Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 January 19
2007 January 21 >

20 January 2007[edit]

Eye of The Keeper – Deletion endorsed – 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Eye of The Keeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Eye of The Keeper was deleted by Mistake. I cannot find my original posting in any records. It was posted by me, Mv7000. If you can find it, please undelete it. All information is truthful and verifiable at www.eyeofthekeeper.com Thank you. 74.96.112.217 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion not deleted by mistake but deleted as no assertion of notability (speedy criteria A7)). Websites are ten a penny and can be set up by anyone, so don't prove much on their own, if their are multiple independent sources about this website then it may pass WP:WEB and the website itself can be used as a reliable source in some restricted circumstances due to it being a primary source. --pgk 22:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - clearly fits speedy deletion criterion. Unless it meets WP:WEB, it shouldn't be here. --Haemo 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Deleted by mistake? It looks like it was deleted twice, by two different admins, six months apart from each other. I don't see how either one was a mistake, much less both. In any case, endorse as valid A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - doesn't matter if it's truthful; there was no assertion that this webcomic is notable. NawlinWiki 17:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Geody – Deletion endorsed, unprotected – 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Geody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The administrator User:Bogdangiusca (who features the logo of the Italian terrorist group Red Brigades in his user page) deleted and locked this article, without even voting about it. Geody is a geographic search engine widely used especially together with NASA World Wind (in fact note that some users in Talk:NASA World Wind were surprised it was removed and then happy when it was recreated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltener (talk • contribs) 19:58, January 14, 2007

  • Question Is User:Bogdangiusca's user page (which features a parody of the Red Brigades logo) in any way relevant to the merits of the Geody article? Fan-1967 20:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt, possibly undelete and list at AFD It looks like a valid WP:CSD#A7, but there is an Italian language stub also [1], which makes it easier for me to suspect that there is some real notability. None of the deleted versions used any independent sources or really claimed notability. The stub needs expansion and improvement to reach article quality, and asserting some importance is necessary to avoid repeated speedy deletion. GRBerry 21:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further evidence that it's a popular website It's been a "Featured Site" by AboutUs.org on September 22 2006: http://www.aboutus.org/Category:AboutUs_Featured_Site . gpsgames includes it within its map references: http://gpsgames.org/cgi-bin/maps.pl . See Talk:Geody for more links to reviews in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian. --Eltener 11:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Nominator's duplicate opinion removed. ~ trialsanderrors 21:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Aboutus.org is a wiki, and one that is actually explictly for pages on websites published by their owners, from what I can see. (Hence "about us".) Being the daily feature is not a sufficient claim to notability. The links on Talk:Geody fall under blogs and passing mentions, the fact that they're in different languages isn't relevant. (If it is, can I rewrite this argument in German and have it count double?) Nor is the presence of an article in the Italian Wikipedia - WP:INN counts double for pages on other Wikipedias. While I can only understand Italian by proxy, I'm pretty certain that that article, if translated, would be an A7 as well. Will change my mind if I see coverage by multiple reliable sources, WP:COI raises the threshold for me to even advocate sending this to AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you had translated it in German, it wouldn't have counted double, of course. But this is not the case, these are blogs (and some of them are very popular) and websites owned by different people from all over the world, which means there's a global interest. Also, AboutUs is a wiki but featured pages are not, and there are quite a few of them. What bothers me is that people here consider a reliable source only websites and means of communication owned by a media tycoon. --Eltener 09:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt per GRBerry. This can't hurt with more eyes seeing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about writing a sourced article in userspace? This had no sources and no claim to notability. Failing that, unsalt would be fine, it's not like Eltener is a SPA, we can have another look in a week or two and AfD it if it's not lived up to expectations. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'undelete for discussion'DGG
  • Endorse per Samuel, and WP:TROUTwhack Eltener for making personal attacks in a DRV request. >Radiant< 11:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • unsalt per Guy, as a referenced article might be possible; also, WP:TROUT Eltener per Radiant. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you'll never have a friend killed by an act of terrorism. Probably if he would have called himself "the WTC bomber administrator" rather than referring to a less popular Italian group you'd have find outrageus as well, and considered him less trustworthy. --Eltener 09:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Camp Poyntelle – Deletion endorsed – 06:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Camp Poyntelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Non advertising material, want to fix it BRappy55 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and AfD. NOT a valid G11, as it would not require a fundamental rewrite required by CSD to meet our writing standards. A few fixes from the "we" to "The camp" fixes most of the problems right away. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, it reads like a pamphlet on the camp. How would it be fixed without a fundamental rewrite? --Coredesat 22:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A descriptive article on the camp is going to be, well, descriptive. If only all articles could be this descriptive, really. As I said, when it stops reading "we" and starts reading like a description, it'll be fine content-wise. Perhaps not worthy of inclusion, but that's not for one person to decide, and that's what AfD is for. The article isn't bad, it needs a couple wording fixes and not a fundamental rewrite. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What, so "Meet Our Amazing Staff" is salvagable by changing it to "Meet The Camp's Amazing Staff"? It's been a while since I've even seen an article so unsalvagable. Not to mention "An ALMA MATER is set to the tune of a low-key, sad, quiet song, and words are written that describe the love the camp has for camp, and how important it is in the camp's lives". Or the fact that this is a valid Articles-7 deletion anyway, unless "Camp Poyntelle Lewis Village has been enriching the lives of campers for over 55 years" is a claim to notability. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some stuff may need to be trimmed for POV. And this wasn't deleted as an A7 anyway, and I'd challenge an A7 on the grounds you cite as well as their apparent worldwide reach. The simple fact remains that this does not require a "fundamental rewrite" to meet basic standards for encyclopedic writing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • My mind boggles, it really does. I was wondering if you were reading an old Google cached version without the pamphlet, but then you wouldn't have recognised "Meet Our Amazing Staff", or "Meet The Camp's Above Average[citation needed] Staff", or whatever your version would read after it might have been 'trimmed'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A directory entry at bast, spam at worst, from an editor with no other contributions. I am a cynic. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse. I don't think G11 was entirely appropriate, but I'll not second guess the exercise of discretion by the closing admin. I have serious doubts this would have survived an Afd in any event. Agent 86 00:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse something might be salvageable but it needs a top-to-bottom rewrite to remove spam and trivia. Content has been userfied; but as it is it needs to stay out of the article space. Eluchil404 12:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Job for a Cowboy – Deletion overturned and replaced with new version – 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Job for a Cowboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Recently failed deletion review and was told to make on a user page first. This has been done and has everything we could find for them. It is here. It was moved back to the page due to my mistake early today, as I added this review in RFPP instead of here, this resulted in it being moved back to the userspace. The two albums still have their pages, so the Band should have theirs so they all link together. There are less notable bands on Wikipedia, so these should also be added. I understand not all the information is cited correctly on the page, so if anyone could add extra cited info it would be useful aswell. Moreover, there have been different edits to that page, so an older edit, might be better than a newer edit, so may need to be reverted. AsicsTalk 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn a deletion that never should have occurred in the first place. The "Steers and Beers" tour was a six week national tour that went coast to coast (A tour diary was posted), and the original deletion was based around WP:MUSIC (which it clearly met) and possible sourcing issues (which I can't recall the original version of the article, but should have easily been dealt with). Easy overturn now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above, but I suggest that you read WP:INN and rephrase your nomination. Cbrown1023 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I didn't realise what I'd said, all I meant was that they have albums released and they are fairly famous. There are other articles releated, but that is of no consequence to this discussion and neither is my mentioning of they are more famous than other people on Wikipedia. However, I still feel they deserve a page.AsicsTalk 22:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. Two albums, one of which was re-released on a not entirely invisible label. All sources seem to be user-editable. Anything from the music press? Kerrang!, perhaps? Guy (Help!) 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelevant. WP:MUSIC cites "notability" from a national tour. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually WP:MUSIC lists that as one of the things that make it likely that the subject meets the primary notability criterion, which is multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Absent those sources, we still can't have an article, even if they have toured the globe a hundred times. So actually the sources all being user editable absolutely is relevant, in a way that touring is not. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And those aren't a problem either, so we're covered. Even if we weren't, the lack of those sources are not a speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a speedy deletion, there was an AfD, and only a couple of months ago at that. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right, I've struck that part - too many crappy speedies recently are making me think everything's a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh :-) I don't see too many crappy speedies, though. I think we need a minor change to process, mind, so that a speedy contested by an editor in good standing is rapidly userfied with a PROD tag. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn : they meet WP:MUSIC requirements (see the user article for further informations): they are on an international concert tour, cited by reliable sources [2] [3]; their last album Doom was re-released by Metal Blade Records, which meet the notability criteria for independent indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable, see wikipedia article on this label); are reviewed in [http: //www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=10778 metal-observer], which is often used for album ratings in wikipedia, and so must be considered a reliable source; are mentioned in MTV.com, for their upcoming tour, but also for their new contract with Metal Blade. Hervegirod 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, there is definitely new information here. We can't just overturn a proper consensus based on new information, though, it needs to be relisted. -Amark moo! 01:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, they need to be relisted. Hervegirod 12:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - proposed article easily meets WP:MUSIC, as noted by Hervegirod and others. Eludium-q36 13:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Assuming the part about the tour is true and verifiable by reliable sources, this looks to meet WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least the European part of the tour comes from the Metal Blade web site, but this tour, as the US tour, can be found on numerous other metal sites, and other sites selling tickets as well. Hervegirod 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Noureddine Maamria, Dino Maamria – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 06:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dino Maamria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Noureddine Maamria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was nominated with a multitude of other players who failed to meet WP:BIO (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martyn Woolford). The question of Dino Maamria's notability was raised in passing during the discussion, however I believe it was not fully addressed. Having played for Charleston Battery and Tunisia U21s he may count as a borderline case. Robotforaday 15:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that any article deleted as part of a mass nom should be treated as a contested PROD and undeleted for separate listing on request (as long as it's not obviously taking the piss). So I endorse this application to restore and consider separately. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, legitimate request. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no enough account of notability was shown on his AfD. --Angelo 16:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, I hate mass nominations. -Amark moo! 16:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist I'm not sure what Guy means by the parenthetical comment, but so long as the appeal here includes at least some plausible statement as to why the individual person or topic is notable and deserves individual consideration, I think this is a reasonable approach. Mass nominations are tricky to do well. GRBerry 03:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per JzG and GRB. Joe 04:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per above. Eludium-q36 13:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Mass nominations usually suck, and really should only be used in cases of large numbers of nearly-identical articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete this please maybe we should stop group listings like this yuckfoo 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have no problems with mass listings like this one, which was a fair way of dealing with a lot of highly comparable articles that had cropped up and fell outside the consensus of notability for football players. To deal with them any other way would have been highly unwieldy. A handful of the articles which were subsequently found to meet the notability criteria in WP:BIO, and were indeed saved. I merely want to ensure that a proper examination is given to this particular article. Robotforaday 09:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see too many votes in support of the overturn option just because of a refusal for the idea of mass nominations. Nobody here actually tried to show the alleged notability about this guy. --Angelo 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I tried to show that his non-notability might be (and was) disputed in the original afd- he has played for what might count as professional team in a fully professional league (Charleston Battery), and also has represented his country at U21 level. I do not know whether this will mean that he will be saved- but I think that it should certainly be discussed more fully than it has been, and if this means overturning and relisting the article in its own seperate afd, then so be it. Robotforaday 14:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Proteus (WAM-V) – Overturned per discussion, to be listed for AfD – 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Proteus (WAM-V) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
My bad. Listing it for WP:AFD in a few seconds. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington with the reason of Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. We had a civil discussion here about this and we agreed that this should go through a community review. My argument for significance can be found on the article's talk page. I believe that the version in my userspace should be restored to the original location. Fosnez 13:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete I don't think a ship design fits in with A7 very well, and in any case this thing seems about as far from "unremarkable" as it can get! The article even has a reliable source in a linked news article complete with pictures. Definitely not a speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn real world ships aren't clearly covered by A7 and being featured in a reliable source is an assertion of notability. I have no opinion whether or not this should be sent to AfD. Eluchil404 14:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hell Yeah – Deletion overturned, relisting optional – 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hell_Yeah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Since the article was deleted and pretected to prevent people from recreating it, the band has launched a website, been on the cover of Revolver magazine, released two singles (one to the radio and two are on myspace), and their album will be released on April 10th. In otherwords, there is a lot more information out there now than there was previously, and as such the article should be allowed to be created. Tedivm 07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further more, the band Hell Yeah is actually at the heart of a series of articles in the most recent (January/Feburary) Revolver Magazine, focusing on new releases for the upcoming year. While it may not seem it, Hell Yeah is very important to the metal community, as Vinnie Paul is coming back, and he is a legend of the scene [Pantera, Et all]. Atechi 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hell no. User:JzG/And the band played on... Wow, they made a website! That's not really hard these days. Neither is "publishing" singles to Myspace. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revolver is a notable magazine (it's a Future Publishing title), but if the band haven't yet even released any music outside MySpace and the radio, let alone an album, I don't think having an article in it - even a cover story - is enough. (We usually require multiple reliable sources in any case, not just one.) They could still sink without trace, having never released any significant material, leaving us with very little of worth to write on them. Endorse deletion for now until they release something significant. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and move to Hellyeah, which looks like the correct name from the available sources. Even without a released album, they appear to meet WP:MUSIC due to the importance of the prior work of the band's members (who belonged to Pantera, Danzig (band), and Mudvayne, among other bands). The options for sourcing aren't great, but between the Revolver article, the band-member quotes in this IGN article, and the album release info in this MTV notes column (caution - irritating interface), I think there's enough for at least a workable stub. The AFD's close was acceptable given the lack of supporting information by the commentors, but with the stuff I found, I think the result should be overturned. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Samuel and JZG. >Radiant< 11:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - So (in order of least to most important) the band has a website, has singles out, has a release date for the album, its members had prior work in some of the most influential metal bands. This article is going to have to be created at some point, and it makes no sense for that time not to be now. There is no reason why this article shouldn't exist- the single is all over the radio, its clear that this isn't just some punk kids pet band, these are people who are signed to a label and have been doing this, professionally, for years. --Tedivm 17:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Hit bull, win steak. The band is now receiving commercial radio play and media coverage, obviating the prior deletion debate. Silensor 13:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn looks like the deletion was hasty. Media coverage shows the notability of the band. Now with rotation on radio they pass WP:MUSIC.