stehr]]==== |
====[[:John Stehr]] (closed)==== |
||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
|||
* '''[[:John Stehr]]''' – Speedy deletion overturned; listed at AfD. – [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 14:59, 6 July 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|John Stehr}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/John Stehr|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:John Stehr}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stehr|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
:{{la|John Stehr}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/John Stehr|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:John Stehr}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stehr|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
||
Line 238: | Line 246: | ||
*'''Overturn''' for the reasons given, and tag " unreferenced" or "prod." '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn''' for the reasons given, and tag " unreferenced" or "prod." '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''List on AfD''' not a clear cut A7, but could use the debate. <font face="comic sans ms">[[User:Kwsn|<span style="background: #23238E; color: #FFFF00;">'''Kwsn'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Kwsn|<span style="background: #23238E; color: #FFFF00; ">(Ni!)</span>]]</sup></font> 19:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC) |
*'''List on AfD''' not a clear cut A7, but could use the debate. <font face="comic sans ms">[[User:Kwsn|<span style="background: #23238E; color: #FFFF00;">'''Kwsn'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Kwsn|<span style="background: #23238E; color: #FFFF00; ">(Ni!)</span>]]</sup></font> 19:04, 30 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>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
====[[:Gather (website)]]==== |
====[[:Gather (website)]]==== |
Revision as of 14:59, 6 July 2007
- BYU 100 Hour Board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Like many other articles, this was subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 and protected from recreation. The first version of the article was deleted for the same reason, but the second article provided ample evidence of notability, scope, and significance. The admin appears to have interpreted the 100 Hour Board to be a cork notice board rather than an online service similar to Google Answers. The Board is cited in multiple print media sources and websites, including Wikipedia itself. This open letter to Wikipedia details more articles in print media and online citations. Overturn as improper speedy deletion, or alternatively, list on AfD for proper discussion. - Peter 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why on earth would we want to have an article on a student website? What an utter waste of time and server resources. I guess that if you had edited slightly more widely you may not be quite so keen on an article on a student website, even if it can trace its history right back to an actual noticeboard. It's still not clear what the assertion of notability is supposed to be. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Criticizing Peter solely on the basis of his editing history is a cheap ad hominem shot. It's illustrative of the high emotions running on both sides of this issue, and that's why we would like a more thorough review of the article's merit by people who might be able to look at the situation a little more dispassionately. -- Soren.harward 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Are all those print media from BYU newspaper itself? If so, that presents an obvious problem in independent media covering it. Why does this deserve a separate article? It should work just fine as a redirect, or a sentence in the BYU article at best.-Wafulz 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- comment I advise editors commenting here to read the open letter, which says, in part:
The 100 Hour Board has regularly appeared as the focus of news articles since 1999, most frequently in BYU's daily newspaper, the Daily Universe. In 2006, the Daily Universe began to publish a periodic column in its print and online publication with select questions and answers from the 100 Hour Board. A list of articles mentioning the 100 Hour Board is available here. The Board has also been mentioned in the Daily Herald, the local newspaper of Provo, UT
The 100 Hour Board is frequently cited by third party sources on the Internet. Due to its affiliation with Brigham Young University, the 100 Hour Board often fields questions about the practices and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the university's sponsoring institution, which are not found in other easily-accessible sources. Some sites that refer to the 100 Hour Board include Boxxet.com, QDnow, and ProvoPulse. Wikipedia itself cites the 100 Hour Board as a source in multiple articles related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The 100 Hour Board has an established reputation as a unique source for difficult-to-find information on any subject, not just BYU- and LDS-related topics. This makes the inclusion of the 100 Hour Board article on Wikipedia crucial for users who find information from the 100 Hour Board and want to analyze the source of that information.
