I apologize if I am not putting this in correct format but someone named Phantomsteve deleted this entry which has been up for many years. The weird thing is I lookd at the date and time in his or her history where the article was deleted and could find NO reference. There was a list of speedy deletions this person pushed through but I wasn't even included there. Could this be a mistake? He cited A7 as the reason but there is ample evidence of importance of subject (national writing awards including National Poetry Series and Gertrude Stein Awards in Innovative American poetry). Book Sanskrit of the Body was published through Vikin-Penguin press and selected by Pulitzer Prize winner Mary Oliver for the National Poetry Series. Was this an error? I'm sorry I am not Wiki-proficient but I'm wondering if this was either an error or an act of vandalism by one of those so-called "sockpuppets?"
Here's what Phantomsteve wrote:
This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
22:49, 29 August 2010 Phantomsteve (talk | contribs) deleted "W. B. Keckler" (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSDH))
Any help in restoring this entry would be greatly appreciated. There are numerous crosslinks to this entry which are all legitimate and none in question.
Comment from deleting admin The article was tagged by Chromancer at 22:29, 29 August 2010 as A7. I looked at the article and did not find a clear assertion of notability (the nearest seemed to be Over 200 pages of Keckler's poetry can be found exclusively online and one award: 2002 National Poetry Series, for Sanskrit of the Body - however, I am not aware that the NPS is a 'major' award - I hadn't heard of it, so I Google News'd it: all the references were minor (such as "author-x won the National Poetry Series for title-y"). As such I felt that the tagger's A7 tag was accurate, and deleted the article. I have temporarily restored the article to User:Phantomsteve/W. B. Keckler for this review. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. It's a blue-linked award and the vast majority of past winners has an article. It's an assertion of notability and should go to AfD. Hobit (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is a fair point (both from Hobit and from 93.235... I'll move it to main space again, as it is an assertion of notability. I made a mistake on this one, I'm afraid! If anyone disagrees, they are welcome to take it to AfD -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This page was deleted because the article didn't state the "significance of the subject." On the contrary, the article clearly stated that this is a major international sportswear brand that sponsors major athletes and major international events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta foxtrot zulu 42 (talk • contribs) 2010-09-07 13:32:59
Actually, it said that it had "positioned itself […] as a major international brand", without a single source to back that analysis up. I could "position" myself as a major galaxy, but that wouldn't make it verifiable, let alone true. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
to pass speedy, the contents need not be verifiable, just make a plausible claim to importance-- to quote WP:CSD: "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability" DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just about mechanically "passing speedy", though. This is about Delta foxtrot zulu 42 avoiding this problem now and in the future at Proposed Deletion and AFD. This is about avoiding deletion nominations proactively, and avoiding the CSD→contested→PROD→contested→AFD→deleted route that so many people take from this point. This is about getting the article over the hump that it's failed to get over twice already. Uncle G (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly we should give him good advice, and your advice is the correct advice, no question about it; I notice the article has been re-created, and it's no improvement. But among the other purposes of DR is to give appropriate feedback to administrators who take incorrect actions, and A7 was not correct on the face of it. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (a moot point, as it has been recreated) - although I do not feel that notability is proven with reliable independent sources, this is not required for A7: there is a credible 'claim to notability/importance' made, and so this should have been PROD'd or AfD'd. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