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn For me, the key argument is about a band formed from former members of notable bands. --Dweller 17:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or at least unsalt per above. I've stayed out of this until now, but it appears they meet standards now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or unsalt per above; they sound notable enough for a good-size stub. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and undelete this one please they are notable enough now with our music guideline yuckfoo 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Matt Norman – Filmnews2007 has reposted this yet again, and removed the PROD tag, so it's now at AfD – 12:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Matt Norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Significant article on a film-maker who is notable Filmnews2007 06:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Could you please review your deletion of an article I put up that you deleted.

Article Matt Norman

Below is the opinion of another administrator? Thanks in advance.Filmnews2007 05:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original message Re. Please tell me why you have deleted my entry - third time?

Hello. I believe that the article in question is Matt Norman. I did not delete this, but after checking the deletion log I can inform that it has been deleted three times by three different administrators. The reason stated for deletion was the speedy deletion criterion A7. This criterion states that an article may be speedy deleted if it provides no assertion of notability of the subject. After viewing the last version of the article I believe that it did assert notability. I recommend you to take this article to the deletion review and try to have the deletion overturned. I hope this helps. Regards,--Húsönd 12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak overturn and send to AfD Matt Norman has been making films since 1996 and won numerous international awards for his work. from the google cache looks like an assertion, but unless it can be sourced, the article will be deleted at AfD. I only see one award mentioned at what looks like a very complete IMDb listing and can't find any secondary or reliable sources for it. Eluchil404 07:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was deleting admin the third time on this article, deleting it as a repost. The previous admins were User:Rama's Arrow and User:Mailer diablo, both deleting as CSD A7. I endorse that reasoning — this article does not establish the notability of the subject, who is also likely the author of the article, leading to a significant conflict of interest. The IMDB references don't suggest work beyond the typical college film student. The supporting references are all about Peter Norman, who rightly has his own article. Having a famous family member doesn't make Matt worthy of an article, however. Endorse deletion. Tijuana Brass 07:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and AfD. Notability is unquestionably asserted, with references to IMDB and other sources. I agree that it is not established, but others may dispute that, and other sources may be found. Also, block Filmnews2007 for spamming. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh... I don't think he was spamming with bad intentions; I think it was a case of a new user not knowing the process to follow when an article is deleted. In his shoes, I probably would have kept creating the article as well. I'd cut him some slack (but make sure he understands not to do it in the future). Tijuana Brass 22:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also created an article for the film and added several links to other articles. But I am ill-disposed towards the spammer subculture right now. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD Notability is asserted.--Húsönd 14:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. Give him his day in court. Herostratus 16:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'mon you have to be kidding me. I ask that you please undelete this article Matt Norman and Salute - The Peter Norman Story(film) that I spent hours doing. To say that it has no notability is wrong. Please search the web and tell me if you truly think that this is not a part of history that documents the truth of what happened during one of the most dramatic moments in history. The person that made this film is actually the nephew of Peter Norman. I am getting sick of re-writing these articles knowing that they are being added to Wikipedia purely for Historic study. I suggest you actually look over the links and do a little searching of your own to find the notability of this film. Hate to say this but if LA Times, Washington Post, New York Times, Fox Sports etc etc etc think that this is the most important sporting and history story of the past decade then why is it that you have deleted it??????? Enough is enough. Please re-instate this! I feel like i'm editing these pages full time because there are a few people as administrators that know nothing about this part of history and the importance it has on our world. By the way, I was kind enough to go to the film-maker www.theactorscafe.com to get all information required. You may also get any information from his company by emailing him. I wouldn't like to be the person (GUY) who calls him a student film-maker. That was in very poor taste. If you still believe that this is not part of our history and not important enough for you to add to Wikipedia then yes I agree delete it. If this is deleted I'm afraid that I have lost all respect for Wikipedia and it's contents. I have looked through Wikipedia and found hundreds of actors, directors, films, bands with no credit at all that have been left alone. I am appauled by the lack of knowledge and the refusal by your administrators to open your eyes outside of Wikipedia. I truly thought this place was for people of all ages and demographics to study the world. To me you are showing that its for the world to study your own beliefs and not that of others. Do some research, on history, the olympics, black power, civil rights and you'll find that this is the only film and film-maker that has bothered to get all three men involved in this event together to tell the true story of history. I spoke with the film company about your responses and they personally said "if its not important enough for them to add then let them embaress themselves when the film comes out theatrically around the world in the coming months". There must be one administrator that is old enough to know the contents of this story and the amount of history which is about to be re-written because of it. That surely gives Notability to the subjects relayed in these articles. I'd also like the links that were removed from Tommie Smith and John Carlos re-instated. For obvious reasons.?????