- I'm not sure if this is enough to pass an AfD, but i think that perhaps it takes this out of the A7 speedy delete zone. There is more relevant info in the rest of the letter. DES (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The process wonk in me wants this taken to AfD, but that seems like unnecessary processcruft, given the current consensus to either delete articles on student groups or merge them into the articles on the schools with which they are affiliated. If student groups with decades of history don't merit their own articles, I can't imagine a noticeboard (physical or electronic) surviving at AfD, even if it does have (non-independent) sources. No objections to a line or two in the article on the school. ergot 14:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Notye that fully indpendant sources, both print and online, are claimed above, although not actually cited. DES (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- References are in the original open letter, but weren't transferred when the text was blockquoted above. -- Soren.harward 12:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Notye that fully indpendant sources, both print and online, are claimed above, although not actually cited. DES (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Restore This article has significant content about a censorship controversy with BYU; as there have been a number of such, and BYU is one of the universities which continues to claim such rights. Discussing university censorship of student opinion is significant. In the latest version, this is unsourced, and it needs to be sourced to show the significance of the controversy.
the administration of BYUSA began to take issue with some of the content on the Board. They had received a complaint about an answer regarding a faculty member and wanted to moderate all content on the Board. ... a 100 Hour Board writer posted a controversial response regarding homosexuality without approval from the editors. When BYUSA administrators investigated the initial complaint, they discovered the unapproved answer and other content to which they objected. In response, BYUSA had a network administrator take down the whole site.
...a BYUSA administrator would approve every answer before it posted. During this brief period of operation, the Board editors reluctantly engaged in widespread censorship for the first time in the Board's history.... Depending on the sources, the article might hold up under AfD. There are several pages of local-interest only content about who was running the board at different times, and the like, which should of course be removed. Possibly this influenced the decision to use A7, and the significance, both with respect to what DESiegel noticed and with respect to what I noticed was overlooked. It's good that we have deletion review to deal with such cases.
Agreed, most student organization websites are not significant, but the few that are should have articles. DGG 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with DGG above about removing the local-interest only content, and sourcing the material on the censorship controversy. I also agree that being a student-run organization does not, in and of itself, mean that a separate article is superfluous. In particular, a site that receives over 70% of its visits (see the open letter) from outside its university's state clearly has a much wider audience than its own students. Disclosure: I am a current writer for the 100 Hour Board. Peppergrower 15:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and send to AfD as per DGG. AfD should make sure that proper sourcing is added and verified to establish clear notability, or else opt for deletion. I urge that if this goes to AfD it not be closed early, to allow time for sources to be inserted. Alternatively, don't send to afd and check in two weeks or so -- afd then if not clearly notable based on sources. DES (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- If a deletion is likely to be controversial, it should not be speedy deleted, but rather sent to AfD. I vote that the speedy delete be overturned and that the article be sent to AfD—the speedy deletion is clearly controversial. The Jade Knight 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I quote (from WP:SD):
- "Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum."
- And under deletion #7 for articles:
- "If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead. "
- According to Wikipedia policy, the Speedy Deletion is clearly inappropriate, and the article belongs at AfD. The Jade Knight 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Fuck process". It's a student website, coverage is only in student newspapers (which is not a claim to notability). And doubly fuck process in the face of blatant offsite solicitation (by the editor who created the article and has almost no other contributions to the project, of course) plus total lack of independence of the cited sources. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- If I had said "fuck process" in my RfA, it wouldn't have succeeded, and rightly so. DGG 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it is untrue that "coverage is only in student newspapers": while I haven't verified it, the open letter also cites news reports in the Provo, UT Daily Herald, which is not a student newspaper. The online sources it cites are also independent of BYU, and not student run. DES (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - There comes a point where process and rules become nothing but a hindrance. So what if it's sent to AfD? It'll be deleted, and we'll be right back where we are now, but seven days later. Sean William @ 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse per JzG and Sean. The only news reports in the open letter are from the BYU student newspaper. Without more there is no way this would pass AfD. Citation in Wikipedia itself does not establish notability. There may be room for coverage of this in WP, just not in its own article. The "we" who "would like a more thorough review of the article's merit" should, after carefully reviewing WP:COI, may want to pursue this alternative course per WP:GETONWITHIT. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it is untrue that "The only news reports in the open letter are from the BYU student newspaper": while I haven't verified it, the open letter also cites news reports in the Provo, UT Daily Herald, which is not a student newspaper. The online sources it cites are also independent of BYU. DES (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I assume you are refering to this: The Board has also been mentioned in the Daily Herald, the local newspaper of Provo, UT. A single mention in a local newspaper still does not come close to notability. Student newspapers are usually independent of the universities at which they are based and usually cover the organizations on campus. AfDs have not considered such coverage as establishing the notability of the organizations, however.
