Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 25

25 September 2008

Image:Stpauli2003dergan.jpg

File:Stpauli2003dergan.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)

Oxymoron83 first orphaned this pic from 2 articles, second he vandalized the fair use rationale (see [1]) and third this admin from Germany locked the disc of User:MutterErde. Later Oxymoron83 was invited to a meeting in Berlin, but didn't come. Btw: He seems to be unknown there - not only to me. Please undelete the vandalized pic, because it was deleted by another admin without proving the image's history 78.51.238.122 (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Movie Reels of page (optional):Movie Reels

Has importance as a filmmaker forum website. Indy424242 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fábio Pereira da Silva

Fábio Pereira da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Procedural nom after the request for unsalting came to my talk. What the article draft asserts and what the source provided to me says differ, and I'm not entirely comfortable with WP:ATHLETE to make the call on my own. Will be notifying all parties in a moment, as this is a procedural nom, I have no !vote. TravellingCari 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Absolutely nothing has changed since the AfD - he still fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a match. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The common standard, as was agreed at the AFD for this article, is that until the player actually plays for the senior team they are not notable, and I see no evidence provided in the draft to contradict this and neither has a large amount of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability standard been provided. Davewild (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'm with both of the above right now, but since he's actually on the team it seems likely he'll play. Perhaps we should unsalt preemptively, before it's necessary? Either way that one goes, users can feel free to ping me with a ref as soon as he's played a game and I'll unsalt it (if it hasn't been already). Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (as the last deleter and salter) until he appears in a first-team match. Once he does, let me know and I'll also be glad to unsalt. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WTFPL

WTFPL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AfD 2)

(copied from Talk:WTFPL) I believe the second AfD was conducted in bad faith. Of the four keeps, the first was WP:GOOGLEHITS and failed to establish WP:N as pointed out by User:Thumperward; the second WP:PERNOM; the third suggested using WP:N was WP:GAME while failing to establish notability; and the fourth was a WP:VAGUEWAVE. None of these keeps went so far as to point to a reliable secondary source to establish notability. I understand that the editors in favor of keeping the article intend to establish notability, and I encourage them to do so as quickly as possible, but if this notability cannot be established soon then the article should be deleted beacuse articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. WP:NOTAGAIN suggests an article can be renominated for deletion as many times as necessary, given that we allow enough time for editors to improve the quality of the article after the first AfD. However, this article was first nominated for deletion over 20 months ago. In that time, the editors have not improved the quality of the article to sufficiently establish notability. Beefyt (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. no evidence of meeting WP:V/WP:N was provided... the sources in the article that appear to be vaguely reliable don't even mention this license, let alone provide non-trivial coverage. The sources that do mention it seem to be directory listings or provide no prose information about the license. The closer really should have taken strength of policy-based argument into account here. --Rividian (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse There was no consensus for deletion in the AFD, nor did any of the arguments for deletion quote an overiding policy which would justify overuling the consensus of the discussion - notability is not policy and at least one of the delete supporters in the AFD said that the article was verified. This does not stop the article from being renominated after a reasonable period if more reliable sources are not added to satisfy yourself of its notability. (Note I have added a foreign language source to the external links which provides a small amount of verifiability) Davewild (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse own closure. I can't take anything other than a consensus into account here. There are reasonable sources cited in the article, and it seems clearly verifiable. (Note that the standard is verifiable, not verified.) Stifle (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)