Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 February 8
2007 February 10 >

9 February 2007[edit]

  • PRM – requested redirect created by salting admin – GRBerry 15:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PRM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I would like for this page to be enabled so there can be a link or disambiguation page from here to the Popular Resistance Movement in the Land of the Two Migrations (PRM), a new Islamist insurgency movement in Somalia that emerged from the Islamic Courts Union (ICU). Petercorless 23:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Westfield Warrawong – speedy deletions endorsed, except for Westfield North Rocks which was closed immediately due to a live AFD – GRBerry 02:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Additional closer's comment. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is policy, and opinions that disregard this are of lesser value. Opinions that said these contained assertions of notability without saying what the claim was were not strong arguments, especially after multiple administrators had said that the articles didn't have any claim. Anyone could have taken to AFD (or merged) during the deletion review, and it should have been reasonably clear that that would have closed this review. So the fact that nobody did reduces the weight of the opinions saying those are the right answers.GRBerry 02:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Warrawong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Westfield Figtree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Westfield North Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Westfield Downtown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Settlement City Shopping Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Westfield_Pakuranga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also requesting review of Westfield Figtree, Westfield North Rocks, Westfield Downtown, and Settlement City Shopping Plaza. I tagged these articles for speedy deletion after being able to find absolutely no secondary source coverage which would assert the subject's status as a notable corporate entity. The articles were subsequently deleted by several different administrators ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). Rebecca reversed all of these speedy deletions, apparently under the impression that I had deleted them all myself and "abused my admin powers" [7]-news to me, as I can't abuse powers I don't have! I believe that the unilateral undeletions were not acceptable, and that the articles did meet and still do meet CSD A7 by asserting no notability whatsoever. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing discussion for the one already at AFD I went ahead and struck out as a partial close the one already at AFD. For that one article, this dicussion is closed. We always close deletion reviews while an AFD is running. GRBerry 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the one up for AfD. The article I originally deleted, Westfield Downtown, was, and still is, a two-sentence stub with no claim of notability whatsoever. The others listed are of a similar quality, which is why multiple other admins have deleted them. I would have appreciated a notification from Rebecca, or at least some action by her to take it to another level of communcation (such as AfD), instead of an accusatory edit summary ("deleted against policy"). However I recognize that the notability of ordinary malls is a subject of some debate, so I wouldn't be against AfD'ing the lot instead of outright deletion. --Fang Aili talk 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment GRBerry requested a reason as to why these were not instead taken to AfD, which is a very reasonable request. While that may be the ultimate outcome, and I wouldn't even have any trouble with that if it were, I believe that the "speedy undeletions" here were outside of acceptable conduct and should be subject to review. Also, the articles do still seem to meet the speedy deletion criteria (with the possible exception of North Rocks, but even there I don't see a notability assertion or a non-primary or non-trivial source, and corporate articles which cite only a webpage created by the company are A7'd all the time.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have absolutely no objection to these being taken to AfD, as is anyone's right with an article. It is not my job, however, when undeleting speedies that were plainly done to circumvent a discussion that had every chance of going against the admin who wanted them deleted (as per Westfield North Rocks), to take the article to AfD. It would have been silly for me to do that, seeing as I don't want the articles deleted at all, but taking these articles - which were obviously going to be controversial to delete - to AfD was the obvious proper thing for the deleting admin to do. They chose to act unilaterally, which gives me every right to return the articles to their rightful state. Rebecca 02:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletions. Admin Rebecca should not have used her tools to undelete these, as she has been heavily involved in debates about "local interest" topics. [8][9][10][11] She has also frequently made threats to revert other editors on this subject.[12][13][14] The speedy deletions were accomplished by multiple different admins: Herostratus[15][16]Jimfbleak, Steel359, Royalguard1, Fang Aili, Vegaswikian[17]. Rebecca's unilateral undeletion of all of them was clearly inappropriate. --Elonka 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I wouldn't object to the undeletion, if Rebecca had then opened an AFD on them. (One AFD would have done for the lot, no need for one each.) But as was, not well done. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enodrse deletions, these are directory entries of no evident encyclopaedic notability. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all — obvious speedies. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enodrse deletions. I standby my decision to speedy delete Westfield Warrawong. There is no assertion that this article can meet WP:CORP, WP:MALL, or WP:LOCAL. WP:LOCAL might suggest keeping the information in a local article, but I'm not sure where this minimal information would be merged. I do participate in the WP:MALL discussions, but I don't believe that affected my decision to delete. My deletion decision is fully supported by the content of the article. What I would like to know is the logic for Rebecca undeleting this twice. If you have that may problems with others deleting articles that you seem to think belong here, then it really needs to be discussed here and not undeleted without any discussion. Vegaswikian 23:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The participants in the Westfield North Rocks discussion clearly do not agree with you. Why were this not taken to AfD instead of unilaterally trying to circumvent an actual discussion on their notability? Rebecca 02:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all deletions Inappropriate speedy deletions due to reasons stated above Bwithh 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All From my deletion summary I can tell that I was using speedy_deletion.py for that deletion. Although it's automated, I do check before deleting (especially for very long ones). The shorter ones, like this one, probably took about 10 seconds for me to scan, and when seeing no claim of nobility whatsoever (no big stores names, who ownes it/what's next to it doesn't matter), I deleted it. I agree with my original thought that it should be deleted. Rebecca should be careful to at least give notice when undeleting something. Undeletions of speedies don't happen often and the best person to ask to do it is the original deleting admin. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions — this is an obvious decision, based on the pile-on consensus. Administrators must use their tools in a neutral manner. — Deckiller 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which, in my view, includes speedying based on guidelines in violation of policy when consensus in AfD debates appears to go in the opposite direction. As an admin it is one's duty to ensure that policy is adhered to. Orderinchaos78 09:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion this is one where there is clearly no encyclopedic content, nor claim of importance, but rather a directory listing at most. There are good uses for speedy,.DGG 02:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is completely invalid. All of these had reasonable claims to notability, and their unilateral deletion against policy was an utter attempt to circumvent a full AfD, where most shopping centres lately have received keep or no consensus results. If you want these deleted, follow the actual consensus process; as long as five avid deletionists want to circumvent an actual transparent result, I will undelete on sight. That an AfD is the only valid process with these should be exemplified by the fact that Westfield North Rocks - one of these articles above, which actually was nominated for AfD - is teetering between a no consensus and an outright keep result at present. (As for BenAveling's suggestion that these should have been nominated for AfD, that is not my problem - I have no objection to a proper discussion being held there, but since I don't think they should be deleted, nominating it myself would be silly.) Rebecca 02:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree. It would seem the original speedys were really simply the enforcement of a particular person's opinion about the notability of shopping centres as a whole rather than an enforcement of policy. The string of "no consensus" and "keep"s coming out of AfD's on this topic suggest to me that the Wikipedia community, when given (rather than denied) the opportunity to form consensus, are not concluding as a whole that maintaining these articles are some gross violation of policy. Orderinchaos78 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That AfD was just closed as a merge to the parent city. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 09:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly keep all, at most change to redirect to The Westfield Group. Mathmo Talk 15:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the ones above were not the only ones recently speedy deleted. Others such as Westfield Manukau City were too. Westfield Manukau City is one of the oldest shopping malls in all of NZ. Mathmo Talk 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Westfield Manukau City article didn't mention that fact.-gadfium 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to the appropriate suburb or city articles.