- But guess what? Even if the "mention" in the Daily Herald is actually several sentences of coverage and even if a second source can somehow be found that the message board members themselves did not know about, and even if, based on these sources, a stub article can be created, it would still, undoubtedly, be a better editorial decision to merge such a short article into a longer, meatier article about BYU. Rather than burning hours on processwankery, it seems better simply to get on with writing that material. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- "mentioned" might mean a single trivial reference, or it might mean multiple, non-trivial stories. I don't know, and it appears from your comment, neither do you. The language of the letter is not precise enough to easily find the citations, if they are there. If this went to an AfD, those supporting it would be able to find such citations and add them to the article, if they exist. Then it would be possible to intelligently discuss if the Board is notable enough for a separate article. You say that "it would still, undoubtedly, be a better editorial decision to merge such a short article into a longer, meatier article about BYU" You may well be right. I have often favored fewer, larger articles over more, smaller ones (note my merge of Aubrey-Maturin series several years ago, which some now want to undo). But that isn't always the best course, and i don't think we can say that it "undoubtedly" is best in this case without the opportunity for all editors to see the articles in question, and to work on them, adding properly sourced content and challenging improper or unforced content. A merge could be discussed on the relevant talk pages, and a consensus formed. Obviously some of those who comment here do doubt that such a merge is the proper course. And "hours" would not be burned on this DRV if those supporting the speedy deletion of this page had simply allowed it to be recreated and put to the test at an AfD, possibly after it had a little time to develop. You assume that such an article could never be anything beyond a stub, but I see no foundation for such an assumption. it might not be, in which case a merge would probably be a good idea, but how can you know in advance. Speedy deletes are supposed to be for uncontroversial cases where it is virtually sure that not even a valid stub will result. They are not supposed to be AfD in advance, with the admin guessing what will or won't happen at an afd that s/he doesn't permit to be held. Neither is DRV supposed to be AfD in advance, with people guessing what might be found and added to an article at a later point, while no one can actually edit the article, and non-admins can't even see what it used to look like. DES (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- The open letter was puffing the board as much as possible. If it had truly been the subject of multiple stories in the Herald, it certainly would have mentioned this. The letter's co-signers included two people who are both members of the board and Wikipedia editors and are thus in a good position to know both the sources that cover the organization and the notability guidelines. Yet even they cannot seem to produce any independent sources on this board. The main reason why this article cannot be more than a stub (or even less) currently is the lack of sources. If the Daily Herald mentioned the board, it did not do so by name. Various Google News archive searches only show reprinted stories from the campus newspaper. When the conclusion is this bleeding obvious, I see no reason to waste hours at an AfD that looks likely to turn into puppet theater. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- "mentioned" might mean a single trivial reference, or it might mean multiple, non-trivial stories. I don't know, and it appears from your comment, neither do you. The language of the letter is not precise enough to easily find the citations, if they are there. If this went to an AfD, those supporting it would be able to find such citations and add them to the article, if they exist. Then it would be possible to intelligently discuss if the Board is notable enough for a separate article. You say that "it would still, undoubtedly, be a better editorial decision to merge such a short article into a longer, meatier article about BYU" You may well be right. I have often favored fewer, larger articles over more, smaller ones (note my merge of Aubrey-Maturin series several years ago, which some now want to undo). But that isn't always the best course, and i don't think we can say that it "undoubtedly" is best in this case without the opportunity for all editors to see the articles in question, and to work on them, adding properly sourced content and challenging improper or unforced content. A merge could be discussed on the relevant talk pages, and a consensus formed. Obviously some of those who comment here do doubt that such a merge is the proper course. And "hours" would not be burned on this DRV if those supporting the speedy deletion of this page had simply allowed it to be recreated and put to the test at an AfD, possibly after it had a little time to develop. You assume that such an article could never be anything beyond a stub, but I see no foundation for such an assumption. it might not be, in which case a merge would probably be a good idea, but how can you know in advance. Speedy deletes are supposed to be