Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 2

Master of Malt – Deletion endorsed and userfy to User:Huckleberry113/Master of Malt. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

A page about the independent bottler Master of Malt.

The page is factual and is referenced multiple times with links to popular blogs, websites and newspaper articles as well as a book reference.
The information is valid and noteworthy because the company has been awarded and critically acclaimed by multiple, notable critics and competitions. Not only that, Master of Malt also had a significant impact on drinks retail with its sample service - exhibiting disruptive innovation to the spirit retail world - which has been referenced with links to multiple blogs and articles.
The undeniably noteworthy Stephen Fry has cited one of Master of Malt's whiskies as his favourite.
Scotch whisky is extremely possible the world over, and the number of true independent bottlers is quite limited, making each one important in the context.
My work on Wikipedia will include full, detailed articles on all known independent bottlers of Scotch whisky, which I hope to complete over the next two years.

--Huckleberry113 18:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment take a look at reliable sources, blogs generally aren't reliable sources. http://www.whatdoesjohnknow.com/ quite possibly is a RS, but the coverage there is trivial. What this needs to meet is the general notability guideline, being covered my multiple independant reliable sources in a non-trivial way. The number of independant bottlers is irrelevant, if the world thinks they are important (no matter how many or how few) they'll write about them in independant reliable sources. It's not your or my opinion which counts. Nor is it's Stephen Fry's, he doesn't have a midas touch rubbing notability off onto everything he touches. That said I'm not convinced the article (as in the cache) is unambiguous advertising (the criteria used to delete it), though I doubt it'd survive a full deletion discussion in it's current form. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Huckleberry113, you're going to run into problems creating separate articles on each independent bottler of Scotch—Wikipedia's mind-numbingly bureaucratic processes would prevent it. But there's another way. Why not write an alphabetical List of independent bottlers of Scotch whisky with one or two paragraphs about each bottler? Individual items on a list don't have to meet all the criteria for a separate article and all the information would be in one place. Userfy to the nominator if he so requests, please, in order to allow the creation of such a list.—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Let's just get this out of the way right up front. Do you, Huckleberry113, have anything which might be described as a conflict of interest regarding Master of Malt and/or whiskey in general? A clear yes or no answer, please. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You already have an answer on that. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(82.7.40.7 and I are of similar mind. I shall distinguish us by using the singular form of the noun. ☺) I agree that it's debatable that the speedy deletion criterion applied. But, conversely, I can see how this can be seen to be advertising. If one uses only sources that are advertising, puffery, and self-promotion (In this case, the article was sourced, bar three sentences, solely to the company's own WWW site. Previously deleted incarnations were sourced to the same WWW site and to company press releases.) then one is very likely to get an article that is advertising, puffery, and self-promotion. There's a right way to write such articles, and this wasn't it. Write in the right way, Huckleberry113, and you'll find it easy to determine which drinks bottlers are actually known and documented and belong in a neutral verifiable encyclopaedia that is not a business directory; and which exist to the world outwith them only as advertising, self-promotion, and directory listings, and don't. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion with leave to recreate an article of a satisfactory standard. Uncle G's advice is very good. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe, and I think we're in agreement, that some of what was on the page is notable. If someone were to reinstate it, could they strip out anything other than what is notable - I think this seems a fair thing to do in the name of Wikipedia.
No I have no affiliation or connection with Master of Malt, or Scotch Whisky (apart from enjoying the drink very much). I just care a great deal about this page because I spent QUITE some time on it, and whilst I accept that it would have been worth my while to read notability guidelines, I do believe that some of what was on the page deserves to be on Wikipedia.
If someone reinstates it, strips it back to its bare bones, leaving only what is irrefutably notable, I would be happy to add further, more notable references (including some from national UK newspapers).

--Huckleberry113 10:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.48.32 (talk) [reply]

- Endorse but allow recreation Ok, then, here's my opinion. I don't think that the last deleted version of the article would have passed an AFD, but I do think Huckleberry113 is a good-faith contributor and that the subject has merit and can become a proper article. Sourcing probably won't be too tough, there's even a Whisky Magazine which I got an issue of in the mail last year somehow. Huckleberry113 should choose between either proceeding with a list article as S Marshall suggested, or having the previous article restored to his userspace to bring it up to scratch with sourcing and cleanup. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew Lenahan. I would prefer the latter. If you restore it to my userspace, I will bring it up to scratch, and you can check over my chances to make sure they meet notability guidelines. The Whisky Magazine one was certainly one of the references I had in mind!

--Huckleberry113 18:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could someone reinstate my page If someone could reinstate my page, I would be happy to alter it so it meets usability guidelines.

--Huckleberry113 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Love Me (Beyoncé Album) – Keep deleted. The speedy deletion itself was out of process, but there is a clear consensus in the deletion review discussion that the article itself should remain deleted. – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

