Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:30, 24 June 2008

< June 23	Deletion review archives: 2008 June	June 25 >

24 June 2008

I understand the reason for speedy deletion, and that was for lack of citations. i guess i did not truely understand that the citations needed posting immediately, for that i apologize. The Record label and the digital store exist and would appreciate another shot to create the page with the proper citations. Thanks.

Geoffrey Hugo Lampe

academic eminence User:clive sweeting

Rewrite Here is the full text of the article, as edited by you only: "Geoffrey Hugo Lampe, Ely Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, edited the Patristic Greek Lexicon." GRBerry 16:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Restore and rewrite-- to say someone is professor of Divinityy at Cambridge Univ. is an unmistakable assertion of significance. its not much of a stub, but its time we stopped deleting articles for being a stub. It does not have to show significance to pass speedy, just say something that indicates it. If sufficient importance doubted, that's why we have PROD and AfD. If not enough is said that's why we have {expand} and {uncited}. DGG (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could restore it, but it seems like a waste of time for a nearly-two-year-old speedy. It'd be quicker for you in the long run if you just recreate the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partners in torah

I am confused as to why this page was deleted given that it is an organization parallel to many others within the same field of Jewish Outreach Organizations e.g. Aish HaTorah, Ohr Somayach and more. I had emulated their editorial style and used sources no different than these pages.

The same is true of the page Jewpiter, which was also deleted. Claudbaker

No offence to Orangemike here, but I'm going to have to say overturn because I'm pretty sure that didn't actually make A7. The cached version states that the program "currently has more than 13,000 participants", which makes me want to do a Gsearch to check for notability. A PROD or possibly an AfD would've been more appropriate. It very well may fail an AfD, but it at least deserves the chance. Also, you probably should've taken it up with the deleting admin before bringing it here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support myself. The requesting editor did not raise this deletion with me or the nominator before bringing it here; but I'm not gonna make any procedural whines about it. In a planet of 6.6 billion, 13,000 participants is not an assertion of notability in my book. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn 13,000 for a religion based organisartion is an assertion of significance. In fact, it might be for anything else also--the standard is not "world-wide significance". DGG (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spreadtrum Communications

Unusual procedure of deleting,no warning or adding speedel tag,and didn't examine the deleting policy carefully Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and assume that the cached version was what's deleted since there's only one deletion. The cached version doesn't make A1 because it's pretty easy to tell what the article will be talking about, a fabless semiconductor company. However, there's nothing in there which says why the company is important or significant, and failing to assert that is another criterion for speedy deletion. So, while I don't agree with the CSD used for deletion, I believe the content should stay deleted. Feel free to write a lengthier version which does assert the company's importance, however. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its IPO on the NASDAQ do signify the notability even for a layman reader.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which isn't on the cached version. If it was on the deleted version, it was added after the cached version was taken, and the reason I can't see is I lack access to Special:Undelete. If this is indeed the case, feel free to disregard my !vote. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Finance NASDAQ:SPRD--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread. My thinking was more or less close to Lifebaka's in that I saw it straight off as an A7, then, seeing the nom's A1, for me the single sentence was not enough to give the business context so I let the nom's category stand. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. WP:CSD#A1 doesn't apply because the stub uniquely identified its subject. WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply, in my opinion, because the stub referenced the NASDAQ stock symbol for the article, which is a claim of importance by being a company with a publicly traded stock. GRBerry 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only noting here, I don't find a NASDAQ stock symbol in itself to be an assertion of importance, since it can be more or less purchased. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find plenty of Category:Companies listed on NASDAQ,so whether to delete most of them is justified by your criteria?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope that most of these would also also have some notability beyond just being listed on Nasdaq. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, Gwen's right. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold deletion (which would not rule out the later creation -- by Ksyrie or anybody else -- of a longer article about this company, an article that asserted notability and presented sources to back this up). -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Actually, I think NASDAQ is an indicator of significance: "NASDAQ lists approximately 3,200 securities, of which 335 are non-U.S. companies from 35 countries representing all industry sectors. To qualify for listing on the exchange, a company must be registered with the SEC, have at least three market makers (financial firms that act as brokers or dealers for specific securities), and meet minimum requirements for assets, capital, public shares, and shareholders." from the WP article. Now, obviously SEC registration is a minimal requirement, but the other conditions are indicators of importance & enough to pass speedy in all cases. As for AfD, there are 3 levels, Global Select, Global, and Capital market. Global Select, which requires essentially $100 Million revenue (or $3 Million profit) for initial listing is I think certainly enough to pass AfD. The next category, Global, requires $15 million stockholders equity & $1 million income for initial listing (or a variety of approximate equivalents) and I would argue that is significant enough for AfD also. The third, Capital Market, requires only $5 million equity. or similar so I can see that some people might want to require other factors, like market share, for AfD.. See [1]. DGG (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to Tim Russert's death (closed)