for uncontroversial cases where it is virtually sure that not even a valid stub will result. They are not supposed to be AfD in advance, with the admin guessing what will or won't happen at an afd that s/he doesn't permit to be held. Neither is DRV supposed to be AfD in advance, with people guessing what might be found and added to an article at a later point, while no one can actually edit the article, and non-admins can't even see what it used to look like. DES (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it is untrue that "The only news reports in the open letter are from the BYU student newspaper": while I haven't verified it, the open letter also cites news reports in the Provo, UT Daily Herald, which is not a student newspaper. The online sources it cites are also independent of BYU. DES (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- List on AfD I read the article a few times, and I may have saw some notability. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. "Fuck process" has no validity once someone objects to the action. Admins are not infallible and their judgment is not beyond question. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Xpression FM (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable Station Seddonism 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC) In the original deletion discussion , that I was not aware of at the time, the main argument for deletion seemed to be based on the error that the station started in 2001, when it is actually one of the oldest in the country, and that a user believed that no student radio station merited inclusion, and on assumptions by users. While broadcasting on LPFM, this is to a significant geographical area (not the several metres mentioned), as well as online, and on regular citywide broadcasts to a potential audience of a large City. Membership of the station alone is in the region of 50-ish people each year made up of the current students. Many alumni (which include, apparently, Thom Yorke) have gone on to work in media professions (this could be an area for expansion). This NME student guide to Exeter University gives massive prominance to Xpression FM, which reflects its standing as a significant part of campus life. A 360 degree photo of Studio 1 was recently carried out, which should help show this isn't an operation run out of a bedroom. On this Wikipedia entry this is a group of some of the many student radio stations that have not been deleted. I am not arguing that they should - rather that this station seems to have been singled out. In addition there are pages for apparently hundreds of campus radio stations worldwide. Perhaps the article could be tiedied up - but this can't be done if it is deleted. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to work as a useful resource - not every article is going to be of interest to every person.
Seddonism 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Correction to the above: "now on the regular broadcast MWBand" - this is how it started out, but is now on permanent LPFM. In my opinion there seemed to be only a couple of informed comments in the original AFD, such as from "tdg1986", the rest were mostly blanket statement against student radio, or errors about how old it is, how far it broadcasts etc etc. Anyway, I can't see myself winning you over - if anyone can provide me with the text from the page before it was deleted then that would be appreciated. (Seddonism 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC))
|
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. |
It doesn't really matter what any admin thinks or where it is, T1 does not apply to userspace. End of argument. It just doesn't. Also nominating:
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Fight Club in popular culture (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User:Kurykh closed AfD2 as delete, but I believe there was no consensus and that every delete argument was sufficiently refuted. The closing statement implies that the main thrust of the delete comments is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. However, as I pointed out WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not forbid this article, and does not mean what some of those editors may think it means (there are concurrent discussions about this confusion at WT:NOT). It's therefore important to explain exactly why the article does not belong in Wikipedia. Most of the delete arguments amount to personal ideals or IDONTLIKETRIVIA, but no policy rejects trivia, as well as there being no working definition of trivia. The keep arguments are not generally impressive either, so I interpret the entire discussion as being based on personal judgment calls, resulting in a genuine disagreement about the interpretation of policy and guidelines. More people holding one opinion in this case is not indicative of consensus; consider that AfD2 is merely an extended rehash of AfD1 (no consensus) with a different sample of editors. Kurykh told me that some of the keep arguments border on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I was referring to a fundamental property common among all encyclopedia articles, and I used as basic examples lists that are not even in popular culture articles. If there's any legitimate application of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is it. See my final paragraph below for an illegitimate application. The article