I have reedit Matt Norman article. I'm not trying to do the wrong thing here but can any of you please view it and tell me its simple enough to be used in historic content in regard to Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Filmnews2007 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cookie diet – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 06:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cookie diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I remember looking at this article once and it looked like a regular article.... I came back to look up something today and its gone!! At least, I can't find it anywhere, I didn't see any deletion debate.... anyway, if its been deleted by accident or for no apparent reason, it should be brought back. Its reported on ABC [4], NBC [5], etc [6][7][8].... //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In what was was this article not spam? Guy (Help!) 09:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't deleted as spam. Overturn, sources invalidate the A7, and if the sources were in the article, this shouldn't have reached A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know whether it was spam but it looked like a regular article to me.... can you restore the article, so we can at least see what we're talking about? And anyway, if someone writes a spam article on, say, some noteworthy new Microsoft product, wouldn't the right thing be to fix the article itself? //// Pacific PanDeist * 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        History restored for review. The sources were not in the article. GRBerry 04:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks a lot. I don't know enough about the topic to knwo if its spammy, but its a legit topic anyway.... some of the stuff I've seen on message boards and so forth sounds like the cookies taste crappy and the diet is overpriced so if there's a better source for that, that could be put in and would make the article more balanced (but that could just be someone's opinion).... kinda looks like the Cookie Diet is pretty much synonymous with the doctor who came up with it -- maybe make this an article on the doctor, and just redirect the phrase there? //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Not an A7, and since this is not any sort of organization, but a concept, G11 doesn't apply. -Amark moo! 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the edits in the 48 hours prior to deletion, there was an attempt to use the article as spam, but one of our IP editors had fixed that. GRBerry 04:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AFD. The article's pretty puffy, but the sourcing in the nom suggests that a good article could be created on the subject. I think an AFD would be the fairest thing. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Poor article, but I found a bunch of Google hits, including this ([9]) --Dweller 12:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AFD if necessary. Silensor 13:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn if this was not actually spam or otherwise covered by our speedy deletion criteria. Yamaguchi先生 23:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Good article – Speedily closed, repeat nomination without new information – 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Good article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|TfD)

Personally, I do not know the circumstances of the template being previously deleted, I feel that good articles do deserve some recognition as featured articles do (even though GAs are not at the same level as FAs). Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn - Per nom/myself. Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to know the circumstances, check the Templates for Deletion discussion and at least two previous deletion review discussions (linked from whatlinkshere). Keep deleted, no new reasoning presented. Full disclosure: I have argued for the deletion/continued deletion of this template in the past and have deleted it several times per CSD General-4. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close Template was deleted at TfD and endorsed at DRV.[10] No new arguments presented. Would need to establish consensus WP:GA or better WP:CENT before bringing it here to unsalt. Eluchil404 03:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure again See the April deletion review and the July deletion review for the two prior reviews of this discussion. No new reasons in this appeal that were not considered in the TFD and prior reviews. GRBerry 04:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the TfD cited above. No new reasoning is given to restore this feature creep. Tijuana Brass 07:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no new information, and the original deletion was valid. This was a really bad idea that should never have been implemented in the first place. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. You're going to have to get a consensus that it should be reinstated before you come here, and not just from the people at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. -Amark moo! 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. All previous discussions were valid. Also, when the FA star was rather reluctantly approved by the community, it was done so with the clear proviso that it not be some kind of slippery slope leading to templates like this one. Chick Bowen 17:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the only icons in the allowed in the article namespace should be the spoken words icon and the FA star —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Selmo (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no new rationale for overturning previous decisions offered here and previous decisions were sound. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:33, 20 January 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_January_20&oldid=1138429997"