Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 6: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[Late Night Killers]]: closing moribund debate
Line 56: Line 56:
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid afd. "I say we take off and nuke the entire pig farm from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 05:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid afd. "I say we take off and nuke the entire pig farm from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 05:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


====[[Late Night Killers]]====
*I'm speaking on behalf of Feedkillchain on the matter of the article [[Late Night Killers]]. The article was speedily deleted under both A7 and A8, because the article was stripped from the band's MySpace page and did not make an apparent claim of notability. Feedkillchain is maintaining that the band is notable because by passing WP:MUSIC on two issues: '''Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such''', and '''Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,reported in notable and verifiable sources. '''. The article was first deleted and protected by Jaranda under my own request. Feedkillchain later posted his claims, and I'm no longer seeking permanent deletion. I'm not looking for any outcome for my own purposes. I would just like the deletion reviewed in a more civil manner. The talk page is getting out of control. [[User:Targetter|Targetter]] 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
* I deleted the article, not Rklawton, anyways '''Keep Deleted''' 75 google hits, about 15 of them relavent, the article was utter nonsense with comments like ''In 2009, in one of many bouts of crippling depression spurred by the passing of Williams, PJ Pistol committed suicide in his Beverly Hills mansion.'' and ''After seXXXing and smacKKKing his way back and forth across the land with glam-punk freakazoids [[the Static]] (who exploded mid-tour in a Day-Glo flurry of drugs, egos, rape charges, and epic battles over whether or not [[Piper at the Gates of Dawn]] was suitable driving music), [[Sean Smack]] (a.k.a. Sean Sexxx, a.k.a. Sean Snake the Bonesnapper, a.k.a. Sam Snake the Cheese Cracker) ingested a plethora of illegally-obtained pills and woke up one Wednesday afternoon with a brand new rough-and-tumble musical group: The Late Night Killers! Joy!'' and completely fails [[WP:MUSIC]]. Thanks [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 04:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''' the original deletion. The article is incoherent and unsalvageable. Even is this topic were worthy of a Wikipedia entry, it would need to be completely rewritten. ~[[User:Mdd4696 |MDD]][[User talk:Mdd4696 |46]][[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696 |96]] 04:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Original write-up corrected to reflect Jaranda as the original deleter. Also, I think this review is more of a "Do we give Feedkillchain a chance to correct his article?" type of issue. The matter is not the A8 anymore, I don't think. I think it's the A7 and WP:MUSIC issue we should be looking at. [[User:Targetter|Targetter]] 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' I do not contest that I posted a great article on this band... I only wish the right to relist this article and do better. I totally understand now that my originally posted article was not an acceptable choice. It was a straight reposting of the band's bio... given the opportunity I will rewrite this article in a more straightforward and appropriate manner for wikipedia. The southern scene of which this band is a part is rife with surrealist overtones, and thus the absurdist bio. I now realize that a straight posting of their bio is inappropriate... It was not intended to be the entire article anyhow, just a part... but the article didn't last that long... ANYWAY, the bio will not be included in the rewrite and the article will be entirely informative and factual. The band DOES in fact pass the WP:MUSIC on more than one level... So all I am asking is that the subject be freed up for me to write again... not a reposting of the original article.
*Comment Also note, I wrote a totally factual and informative though somewhat brief article on Sean Smack which was deleted during this whole catastrophy. It stated who he was, birth name, what bands he'd been in, etc. Also I was in the process of writing an article on the Static when this issue came up, it's been dropped for the moment until this is resolved, although I should've done it first because it would've tidied this up a bit. I merely posted a LNK bio first as it was quicker since I was writing the Static article from the ground up... and LNK are not a side project or early band... They're a more recent band formed by a former member of cult group the Static. and as for the google hits issue... your own policy pages state that google hits is widely considered to be an ineffective measure as it proves only web presence and not significance. i'll look up the quote if it is so requested.
*'''Bold text'''The following is from Wikipedia's policy... Not from essays written by users on theories of policy.


Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. An article that fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable can be speedy deleted under criterion A7, however. A mere claim of notability, even if contested, may avoid deletion under A7 and require a full Article for Deletion process to determine if the subject of the article is notable.

Many of us who spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band) to deserve an article here. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion.

Also, please keep in mind that the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or rant about a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability.

- while my article may not have met the guidelines for claiming to be notable, '''THIS should have been brought to my attention'''... not copyright and "what defines notable" - also while somewhat absurdly and inappropriately worded, the bio did claim Sean Smack was a former member of the Static - a band who meets notability criterion... see Jaranda's quotation, used as an example of the article's absurdity. '''i make no argument that it was not absurd, just that it was not subject to speedy deletion and i should've been afforded the time to rewrite the article. '''
In response to Jarmanda as to it being UTTER nonsense, this is not the case.
''After seXXXing and smacKKKing his way back and forth across the land with glam-punk freakazoids the Static (who exploded mid-tour in a Day-Glo flurry of drugs, egos, rape charges, and epic battles over whether or not Piper at the Gates of Dawn was suitable driving music), Sean Smack (a.k.a. Sean Sexxx, a.k.a. Sean Snake the Bonesnapper, a.k.a. Sam Snake the Cheese Cracker) ingested a plethora of illegally-obtained pills and woke up one'' Wednesday afternoon with a brand new rough-and-tumble musical group: The Late Night Killers! Joy!

While... ahem... colorfully worded... the above sentence does in fact say or suggest that...
A) Sean Smack toured with glam punk band the Static
B) the static broke up due to substance abuse, ego clash, rape charges brought against the drummer, and infighting - in particular over whether a punk band could listen to Pink Floyd in the tour van.
C) After returning from tour and whilst heavily abusing prescription medication, Sean Smack formed the Late Night Killers... and due to said drug stupor didn't recall most of the circumstances surrounding the formation of the band.

Once again, not arguing it's appropriately said, just that it is said... and subject to the full deletion process and not a speedy delete. I deserve the chance to do better.