-gadfium 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to something like List of Westfield shopping centres in Australia. — JeremyTalk 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all if reasonably notable (which some are) *or* Merge to suburb article if no more than a few sentences can be written. Please do not merge to Westfield article, as these centres have a habit of changing ownership (in one case of which I'm aware, 4 times in 10 years) and it just becomes a mess. Orderinchaos78 08:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge pending AFD on any or all of them. Improper speedy deletions; no CSD applies to any of the cases. All the articles would be better off merged than deleted, so there is more than simply a process issue here. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge pending AFD by invidual case. Speedy deleted against policy per Rebecca, no CSD applies. All of the Westfield articles which are inherently not notable by having only a few senetences are better off merged to an appropriate article (eg WP:LOCAL anyone). --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment — what is so notable about shopping malls that are not even mentioned in secondary sources? Has there been any bombings at these malls? Has their design influenced numerous other malls? Do they have any historical significance? Did it set some sort of precedent or record? If so, secondary sources will sure cover it, although it might take a lot of digging (as in most cases for stubs). The key is to not necessarily show how the public is affected by it, but to show how it is worth inclusion. Moreover, a list of regional malls cannot fly, because WP:NOT a directory. — Deckiller 05:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Robert Murray Arbuthnot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Robert M. Arbuthnot was lead trial counsel in the seminal case of Tarasoff v. U.C. Regents, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), which was the first U.S. case to impose liability on a psychotherapist for not disclosing a patient's violent propensities. This has completely altered the landscape of the psychotherapist-patient relationship and privilege, as well as malpractice law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasoff_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California. See Superior Court of Alameda County, Case No. 405694 Kittybrewster 19:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure, but relist. Closure was fine given the information, but this new information would possibly change things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close Now, if that were an independently sourced fact, maybe. But it isn't sourced in our Wikipedia article, which is all that above. And all that the links there establish is that he was member of the firm at some stage. Since the firm names are given as E, E, L, M & Arbuthnot, then E, E, L & M, then E, E, L, Y & M in the final decision (see this copy, the evidence to date suggests that he was not a partner in the firm for the entire course of the case. At any rate, in that source his name appears only in the firms name, and only once in three side by side variants on the firms name), it really doesn't demonstrate notability. Since I see no evidence that anybody else noted the role, I don't see yet adequate evidence to support a relisting. GRBerry 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close We really cant have the principle that counsel on one particular case, even a famous one, is sufficient, and being lead counsel is also not enough--because the name would simply belong in the article on the case, and be worth at most a redirect. A lawyer noteworthy as have participated in a number of important cases is another matter. Is this being asserted here? DGG 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'd have thought that Kittybrewster, as an editor of long experience, would know that we need non-trivial secondary sources with the subject as primary focus. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Wikipedia is a great place to include biographies on those WP:N individuals listed at Kittybrewster.com. However, even if Robert Murray Arbuthnot is important, he is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works and thus is not Wikipedia notable. The topic's inability to meet WP:N appears to be the consensus in the AfD so the closure was proper. Thus, I endorse the closure. As for the new information, the Tarasoff v. U.C. Regents case might meet WP:N, but there still does not exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the Robert Murray Arbuthnot topic. Thus, I continue to endorse the closure in view of the new information. -- Jreferee 17:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Caroline Bridgeman – speedy close, conduct issues are not for deletion review, deletion overturns and contested XfD closes are – GRBerry 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I would like to report not a deletion but a proposal for deletion based on the lies of User:Deranged bulbasaur.

User:Deranged bulbasaur responsed to my very professional and civil comments to him regarding his/her erroneous tagging of the Bridgeman page by labeling them "harrassment", which is not only untrue, but violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and threatened to contact an administrator. To abusively claim "harrassment" when no such harrassment exists because he/she refuses to admit they tagged the page in error to begin with is nothing more than pride and arrogance. I responded explaining that I had not harrassed him/her.

In retaliation he/she then placed a tag proposing deletion of the entire page based on the blatant lie that he/she invented on the spur of the moment; e.g. that I am related to the Bridgeman family and am pursuing my own genealogy, which is untrue. I am not related to anyone in any part of the British Isles.