Paul Brunelle

This article was marked for speedy deletion for non-notability immediately after I posted it and then deleted shortly afterwards without regard to my comments on the talk page.

I actually thought I was doing a service by translating this article from the French Wikipedia. Why is the article notable enough for inclusion on the French Wikipedia, but not the English? Are we provincial? Is the article notable for French readers, but not for English readers? I think education is global. Anyone wanting to study any global topic anywhere in the world should be able to do so without regard to his or her native reading language.

I also checked the notability guidelines before posting. How can this artist not be notable? He pioneered a whole sub-genre of music and considered its founding father. His music has been recorded by major record labels, has had extensive radio airplay, and he has had his own daily radio program. His discography runs from 1944 to 1962 and includes 49 singles and 14 LPs. Billboard.com also has 7 listings of re-releases in the 2000's.

If anyone wants to check the French Wikipedia article, I can save you a few steps in getting a translation by providing this translated link

Jkolak (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might've been easier to just ask the deleting admin to rethink his decision first, but now that we're here... I'm not sure what the previous version stated, but from what I can see the guy appears to pass WP:MUSIC. I'd suggest, rather than complaining here to have it restored (which will probably take about a week), you should just go ahead and recreate the article. This will probably be the fastest solution. You should also make sure that the article does say why he's important up front, so that it won't be speedied again. If you don't already, try using the "show preview" button before saving. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this, since their were no independent verifiable references to support what was claimed. I have no objection to recreation, although as indicated above it needs to make clear why he's notable, preferably with references. jimfbleak (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but there's no provision in A7 for sources. The issue there is separate from that of notability. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get back to you Jim. I couldn't get back to this right away and your ID is no longer tagged on the recreate/deletion page. Part of my delay was in a computer crash which has kept me offline for a while, and in which I lost my document. If someone could please undelete it, I would be glad to rewrite to better suit your suggestions.Jkolak (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Jkolak/Paul Brunelle. Advice for Jkolak: Add sources in the first edit, or create it in userspace first then move it when your done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - While unsourced, it asserted rather plenty of importance over a 40 year career to avoid a speedy deletion. Actually we have a process that allows for smoother accomodation of interwiki translations: WP:Translation. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn "He is considered the pioneer of country in Quebec and the main source of influence on the artist who would popularize the genre, Willie Lamothe." That is a clear claim of significance, which is all that is needed to escape A7 speedy deletion. Lack of sources is an issue for PROD or AFD, which allow time to demonstrate the existence of sources. GRBerry 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The criterion is no assertion at all, or at least no good faith assertion, and this unmistakably passes. It might need to be improved a little to pass afd, but that's for afd, not here. Contrary to what Jim thinks, "There were no independent verifiable references to support what was claimed" is not one of the reasons for speedy. I notice from his talk page that he has used this reason elsewhere as well. DGG (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC
Overturn - Asserted notability. Sources not yet placed in the article is not A7 speedy deletion criteria. --Oakshade (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 <!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
+====[[:Amalgam Digital]]====
-Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format:
 {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~
 {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=Amalgam Digital|reason=Lack of Citations...