certainly looks like a laundry list, but the format of the article is not an inherent fault: it can be converted to prose, and any "trivial" mentions can easily be removed. Throughout the debate, I repeatedly encouraged other editors who take issue with this to remove any unsourced items, which should take one minute at most (I did not do so because I was continually working to source those items, and removing them myself then adding them back later would defeat any chance of collaboration). No one did remove the "junk", but still a brief glance will allow anyone to see that a decently-sized portion of text would remain even if they are removed, a good size for an article that has no need for merging. Some editors advocated such a selective merge, which would require a redirect and does not constitute a bolded delete. The closing statement also implies that a merge is possible. However, as pointed out in the AfD, merging to either or both the novel and film articles does not make sense: merging to either would be arbitrary given many of the references do not specify which, and merging to both would unnecessarily replicate large sections of content. The split accords with WP:SUMMARY. Note: The following paragraph is obviously WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm not using it to argue for restoration, merely pointing out a relevant practical consequence.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Image:Lemonysnicketgrave.PNG (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
^demon deleted it on June 25 because he/she thought it was unused, apparently unaware of the fact the image was being used on Lemony Snicket since June 21st. CyberGhostface 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Adrian Belew Trio (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 "Biographical article that does not assert significance". But the article (as it was when deleted) says that the group has twice "toured throughout the East, South, & Western United States". if sourced, that alone is enough to pass WP:MUSIC, and even if not sourced should be enough of an "assertion of significance" to avoid an A7 speedy delete. Overturn and list on AfD for a proper assesment of notability by consensus. DES (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
John Stehr (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. While IMO this article would need improvement and better sourcing to pass an AfD, i think that "He anchors Eyewitness News at 5, 6 and 11 p.m., the top-rated newscast in Indainapolis" is at least a claim of significance. Overturn as an improper speedy, and optionally list on AfD. DES (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
- Gather (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Extremely useful and significant website Sm8900 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Was deleted with the note that it did not assert significance. However, there was an onoing discussion at the talk page, where I indicated I would provide more material. I did indicate that the deletion was contested. clearly, there is reason to include it. it is very significant and unique among websites of thst type. with more time, more facts and soruces can be added, as I indicated at the article talk page. i feel this deletion was very unwarranted. thanks. --Sm8900 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Gather the facts and materials first, then recreate it. Note that it may still be listed for deletion at Articles for deletion if it doesn't meet notability criteria for web content.-Wafulz 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The article was already useful and informative, and well-presented, in the form it was originnally written. --Sm8900 15:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. The only assertion it made was "It is highly significant and unique, in that it is the first blog-driven website to integrate networking, tags, blogs and groups". It doesn't provide any external sources or state why this is important. It was five sentences long and sounded like an "About Us" section of a website. If you'd like, I can move the content to your userspace for you to work on it until it meets notability criteria. However, in its current form, it will be deleted again and again by other administrators.-Wafulz 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn "First... to combine" is an assertion of importance. It doesn't have to use the word "impotant" or "notable". It may not be a sufficient degree of importance , but that's for AfD. DGG 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have to respectfully disagree. I can create a product that is the first to combine nuts and gum, or the first band to combine Mozart with gangster rap with The Beatles, but that's not a claim of importance in and of itself.-Wafulz 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed; as far as I know, I am the first human to combine my particular DNA sequence into a living being, but that doesn't make me notable. Or does it? Veinor (talk to me) 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have to respectfully disagree. I can create a product that is the first to combine nuts and gum, or the first band to combine Mozart with gangster rap with The Beatles, but that's not a claim of importance in and of itself.