A single-sentence stub about a musical recording: "Love Me is the fourth studio album of Beyoncé." I came upon this article while cleaning out CAT:CSD; it was tagged for A7 and A9, but I declined: A7 doesn't apply to music, while A9 only applies to music by redlinked artists, and Beyoncé Knowles is the performer for this album. Soon afterward, NawlinWiki deleted the article on A1 grounds; while it was a very short article, the context was clear. I've asked NawlinWiki for reasoning, and was told basically (1) it should have been an A3 speedy; but please note that A3 doesn't include articles with substantive infoboxes, which this had; and (2) that it was deleted under WP:CRYSTAL; but please note that it's not a valid reason for speedy. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was one source - an MTV interview with Beyonce's producer, where he basically said "Yeah, we're making an album." He did *not* say that it was called "Love Me". Therefore, there is no source for the only proposition stated in the one-sentence article. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For reference: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
I'm minded to think that we can keep deleted as a delete outcome at AfD would be inevitable, per WP:BURO, unless we can verify at least the title and the existence of this album in a reliable source, in which case we can list this at AfD. I do agree that none of the CSDs technically applies, but there is such a thing as IAR speedies, and in this particular case I don't think the article has a snowball's chance of surviving an AfD. T. Canens (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for the reasoning given by Tim Song above (was about to say something similary but got edit conflicted). No CSD criteria apply and WP:CRYSTAL is not a CSD criterion. But I don't like overturning deletions that were out of process but where the outcome was plainly correct and an AfD could not go any other way. There are some sources floating around (largely blogs) speculating on Beyonce's fourth album, but certainly nothing with a title. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no realistic chance an AFD would achieve a different result, and because, let's face it, it's silly to debate even once, much less twice, over an 8-word "article". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I think there's an emerging consensus that this was an out-of-process speedy, so I'd be grateful if the closer would refrain from using the word "endorse"; one of DRV's principal purposes is to ensure that the deletion process is correctly followed, and it wasn't. I also don't see why it was so desperately urgent to delete the article that it was necessary to ignore the formalities. A minnow for NawlinWiki, but I agree that there's no point sending it back to AfD where it would be snow deleted.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Deletion was out of process and so incorrect but the article doesn't stand a chance at AfD so there's no point reversing it. As per S Marshall I would also like to see the closer of this DRV use something other than endorsed. As a non-admin I can't see the page history so I don't know who created it but if they're a newbie I would also like to see a note on their user page pointing them here and explaining what's happened so they hopefully won't be scared off by a page they've created being deleted out of process. Dpmuk (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD As noted above, this speedy was out of process. If the only argument is that we can't find sources, let's have the AfD so maybe someone can. DrV really shouldn't be endorsing out-of-process deletions, otherwise we just get more of them. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted As nominator for CSD. "Love Me" will be the next album by Beyoncé Knowles[1]Source of MTV in October 2009, that anywhere says "Love Me". An infobox (including a Knowles' image, genres (pop, R&B [since it's Beyoncé]), a release date [unsourced], a recording date [2009-2010, the only reliable in the article]) and that's it. If you believe that this deserve re-creation, for re-deletion, well, recreate it! although is very stupid. It could easily fail {{db-hoax}} as fancruft. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 01:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as the article doesn't stand a chance at AFD. Obviously once there is more information about it than "it'll be released sometime" the article may be recreated without further ado. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ciara Bravo – Allow recreation from userspace draft at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I believe now, since the creation of this page a while back, that this celebrity has gained enough noterity to be placed on wikipedia. I have provided links of numerous articles and interviews that have been focus around her, if you have an concerns Ciara Bravo link 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 04:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous drv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per lack of evidence that the situation has changed significantly since the AFD and last DRV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a handful of local sources at this point, so there is probably enough to write a decent article. I'd suggest you write one in userspace and go back to the deleting admin and ask them if it's enough. I'd say the sourcing is just barely enough, but I tend to be more inclusive than most and there is a pretty strong resistance to hosting biographies of boarder-line notability minors, so I think you are fighting an uphill battle at this time. If she gets significant non-PR release, non-local coverage by a source independent of the show I'd say you'll have a good shot, but honestly I suspect most folks won't think you are there yet... Hobit (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pssst! Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I'm missed that. Sources aren't there... Hobit (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please rereview the material on my user page. Thank you --7shaquan (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The first source appears to be a deadlink. The last one (dreammachine) looks reliable and quite detailed. Could you fix or otherwise provide the material that was at the first one? Hobit (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just realized I was very unclear the first time. By "not there" I meant "didn't rise to the level needed". Bah, I'm rushing way too much recently. Hobit (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep deleted~~ due to lack of quality sourcing. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now neutral. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I get what all of you are saying but what quality sources do you need for a person. Shes odviously on Big Time Rush, has substantal known expierence, and has alot of fans. The only thing is that people dont write articles about her, and thats nor fair at all. Just because she cant get on the news, doesnt mean she doesnt have noterity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources are actually really close at this point in my opinion. One good local source, one good other source and one moderate local source. That popstar article you provide a broken link to might be enough to put it over the top if it is in depth. Without it, it's close, but given the subject is a minor I suspect you'll not get enough support. Can you fix that link? Hobit (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasnt able to revive the link that you asked for but I was able to find this Interview —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 04:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore userspace draft. Pretty clearly meets WP:N at this point. [1] is a high-quality source, [2] and [3] are short and local but certainly counts toward WP:N. [4] looks to be a high-quality local source (my sound system is on the fritz, so I could be wrong here). All that said, the userspace draft needs to have two of those sources added, the PR wire one removed and sources need to be in-lined. That's not a reason not to restore (per WP:DEL) but it still would help if it were done before this DrV is closed... Hobit (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably should note that I contacted the two other !voters above and asked them to relook at this DrV. Hobit (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore userspace draft – In addition to what Hobit has highlighted, there was also a 700-word article in The Cincinnati Enquirer that was picked up by Gannett News Service and reprinted around the US (Kieswetter, John. "Cincinnati tween lands role on Nickelodeon show", January 13, 2010). Fee required for full article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.