''and completely fails WP:MUSIC. Thanks''
we've discussed this already... see above and the subject's talk page. thank you for your time.
--[[User:Feedkillchain|Feedkillchain]] 06:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Restore and AfD''' A7 states that if the assertion of non-notability is merely challenged, it should go to AfD. ''I sympathize entirely with Jaranda, and I appreciate the common sense he attempted to provide.'' The article's author should have taken the multiple hints provided. If this article is restored, I will nominate it for '''AfD''' or vote '''delete''' if another editor beats me to the nomination. My reasons are already cited above. As for arguments against deletion, I'm simply not buying them. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] 06:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hints were provided over the course of like 10 minutes... I didn't have time to do any better. Look I realize where you stand on this. I only wish the topic to be unprotected so we can start over again without bias or vendetta against the subject matter simply because I posted an inappropriate article. It is obvious now that you are simply irritated with me and wish to be done with this matter, which I can understand... The only thing is that I am trying to be reasonable... And why would you automatically assert that you would apply for deletion immediately even disregarding what I might have to say on the subject. I realize that you are both speaking common sense, but I am as well and we disagree... So let's just be fair to the subjectmatter... '''I'm not asking for a reposting of the original article''' just the chance to write a proper article on the subject, and THEN if you do not deem that article appropriate (after reading it of course, not based on personal bias against me you've most certainly developed since i've clung to this subject for so long) you can do whatever you wish to it. I was new at writing articles. However this experience has been a crash course in wikipedia policies. I am not a moron, I just posted an article and had no idea what I was doing. Misjudgement. I'm sorry. --[[User:Feedkillchain|Feedkillchain]] 06:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
*To Feedkillchain: as soon as the article is restored - you are free to start over as per your request above. Not a single word of the original article need remain. In fact, I didn't read most of the original article. I spent far more time reading about the band and its members through other websites. Having seen how poorly written the first version was, I thought I might edit it into something useful. ''We do a lot of that here at Wikipedia.'' However, given the lack of information available online, I quickly realized this group failed the notability test - and I tagged it accordingly. The important thing to keep in mind is that it's the group I tagged and not the poor attempt at writing the article. Frankly, your passion combined with your willingness to read up on policies and your ability to communicate in these forums tells me you'd make one heck of a good editor. I suggest finding a better topic. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] 06:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As a bonafide audiophile, record geek, and all around lover of music, I assure you if you'd witnessed the raw power of the Late Night Killers live on a good night, you'd realize the potential of said topic. [[Lester Bangs]], godfather of all music journalists, himself was prone to ramble about bands no one paid attention to... And history has proved him right... So current web presence is not necessarily a good barometer for cultural significance. After all, the Arctic monkeys were a sloppy unsigned teenage rock band until they posted a few songs on myspace... Suddenly they have the fastest selling debut in UK history. That's all I've got on that, and thank you.
--[[User:Feedkillchain|Feedkillchain]] 06:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
*We've also got a "no original research" policy. Verification is important. Wikipedia is the place to go ''after'' a band makes its mark. Once this band becomes the fastest selling somethingorother in the U.K., then no one will argue against it here. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] 06:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', the entire content was a copyvio from [http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=9857813 this website] and pretty much incoherent nonsense, so I think it meets [[WP:CSD]] G1 and/or G3 (as spam), perhaps also A7 and A8. If you want to make a real article, write it up in your userspace, and we can evaluate if we should left the deletedpage-protection. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 09:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You may very well be right on this issue Rklawton, you make a very sensible point. Perhaps this a topic that just doesn't belong here YET. I'll attempt to draft something up, and if it doesn't look significant enough I'll just not post it... But the topic needs to be open for someone in the future. As for Sjakkalle... As spam was clearly not the issue or intention in this situation, I take it pretty much that you're just trying to piss me off, offend me, belittle me, or you are truly an idiot... I've had enough of this... if not forever then at least for now. I had no intention of touching so many sore spots around here, I was simply trying to add some articles on some things that were important to me. I am appalled by the attitudes I've met coming from everyone I've been in contact with here. It leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth regarding wikipedia in general. No one at any point in time (at least until after HOURS or arguing) made any attempt at ADVICE, or HELPFUL SUGGESTION, or even humoring the fact that I and my subject might be legit in some way. I was treated from second number one as an annoyance, as someone trying to pull something over on everyone... and as that was never my intention I've become rather agitated. I hope wikipedia shows a bit more respect and understanding for new users in the future. As for me, I'm severely turned off to the whole site now.
[[User:Feedkillchain|Feedkillchain]] 12:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion'''. Falls under multiple CSD categories, most notably (pardon the pun) A7. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 02:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''' per above. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid CSD. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''', although i think that this band is in fact not-notable, i also believe that process was not observed. notability was contested, and therefore AfD would have been appropriate. Please give them a crack. They are being reasonable and straightforward. Let them write what they want to write, and then subject them to [[WP:MUSIC]] in a real AfD. [[User:Themindset|Themindset]] 18:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''comment''' i appreciate that last one. i've researched up on this a good bit, and i've had time to calm down from my initial reaction to the way i was treated here. i see that the late night killers may in fact not be "notable" enough for an entry in wikipedia at this point in time. i do not feel inclined at this point in time to write another entry or try and prove this band is "notable," as perhaps my immense respect for the group does not make them encyclopedia-worthy. my initial thinking was that since i'd found such a vast amount of useful information on a wide range of obscure subject matter on this site, that it was a bit more "open" in the kind of content it contained. all i am asking now is that this subject be left unprotected so that in the eventuality that one day this group attains ... ahem... "notability" and someone wants to write up an article on them, they're not either a) stuck in cyberlimbo forever or b) met with the onslaught that i was met with. that's all i want. i'm not going to write an article again on this subject anytime soon, unless they get signed and start blowing up this week... which isn't probable. for those of you who have been helpful and have referenced policies to me for my information and those of you who have expressed your opinions AFTER reading what i have to say and without being rude, i say thank you. --[[User:Feedkillchain|Feedkillchain]] 21:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Non-notable band. Very non-notable. 23 hits in Google, most from Myspace. No hits in Gracenote. No press coverage found in Google. "National tour" is to clubs in Memphis / Kansas City / Des Moines / Topeka / Tulsa / Dallas. Speedy delete was not inappropriate. --[[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] 19:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and list on AfD'''. This is with great regret, but we should follow procedure, and all it'll take is five days and a few editors to vote delete. I think that it gives a bad impression if we don't follow our own policies. --[[User:David.Mestel|David Mestel]]<sup>([[User Talk:David.Mestel|Talk]])</sup> 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
for those of you who have posted opinions recently on this issue, i caution you to read the comments and conversations that have gone on regarding the subject matter. i have stated that perhaps my lack of familiarity with the "notability" guidelines does call for deletion of this article. however my protests at this venture are as follows: a)procedure was not followed and b) i find it only fair that '''protection be removed''' in the event that at some juncture there should be call for a relevant and informative article on this group. At this time I am in no way seeking to recreate this article, nor do I assert that the article posted was appropriate to this site in any way. I have appologized profusely for my lack of understanding of the policies and layout of wikipedia at the time of my posting this article. (Note: to a relatively new user trying to create articles on objects of interest, the databases of wikipedia polices and instructions can be quite overwhelming and voluminous). Twas a misunderstanding on my part for which I take full blame. Just '''delete and unprotect''' this article.... this comment alone should be enough to explain my standpoint on the issue. --[[User:68.62.174.244|68.62.174.244]] 03:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ... that's feedkillchain for my spanish speaking friends.


