Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:48, 15 September 2006

< September 13	September 15 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

14 September 2006

Tim "Youngblood" Chapman

Bounty hunter who faces a criminal trial in Mexico for abduction related to his capturing an American fugitive without Mexican authority to do so. Notability through media coverage of arrest and through earlier appearances on a television series. Admin Yanksox (talk • contribs) deleted as CSD-A7. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side Note: Can someone open an RfC on me, I've been here too many times for the communities comfort, and I'm being serious. I think I should be evaluated. Yank sox 02:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Speedy-delete and List for AfD Urghhhhh....bleurrrggggh. More Reality TV / trash-news sludge, but it shouldn't have been speedied.... unless Yanksox would like to invoke official policy WP:IAR or something (*cough*) Bwithh 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm wondering if we should move the A7 reviews over to the Prod reviews. If within five days an admin thinks the article asserts enough notability for an AfD to decide it can get undeleted, if not there's always rewrite. I get the impression that in most cases we spend five times as much effort discussing than it took to write them. Oh, and Yanksox, I don't see a need for an RfC yet. ~ trialsanderrors 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

labx

I realize the comments left by the administrator are certainly valid for any business being listed, but I think there is a distrinction between "any site" and ones that have major impact on: society, industry, etc. LabX is a site similar to eBay and holds much of the same value but to a professional audience of engineers and scientists. LabX has been listed as an "official" eBay competitor in eBay SEC filings and has been online for 11 years now. This site is not a generic auction site that just popped up, but a community of users who have come together and have reinvented the way scientific and hi-tech equipment is bought and sold. It is a pioneering site which has changed the way the scientific industry buys and sells. Kenpiech 14:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No article has ever existed at Labx. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was at LabX, and was an uncontested prod and so I've undeleted it per process. You need to add reliable sources to the article to make sure that it meets the notablity guidelines at WP:WEB. As it stands it is quite likely that it will be nominated for deletion at WP:AfD. Thryduulf 17:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flimap

I believe this article was deleted when I originally created it because it read more like an ad. Since then I have tried to rewrite it to read like a company profile, which I am convinced that I did accomplish, but yet it always gets deleted within an hour of posting Fliadmin 16:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flimap. Both the originator and the above requester appear to be single purpose accounts, AfD process was entirely valid, reposted content was substantially similar so subsequent speedies were also valid. Endorse, salt the earth if necessary. Guy 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 *The article was at [[LabX]], and was an uncontested prod and so I've undeleted it per process. You need to add [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to the article to make sure that it meets the notablity guidelines at [[WP:WEB]]. As it stands it is quite likely that it will be nominated for deletion at [[WP:AfD]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 17:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Academy (band)]]====
-I feel the article for the '80s synthpop group Academy was deleted for spurious purposes.  Sure, I had limited information on the band, and sure, the band released several singles, but there are other groups on Wikipedia with even fewer recorded songs to their credit, and it wasn't as if Academy was a flash in the pan group.  They recorded for a major record company from 1984 - 1986, which is far more time than most groups get.  Actually, I was trying to gather up enough people on a New Wave-themed message board community to come together to either edit the article or to contribute information to be added to the article.  I feel the individual who deleted the article had no real cause or reason to do so, certainly has no idea at all about New Wave music, and acted very unprofessionally in making such a rash and unthought-out decision, and I feel that once more rational people review the facts, they will realize that this band does deserve its own Wikipedia article.  ([[User:Krushsister|Krushsister]] 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC))
-:'''Restore'''. Article asserted notability, and the reason in the deletion log - ''"signed, 6 singles, but no full names of band people because "obscure"? ha"'' is inadequate. I don't know if that "ha" means the log ran out of space halfway through a word or whether the deleting admin was just being flippant. It would be a weak and incoherent argument if used on AfD, and it certainly doesn't justify speedy deletion. As for the band, I can't find anything about them on Google or Factiva, partly due to the numerous false positives for the word 'academy'. It's possible the band is too obscure to sustain an article - despite existing, it may fail [[WP:MUSIC]] due to lack of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and not having got as far as releasing two albums on a major label (even if they did get some singles out). However, I'm not convinced that they do fail [[WP:MUSIC]], so I think it should be a matter for AfD. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 16:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-:The admin who deleted this article doesn't seem to have been informed of this discussion. I have done so. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 17:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Send to AfD'''. Notability was asserted in terms of the notable producers, but per Sam it doesn't appear to meet [[WP:MUSIC]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Undelete & list on AfD''' per Sam Blanning. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo|iablo]] 17:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Undeleted''' and sent to AfD, the obvious and logical course. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-::*To Sam Blanning, Thryduulf, Mailer Diablo, and Guy:  Thank you for undeleting the article and for at least putting it up on Articles for Deletion for the requisite discussion.  I was able to present my side of the issue and hopefully the resultant discussion will be fruitful.  I'm going to copy and paste the article text just in case and if the article does get deleted, I will use it as a framework for any future attempts to create an article for the band.  (With additional information, obv.)  I hope I didn't harm its chances by describing the band as "obscure".  I felt like if I didn't mention that, I wouldn't have been accurate; however, there are a LOT of groups from the New Wave era that could be classified as such, and many of them would have absolutely NO problem passing the guidelines for being on Wikipedia (e.g. I'm sure few people are aware of the awesome synthpop group New Musik, yet they managed to land a spot on Top Of The Pops AND released at least two full albums).  You guys are awesome.  ([[User:Krushsister|Krushsister]] 02:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC))
 ====[[Flimap]]====