Caroline Bridgeman, a DBE and a governor of the BBC, is entirely deserving of her page and User:Deranged bulbasaur needs to be informed by an administrator regarding his/her abuse of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and the unacceptability of fabricating accusations of harrassment and genealogy, which are lies and slurs. If he really believed that I am related to the Bridgeman family, then he/she should call for all pages related to that family to be deleted, which would be ridiculous and he/she knows it.Jill Teed 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong page. I've left a message at Deranged bulbasaur's talk page regarding proper use of {{prod}}, but there's nothing else for here. Jill, if you still think there's a problem, check out dispute resolution. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - use other channels please Proposals for deletion are stopped as soon as someone objects, so DRV doesn't generally deal with such cases. I suggest that you use dispute resolution as above or if you feel that you are suffering from a long-running series of unacceptable personal attacks of an extreme nature, perhaps see WP:ANI Bwithh 17:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Space Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Talk page says "nominated for deletion March 1, 2007." Huh? It looks like a very clear delete for a student-run comic. In fact, it's nearly a speedy delete for an A7, but, even if it isn't, it seems like perhaps there was vandalism of a delete discussion? If it has really been argued and decided for keep, that's fine, but I couldn't make sense of it. Utgard Loki 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You mean 3 january, not march 1st :) I don't see much wrong with the AFD; it is said this comic appears in a number of newspapers, so this should be easy to verify. >Radiant< 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close Valid AFD, valid close. I checked the diffs, nothing shady happened as our nominator suspected. GRBerry 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • <grumble> Stupid European/American date convention forces. </grumble> Utgard Loki 16:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of fags – It is not censorship to remove a contentious slang term where a formal one exists. – Guy (Help!) 12:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This redirect was listed on RfD by admin Bearcat and immediately speedy deleted by the same. After some deep thought I have decided to bring this up since Wikipedia is not censored. I understand that "fag" is a derogatory term, but we have a redirect for List of Nazis List of nazis. I could potentially use the mentioned deletion as a precedent to delete List of Nazis List of nazis on the grounds that I find the term Nazis offensive. It should be noted that List of fags was deleted without debate. Qarnos 11:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did not list it on RFD; it was listed by User:Dave6. Secondly, Wikipedia does have precedent for offensive terms in an article or category name being speedy deleted. Third, "Wikipedia is not censored" applies to sensitive material that is directly relevant to the content of the article, not to non-contextual use of derogatory terms for social groups — this would be the equivalent of having "List of n*ggers" as a redirect to List of African Americans, which needless to say we certainly don't have (and which would also get speedied on sight if somebody tried it). And fourth, you might want to consider coming up with an analogy that isn't a redlink — let's just say it doesn't really help your argument to claim that we have an offensive redirect that we don't actually have. Oh: and SNOWBALL, for good measure. Bearcat 11:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of apologies are in order from me - first, you are correct. Dave6 listed the redirect - I mis-read the proposal. Also, sorry about the redlink - wrong capitalization by myself. It has been corrected. Finally, there may very well be a precedent for offensive terms being speedied - but you mentioned in your deletion notice that in is not WP policy, which made me think. I have no problem with this page being deleted - but I think discussion is not a bad idea. -- Qarnos
I will also add, after reading your edited response, that I don't have an "argument" here. I listed the redirect here because I was concerned there may have been a knee-jerk reaction causing the speedy delete. Getting angry isn't going to solve anything. -- Qarnos 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Mrs. Puff – relisted, marginally valid WP:CSK, but the objections here overcome the marginal validity – GRBerry 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mrs. Puff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Please review this afd. The keep votes came with the reason that it is a major charachter but, even if that was true, according to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) even major characters should be kept within the main article, and only given a separate article if "encyclopedic treatment" can be extended to it, which the article had none of. But it was speedily kept. I don't understand what happened. 650l2520 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist. This is why there's a rule against non-admins speedy keeping stuff, people. There is no reason whatsoever to close this as a speedy keep. Oh, and either way, "the main page is getting too big" is not a valid reason to keep an article that would otherwise be deleted, especially an unsourced one. -Amarkov moo! 