====[[Cashville Records]]====
====[[Cashville Records]]====

Revision as of 16:44, 16 July 2006

6 July 2006

Pyongyang Hotel

Closed in a deletion debate by W.marsh as delete, despite having 4 keep votes and 2 delete votes. SushiGeek 23:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Invalid AFD close Jaranda wat's sup 01:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, as:
    • Commentors were actualy 4-3 Keep, 4-4 tie if you include the nominator. Even so that would usually be no consensus (= keep for now).
    • But not if the discussion was fishy (sockpuppets or whatever). But it wasn't.
    • Or, not if the Delete arguers had significantly better arguments. Did they? I would say that they did. Basically, the building is in North Korea so it's not easy to get information on it, and both sides were pretty much guessing whether the thing is notable or not. But, as the closing admin pointed out, there are no sources given in the article OR in the AfD discussion that indicate that the thing is notable. The burden is on the article to present some source showing notability. AfD is not a vote.
    • So the closing was in order. (And I say this as someone who, personally, would prefer the article to exist.) Herostratus 02:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did present an external link showing that the hotel was in the third highest N.Korean official hotel category and is also comparatively small - making it less of a, ahem, "good chance that important international meetings will take place at that hotel or have already happened". Aw, heck, I dunno - maybe the cyborg undead version of Kim Il Sung will want to snub the Americans/Japanese/South Koreans/Martians some day by forcing them to attend a summit in a small, third-rate hotel. Bwithh 04:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until notability is established. "is a good chance that important international meetings will take place at that hotel or have already happened" is, pardon my saying it, a ridiculous reason for keeping something. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. And I thought the rationale for keeping Eon8 was, um, lacking. Kudos to the closer. Everyone voting to keep should print out 100 copies of WP:V, roll them into a tube and whack themselves round the head with it, repeatedly. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this have to do with Eon8? SushiGeek 12:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguments for Eon8's notability were handwaving, but at least they were present. Here we were told that the hands are there but we are too far away to see them waving, so we should just blindly assume they are waving and keep the article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Agree with Samuel Blanning and Zoe. W.marsh made an outstanding judgement call here. Wikipedia is not and never has been a crystal ball; if the Pyongyang Hotel ever hosts meetings of world-historical importance the matter can be reconsidered. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn nice example of systemic bias here. No consensus for deletion, too.  Grue  11:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Countering systemic bias means writing about whatever can meet encyclopaedia policy regardless of origin, not dumping the rules just because something happens to be foreign. Also, AfD is a not a... oh, why bother. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I doubt this hotel is less notable than dozens of American elementary shools that are kept on AfD on regular basis.  Grue  14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree 100%, but the Pokémon defence is not a reason to keep articles. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Ryugyong Hotel is sometimes called the Pyongyang Hotel (here for example [1]), something that confused me while searching for information on this. Haukur 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the AFD was conducted correctly and the admin's decision was within his discretion and he justified it properly. Furthermore he is to be congratulated for not simply headcounting, and instead taking into account the arguments made. I don't see any new information that justifies overturning/relisting either. As for my opinion of the arguments made: an encyclopedia is not about guesswork. The keep votes were hand-waving. - Motor (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've notified W.marsh of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; the tally is irrelevant; no evidence of notability was provided in the AfD discussion. No prejudice about recreation if reliable sources are provided. (Liberatore, 2006). 16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no consensus for deletion. We have no policy requiring notability, and certainly none requiring verifiable notability. Spacepotato 02:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do, however, have a policy saying that we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. If we include every building in the world, regardless of whether it is of any interest at all outside its local area, we are an indiscriminate collection of information on buildings. That is the job of the Yellow Pages, not an encyclopaedia. 'Notability' is merely a widely accepted interpretation of this policy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Mr. Blanning hit the nail on the head. Notability is an interpretation of how best to meet the policy of not being an indiscrimiante collection of information. Even if something important did happen there someday, that wouldn't make the hotel notable until/unless that important something came to light and we started seeing articles saying "visited Pyongyang hotel, where XXX happened" - the hotel equivalent (Watergate Hotel anyone?) of notoriety/renown for involvement in newsworthy events. GRBerry 04:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse since the arguments of the deletionists so clearly trumped those of the keep advocates, this one was within discretion. AfD is not a vote. --David Mestel(Talk) 07:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women of Pakistan

This category was deleted when its parent Category:Women by nationality was deleted. While it may not make sense to have a "Category: Women of Fooland" for every country, it clearly does make sense in the case of Pakistan, where relatively few women become famous. For this reason, among others, there was no consensus to delete after discussion on CfD. The discussion page Category talk:Women of Pakistan is mostly supportive of keeping the category, and therefore I request that the earlier decision be sustained, and the category restored.Stanwatch 19:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Deletion of a parent category should not automatically qualify children for deletion. While the aforementioned Category:Women of Fooland is obviously a bad idea, this category would be useful to anyone researching the status of women in Pakistan. We do have precedent for categorizing women because of their notable circumstances: Category:Spouses_of_national_leaders, Category:Native_American_women, Category:Influential_pre-modern_women and Category:Women_of_the_Victorian_era. Hopefully we can avoid the slippery slope of Category:Women of Fooland... Dgies 03:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Holy smokes, deleted categories are hard to look at. Anyways, I've found the previous CFD here, and I've notified Vegaswikian of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn i, as well, fear the slippery slope, but the special social circumstances related to being a woman in Pakistan does warrant, in my opinion, special attention. Themindset 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on CfD. This ma be notable enough by itself, so perhaps listing it on CfD by itself may get a better consensus on its own merits rather than being attached to its parent category. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's some history -- the category has been on CfD before, and there was never a consensus to delete:
  • Comment. When I closed the debate as delete, there was a clear consensus to do so. I believe there was only one keep and one 'delete or rename' along with one delete if some moving was done. The rest of the votes were to delete. There were some questions about this subcat, but it was not more then a handful of those who participated in that discusion. This was an umbrella nomination for 'Women by nationality and subcategories' so it also applied to the children. The suggestion above to restore this one then list on CfD might be a logical move. If it passes, then there would be a reason why it is being kept if someone recommends this for deleteion in the future. With a keep CfD after the umbrella nomination, it would be clear that this is an accepable exception avoiding future deletion consideration. Vegaswikian 22:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Ditto theMindset. This category adds value to Wikipedia and to me that is the bottom line and what is of greatest importance. Nisanu 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Shoob

  • This article was deleted back in February due to being too short. Since time is passes it would be easy to get a fairly lengthy article on her. Everyone on the discussion page wants the article to be restored. It has had over 1000 google hits. IDMB has a page on her and she has been involved in a lot of TV work - Price Drop TV, big game tv and 3 ITV Play shows. I know plenty of interesting facts about her. She was born on 8th November 1983 in Rochford, Essex, UK and was raised on a pig farm in Chester, Cheshire. I can even put all of her catchphrases in. This page will be longer than many other presenter pages that no-one has even dreamt of deleting and as I have laready said, Google seems to be demanding it. SenorKristobbal 14:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, validly closed. Subject is insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Only "keep" votes in the AfD ignored WP policies and devolved into childish rants. Barno 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. However, if "you" can write an article about her, do so, and then request the change at Error: Protected edit requests can only be made on the talk page.. If it now meets WP:BIO, it might be accepted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've notified Johnleemk of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, which means deleting it again. Bear in mind that 1000 ghits for a TV presenter is nothing - even I get more than that and I'm nobody at all. And actually it's 498, of which less than 160 appear to eb unique. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid afd. "I say we take off and nuke the entire pig farm from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." Bwithh 05:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cashville Records

This page was deleted a while back, but i do not know the reason why. It is a real record so why was it deleated. I think it should be undeleated. --Darkneonflame 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy deletion: It was a single line, which was an external link. That qualifies as "spam" under the CSD guidelines. "Real" isn't the question. "Article" is the question, and there wasn't one. Geogre 20:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist this article has had one two no consensus AFDs and at some point afterwards it was speedied as "fails WP:WEB" by Tawker, which isn't a CSD. Since then it has been recreated numerous times only to be speedied for being an attack page or no context/content. Kotepho 08:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Geogre. Naconkantari 16:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there was a lot of vandalism on this article, the most recent good version is 07:50, April 22, 2006. Still, it was listed under category:vanity labels. Are vanity labels notable? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salting, valid CSD, re-created many times (Zoe, I hope that was a rhetorical question). --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, no, it wasn't, I was wondering if the existence of the category means that some of the contents of it are notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's theoretically possible, but they tend not to be vanity labels if they get notable, because that means that someone is then buying the records. For example, Herp Albert & friend started A&M, but that's not a vanity label, because it was a major label with major distribution. John Hibbert created a "label" called Hibtone and only released one record, but that record was REM's "Radio Free Europe" b/w "Sitting Still." He didn't do the label to put his own product out. So...it's possible, but it's not very likely, as it would probably have to achieve infamy rather than fame to pass the bar. Geogre 02:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, my mistake. Your question sounded rhetorical. In any case, I'd say vanity labels started by notable people, or that attained notability, might be notable enough. A quick scan of some labels in vanity label contain a good list of labels that were founded by notable people. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. AfDs voted keep on the implied condition that the article be improved. It hasn't, so it is liable to be speedied. If anyone can come up with a better article, they are free to say so and be allowed to create it. --David Mestel(Talk) 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, the nominator can of course list the article for consideration on AfD. --David Mestel(Talk) 16:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_6&oldid=64134700"