Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 8

Article was restored after a previous DRV only to be speedily deleted by JzG who claims, falseley, that the article was the recreation of something previously deleted. This is patently untrue since Hoh received the Ridenhour Truthtelling prize after the initial deletion and that sourced content was added to the article. I leave it to the that admin to explain why they deleted the article and protected it from being recreated despite ample sourcing and well established notability for a prize-winner who continues to be covered by the media [1] for his role in the Afghan War opposition movement. FredoMurphy (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved to the user space of Freakshownerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a now-blocked sockpuppet of a banned user, and reintroduced to mainspace with no significant change from the AfD other than the addition of a criticism section that only made it worse. Requester has remarkably few contributions to Wikipedia. WP:OTRS Ticket:2010120610015879 also applies. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Ridenhour Prize noted in the deleted article? Why did you disregard the DRV outcome and unilaterally delete? Why did you protect the article from being recreated? Are you suggesting that Matthew Hoh is not notable? FredoMurphy (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as I said, the article was deleted by AfD, undeleted to the user space of an undeclared sockpuppet banned user and moved back by that banned user without significant change, so meets WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#G5. Also fails WP:BLP1E per the AfD, and is a problem per WP:CSD#G10 and WP:SYN - all of which I'd have told you had you followed Ste 1 above and asked me before coming here. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a single comment supporting deletion at the DRV [2] and the close suggested recreation. Why are you misrepresenting the article's history? You still haven't answered whether the subject is notable or whether the Ridenhour Prize was in the deleted article. If that content, about a major award, was added after it was deleted, how can you argue it wasn't improved? I try to assume good faith,m but your actions are truly disturbing. Why have you protected th page from being recreated? FredoMurphy (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helgoland Radio Tower

Was (I think) deleted for two reasons:

being a non-notable mast, which is wrong for various reasons. The main reason is of course that it is not a mast but a tower (rendering that argument invalid all by itself). The second reason is that it's a major landmark on the island, and visible from afar, and surely that is something remarkable about any man-made object.
lack of content, I wrote a new article in the userspace which is no longer a stub. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That AfD was over 3 years ago and refered to a stub, not your draft in your userspace - why not just create the article? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know how the current consensus is about these towers and masts at the English Wikipedia. Neither do I know how permissible it is to just recreate the article. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a clear consensus. Certainly you can recreate the article as it is different from the one that got deleted. If you do, I would make a suggestion that you try and demonstrate how it meets the general notability guideline - do you have a source supporting your statement that it is "a major landmark on the island, and plays a major role in maintaining connections to the mainland." ? --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main question this raises is whether database / directory sources confer notability. I would say not. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not their point. I just added them so people wouldn't ask about where the data comes from. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (addendum: and there are only two of them anyway.)[reply]
- No, actually, that's an AfD question. The original AfD was almost four years ago, the new article looks substantially better than the old one. By all means it should go back in mainspace, and if someone wants a new discussion on it, it can be nominated for AfD and be considered on the merits of the current article. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The userspace draft is sufficiently improved to go back to the mainspace. But notability is very questionable so I recommend it go straight to AfD where notability questions are (apparently) best dealt with. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]