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Appears to have been speedy closed by non-admin against process (Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions). No explanation given and no obvious reason for speedy keep after 5 hour listing. Bwithh 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, do it speedily if possible. This is a clear process violation, and there's no chance for any other result from this DRV, so speedy per WP:SNOW. — coelacan talk — 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. AfD closed with no delete vote, clear consensus to keep. "the main page is getting too big" is a perfectly usable argument to keep an article, please see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia. Lack of references is an invalid reason to delete an article. Anyway, the article now properly cites its source, added by User:AMK152. Ultimately, I take the view that reviewing this AfD isn't needed PeaceNT 12:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious relist, speedy closures aren't useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • SanDisk Sansa – Overturned by deleting admin as a mistake, nothing more to do here – Amark moo! 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SanDisk Sansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Page was mistakenly deleted instead of Sandisk Sansa e260, which is now a redirect to the deleted page. Take note of the fact that the deletion log does not correspond to the article that was actually deleted Alethiareg 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, I'm going to tag the other for speedy. An article under a different name is still the same article, and the AfD is still applicable. -Amark moo! 04:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh. So it turns out that this is a seperate article. In that case, speedy undelete, but someone should really AfD it. -Amark moo! 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was a procedural error on my part, please feel free to undo my actions. I am on a semi wiki break with very limited time. If there is anything that I need to answer or any questions directly regarding this, please let me know and I will try to answer as quickly as possible. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a few minutes so I looked into this. It appears that sometime after the AFD started, User:Veesicle was BOLD and changed the article to a redirect]. When I closed the AFD, I made the mistake of not noticing the redirect and deleted the artice to be merged into. As a result of this investigation, I will undelete SanDisk Sansa as it has not undergone an afd and shows no cause for deletion. For the record, the afd in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandisk Sansa e260. Sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bottle Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Why did this page need to be deleted? J19086 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering it was deleted three times by two different admins as being either patent nonsense or having no content, I think the question you need to answer is "why does this page need to exist?" Endorse deletion barring any sensible sources appearing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme endorse deletion per the article itself, which starts out: "Bottle Square is a game played at Strath Haven High School during the three lunch periods. Bottle Square was created during the 2004-2005 school year." and actually goes downhill from there, right down to a list of participants and even a list of bottles used!! Blatant WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above. If it goes downhill from there, I'm almost glad I can't see it. Trebor 15:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is literally something "made up at school one day". Wiwaxia 09:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete delete delete. If what Andrew Lenahan says is correct... delete! Mathmo Talk 16:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Last For One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Page was deleted due to CSD:A7; however, the deleted article did contain an assertion of notability; namely, the first sentence of the article stated, "they have been recognized as a worldwide known name and a contributor to the Hanryu wave". Nchaimov 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I challenged it on Alkivar's talk page, he's gone now. Definitely not an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. No sources =/= no assertion of notability. -Amark moo! 04:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsubstantiated hyperbole is not a claim of notability, nor is winning a competition where just about every winner is redlinked, nor is it partiocularly plausible that a breakdance crew would be notable. List on AfD as a courtesy and because the article has some history and is of more than the usual one paragraph length, but this was not an especially problematic interpretation of A7. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it was. A7 asks for assertions, this had it, and it was ignored. This is exactly what's problematic about A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Jeff, the assertion of notability was in terms of "if you believe that things like this are notable, then this is notable". It was unsubstantiated, weak and not especially plausible. I'm all for sending things to AfD if people genuinely want to contest them and they have at least some merit, but I am absolutely not goign to join a witch-hunt against admins who look at a subject while clearing a massive backlog and say "Feh, no credible claim of notability". You appear to be assuming bad faith here. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this is three bad A7s in a row by this administrator, there is a greater problem at work, for sure. What was so incredible about the claim, especially since we have an article on the tournament in particular? It's not a witch hunt to expect competence when working with a controversial speedy deletion criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which are the other two? That Alk is in disagreement with you does not imply incompetence or a "greater problem". >Radiant< 16:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is for the specific closes at issue, not the general admin conduct issue. If the editor returns, and you feel strongly enough, consider a user conduct RFC. (Of course, two people have to have tried to resolve the issue.) We used to say this in the page instructions, but trimmed it as part of trying to simplify them. Do we need to put it back? GRBerry 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List once we reach the point here of discussing whether winning a particular international competition makes them encyclopedicly notable, we definitely have an assertion of notability. As their official site is in Korean, I would bet that almost any sources would be in Korean. We might be better off finding a way to get the Korean wikipedia folks to tackle this. Is there an article on them there? Can they dig up and translate some sources for us? Would they prefer to translate this onto their Wikipedia and bring it back when it is in better shape? Unfortunately, I don't know how best to contact them. GRBerry 14:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AfD - WP:CSD#A7 provides for speedy deletion of an article about a group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. WP:N requires may require that such importance or significance be in an a WP:RS. Since the article failed to include a WP:RS to support an asserted importance or significance of Last for One, the speedy delete was appropriate. The burden of WP:RS is on the article, not the speedy delete reviewer. On review of this DRV challenge to the speedy deletion, I located a WP:RS. The lead paragraph of the article stated Last For One is a Korean break dancing crew that formed in 1997. With their win in the 2005 Battle of the Year, they have been recognized as a worldwide known name and a contributor to the Hanryu wave, their fans respectively calling them the "Dancing Taeguk Warriors." There is no WP:RS regarding the Hanryu wave and Dancing Taeguk Warriors facts. Here is the extent of sourced information I found on Last For One: (i) Eun-jung, Han. (January 10, 2006) Korea Times. When hip hop and ballet collide. ("Last for One, the 2005 Battle of the Year champions, is making guest appearances in the performance throughout the month of January."); (ii) Yonhap News Agency. (November 15, 2006) "Newest S. Korean b-boy show mixes traditional tunes with hip hop." ("Last for One, a group of nine dancers from Jeonju, South Jeolla Province, won the prestigious Battle of the Year competition in Germany in October, following Project Soul that won first prize at the B-Boy Championships in Britain in the same month."); (iii) Western Morning News. (January 26, 2007) "Festival will feature music from across the world." Page 26. ("This year's festival has received £6,500 from the Korean Foundation, which has enabled the city council to bring the B-Boy break dancing crew and international stars Last For One from Korea for a one-off show to round off the festival.") The above WP:RS source information is not enought to overcome WP:N at AfD, but is sufficient to have the article listed at AfD. -- Jreferee 21:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that CSD:A7 requires a sourced assertion. If an article contains an assertion of notability, but that assertion is not accompanied by a citation to a reliable source, then the article should not be speedy deleted, but rather listed on AfD so that the article's editors can have an opportunity to find and incorporate these citations. If the article's editors are unable to do this, then the article can be deleted. I agree that the burden for providing reliable sources is on the article and not the reviewing admin, but, when an actual assertion of notability does exist, adequate time should be given to remedy that problem before the article is deleted outright. Nchaimov 22:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list at AfD. I agree with Nchaimov that there's no demand for a claim to notability to be sourced; lack of a source justifies a request for a asource, and eventually an AfD — not speedy deletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - not eligible for WP:CSD--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on Afd It is absurd for appeals from speedy to come directly here. This was agreed by essentially all the editors participating in Miss Nude Universe a day ago, and the argument is just as good today. This is the final appeal step, and the place to consider whether a claim of notability was a sufficient claim is there. If a speedy tag is put on, and then removed by other-than-author and the placer of the tag continues to feel it should be deleted, she should take it to AfD. (or perhaps to prod.). If a speedy is appealed by the author with hangon, and the admin thinks it should be speedied none the less, and the author continues to object, it should go to AfD.(The admin may be needed to undelete for the purpose. )DGG 02:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I agree with the "vote", I don't follow the rest, I'm afraid. Aside from the stuff about "Miss Nude Universe"(?), how can an article that has been deleted go straight to AfD, not here for undeletion first? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right for the sequence of steps here. Thanks for clarifying. DGG 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_9&oldid=1140185611"