-Wafulz 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, this is the very definition of indiscriminate inclusion. You will need something more, like combining 3 or 4 specific relevant technologies, and similarly for some of the proposed products. DGG 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. --Sm8900 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Four Reigns (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Four Reigns was deleted with the logged reason "see WP:OR". But Original research is not one of the speedy deletion criteria. I agree that this would need sourcing and cleanup to remain for long, it appears that parts of it, at least, are OR. Parts appear to be a factual description of a book. While the book might not be notable, a google search on "Four Reigns" Kukrit Pramoj gets several hundred hits. Also, as the author Kukrit Pramoj was Prime Minister of Thailand, he is clearly notable and his novels are likely to be so. This is the sort of thing that can be discovered more easily if possibly non-notable articles are not speedy deleted (when they do not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria) but are given a little bit of time, Rather than having new speedy criteria made up to get them deleted quickly. Such speedy deletions prevent debate and the prime virtue of wikipedia: "More eyes". Overturn and cleanup. The deleting admin has been requested to undelete, but has not chosen to respond. DES (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
myg0t (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article has been deleted before for being composed of OR and being non-notable. As of this writing, this group is now notable and verifiable. It has been featured in Rolling Stone Magazine, PC Format Magazine, PC Zone Magazine, and Computer Games Magazine. Please keep a clear mind, don't let your opinion of this group or the number of times it has been deleted cloud your thoughts on this. Android Mouse 06:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Could someone please point me to the last discussion on this? What I had read, it was closed because of OR and being non-notable, neither of these are applicable now, so I'm wondering what I've missed. --Android Mouse 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems like we've been a year since this last had a full hearing, and if there's new sources we may change our conclusion. It worked for Jeffree Star Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wikigroaning (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I have new information regarding this AfD process.
Overturn and merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. - Chardish 02:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Youth First (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
"Political Spam" Phanatical 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Page was deleted "COI spam by owner of politcal party", however while it was created on the behalf of the President, whose account this is, it is hardly spam as much as it is a recognition of our status as equal to comparable movements who are similarly referenced in Wikipedia, including, but not limited to Australian Young Labor and the Young Liberals (Australia). Phanatical 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
GoLite (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was deleted as CSD G11: Blatant Advertising, but it wasn't advertising. The article was about a clothing company in Boulder, Colorado, GoLite. The company is of similar size to other companies that have articles, such as CamelBak and Kelty, and is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, such as the article on Hydration packs, the article on rock climber Ray Jardine, and Primal Quest. Lucien Dray 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Andrew Lande (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I was the creator of the Andrew Lande article and upon returning from my trip to Europe to my surprise the article was deleted. Maybe I didn't write up enough sources the first time but the guy is in fact encyclopedia worthy. I'll cite WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (People) First the broad notability Significant coverage - Co-written two major books published by Random House and National Geographic Books. As well as the author of Bob Hope: America's Entertainer, an awarding winning A&E television documentary. Sources - random house, Santa Barbara News Press, Ingram, Library Journal, Etc. Reliability - Has been Editor of Wine Newsletters, articles, television documentaries, e and books and an international Expert on Food and Wine. Trustee of the Bob Hope Foundation which awards millions of dollars every year to worth individuals and causes. Independent of the Subject - This goes to WP:SPS partly where it passes
And also to independent third party sources like the April 2006 article about lande in the nob hill gazette and the may 21 Marilyn McMahon "Lande guides you to Best in the World" article in the Santa Barbara News Press. The cigar connoisseur was also written up in the Library Journal and Ingram all reliable substantial print sources. Onto the specific Wikipedia:Notability (People), and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Notability (books)
(The magazine articles, newspaper articles, and editorial reviews as well as his books)
(Published Random House and National Geographic Books, well reviewed and highly ranked books on Amazon.) Andman8 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |