Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 30

30 October 2008

Mixtape_Messiah_4

Mixtape_Messiah_4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Very informative article. Really good mixtape, many other articles that should be deleted but definately not this one Dc 0808 (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sustain Delete Might be the best "mixtape" on the planet, there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources for it--therefore it would simply be an original creation... but I see no reason to overturn the AfD. Just being "really good" is not a reason.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Closing admin Proper procedure, clear consensus, not that nice response at User_talk:MBisanz#why_did_you_delete_Mixtape_Messiah_4_article. MBisanz ^talk 14:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as the obvious and only closure. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This mixtape has MTV.com as a resource and some well-known reviewers plus this is the second most popular mixtape series in hip-hop(next to Da Drought Series by Lil Wayne) I even think that people who have good knowledge of hip-hop as a whole should only be able to evaluate whether articles should be deleted because clearly this MBisanz does not know what6 he is doing as far as this mixtape article goes.76.101.122.31 (talk)

Vienna_fingers

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

Proposing for relist. Made request for specific hit context inferring notability rather than 'X many Google hits,' but the only responses were an item that would belong in a trivia section, and "is cited by major media as one of the flagship products." Discussion was closed and article kept without further context being provided. Asked admin about it here and got response here. arimareiji (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• sustain the keep. already listed the full 5 days, and then relisted--whereupon a keep consensus quickly emerged. -- and rightly so,considering the available citations from multiple sources, and the clear indication there could be many more. Consensus can change, but since it seems to be changing if anything in favor of such articles, I would not advise trying again for at least 6 months or so.DGG (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support the keep. I'm basing my decision based solely on the AfD in question, and it looks to me that "keep" was the right conclusion based on the points provided by each of the editors. While there are reasons to delete, there are also reasons to keep and the consensus (as I see it) was resolved correctly. I see no reason to change at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support DRV should not be used as an AfD do-over. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - not sure if it's incorrectly tagged, but there's no link from Vienna fingers to this discussion.

I agree with Arimareiji about there being problems with the validity of arguments at the AFD; the Google News search in particular finds lots of hits, but primarily as trivial passing references in lists, party tips, etc at the level of "Try fruit like strawberries and cherries or pretzels, biscotti, marshmallows, vienna fingers or mini cream puffs. Less work for you, more fun for them". There's very little there that I'd call secondary sources about them. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment I am putting an "Under Construction" tag on the article and will work on rewriting the article (it is, admittedly, in need of serious input). Hopefully, that will put an end to the grumbling over the merits of this entry. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I fixed the DRV link from the article page, and I redirected the article to Vienna Fingers -- we had the wrong spelling of the product all of this time (there is an uppercase F -- "Vienna fingers" refers to Austrian hands). Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - could someone explain to me what Wikipedia "consensus" is? Above, people refer to the "consensus" that developed in a few hours after relisting in the original AfD, but the "consensus" referred to is three people saying "I agree" - no new arguments, just votes.
Did I misunderstand what "consensus" means in actual practice because of having read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY ("primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting") and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD ("The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments")? I've only been here since July, and if I misunderstood the meaning in practice - i.e. weight of votes, rather than weight of logic - I want to know so I can stop making incorrect assumptions. arimareiji (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
New evidence that the discussion itself was flawed - one of the primary arguments in the AfD was "Plus, regarding Neil Simon's mention of the cookie in "The Odd Couple" -- that play was written in 1965. The article clearly needs enhancing, not erasure."
This is the actual quote, to show how topical it was: "Get something to eat first. Like some nice, hot Ovaltine?... How about some Vanilla Wafers or Vienna Fingers or some Mallomars? You like a nice box of chocolate Mallomars?" arimareiji (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wally Bullington

Wally Bullington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Significant improvements to article at User:Paulmcdonald/Wally Bullington. Article was originally deleted and deleting admin normally prefers to go to DRV rather than discuss (which is okay). The original deletion review for the article occured during a bulk deletion run on articles and referenced Walter J. West as precedence to delete. This article has subsequently been restored. There is an essay on the subject of West Precedent that may also apply. Paul McDonald (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Restore to mainspace and optionally relist for afd. But since he was--besides the football coach and athletic director at Abilene Christian, an All-American in 1952 , I think its clear that by current standard the article would be kept. Part of a mass nomination of a sort that has since been strongly discouraged, because it did not give the opportunity to show notability like this. DGG (talk)
• I don't have a problem returning this to mainspace immediately. I'll voice my comment again that wikipedia doesn't operate by Stare decisis. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Restore - AfD would be a pointless exercise as the article in its current form clearly meets WP:V and WP:N. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Princess Protection Program

Princess Protection Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

should not be deleted --gdaly7 (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure (keep deleted) and endorse the subsequent redeletions. The AfD consensus seems quite clear. I find no process problems in the discussion nor has any new evidence been presented to justify overturning that decision. Rossami (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• This appears to be about Princess protection program and Princess Protection Program., not Princess Protection Program (the deletion of which I would endorse). Those are currently at AfD, so I suggest we just let that play out and close this. lifebaka++ 18:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Those links are deleted. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

'Bout an hour after I posted, yeah. So, generally, I'm afraid I'll have to endorse all deletions here, lacking any good reason to overturn the original AfD or subsequent G4's. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• endorse as I understand it, the movie has not come out yet and is still in production. Wikipedia is not a "upcoming movie review" guide, so I have to stay with endorse (but I tip my hat to the enthusiastic supporters of the article and ask politely that they try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - no policy-based reasons for DRV have actually been given -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as there was no deviation from proper process. The author may want to improve the article in user space until the move is released. Given the star power of the heroines with the pre-teen set, I have little doubt at some point it will be. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)