Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 January 24
2007 January 26 >

25 January 2007[edit]

The Game (game) – Speedy close, no new information – 05:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AFD6)

The Game has previously been deleted from Wikipedia because it was not previously verifiable. However, The Game has now been published on its own web site, http://ilostthegame.org. Does this web site dedicated to The Game suffice? Hamz01 03:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, no sufficient reason to overturn AfD result. The website cited by Hamz01 is just one person's self-published thing with no editorial review to check facts, and it's not under the aegis of any organization (since the game has none). See the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines. Barno 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse, this has been endorsed before, and having its own site does not provide verifiability. -Amark moo! 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - a self-published website does not notability make. Sorry, nothing new to see here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion again A DRV perennial. No new information. I've also linked in AFD6, which is the most recent AFD discussion resulting in deletion. If someone could dig up the recent DRVs, for completeness I'd appreciate; I don't have time now. GRBerry 04:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Liz Rettig – Userfied to requestor's sandbox – 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Liz Rettig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AFD)
  • Published author listed on Amazon with two books, deleted within 10 minutes of its creation even though two editors were developing it. Rklawton 21:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 Valid, if awful fast, A7 deletion. I'd be willing to userfy to your space if that would close this. The original posting was obviously a WP:COI problem, given the name of the creator. Your edit probably looked like a wikification edit. GRBerry 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - She's got over 2000 g-hits and quite a few reviews, so how does she fail A7? Note: COI isn't grounds for a speedy. Rklawton 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CSD#A7 is a test of the article, not of the subject. All of the speedy deletion criteria are meant to be testable just by looking at evidence on Wikipedia. I'm starting to feel we've gotten too aggressive about A7 and G11, hence I currently support loosening the undeletion policy as it relates to these criteria. Looking again at the timestamps on the deleted history, I'm not sure the deleting admin even saw your edit; it was the same minute as the deletion so I suspect they were looking at the edit you almost nominated for speedy deletion. That, paraphrased was roughly "Name is a writer, most famous for writing X and Y. She lives with her family. Plot content for X." COI isn't grounds for a speedy, but when an article looks like an A7 it makes peoples trigger fingers itchier. You don't have a COI, so I'm willing to userfy it. Do you want it? GRBerry 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, thanks - I think userfy would be best. That'll give me time to add the necessary sources, edit, etc. If you would, just paste it at the top of my sandbox. Rklawton 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Young Hot Rod – Deletion endorsed, recreation in userspace recommended – trialsanderrors 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Young Hot Rod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

How many times do I have to tell you, he IS TOO notable! I mean, he is signed to G-Unit Records as well as Interscope (Spider Loc isn't part of Interscope, yet you have a page on him}, his single Be Easy, charted on the Billboard charts (Top R&B/Hip-Hop), and if you google him, there are several notable sources. Undelete, but if that's not possible, Unprotect, so someone with better info can recreate it. Tom Danson 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and salting. I don't see evidence here that he meets WP:MUSIC, and it doesn't appear that "Be Easy" charted (Billboard's Web site does not show him having any charting singles or albums). And Mr. Danson, watch your tone. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to the very last version of the article, "His debut album ... is scheduled to be released. ... The first single of the album is called "Be Easy" and features Mary J. Blige." There's not a single assertion of notability in the article. What I also find remarkable is that version uses itself as a reference, while citing it as AOL Music. And a final thing: according to the AfD'd version, Young Hot Rod was born in Sacramento. According to the final version he was born in Phoenix. Which is it? AecisBravado 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep protected and come back after writing in userspace. The AFD was properly closed. Between the two article's logs (original and new), I see a half dozen deletions of recreated content to start from a favorable assumption about what will happen to a blank page. So, go write a reliably sourced (and cited!) article at a user subpage, then bring it here for review. I recommend applying the amnesia test method of writing. GRBerry 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AfD. Tom, you only have to tell us once that he "is too notable", but you have to bring reliable sources. Nothing else actually matters much: no sources, no article. Try that in userspace. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's three independent sources: [1] [2] [3], probably more info on his website. I can write a stub in userspace if that is still necessary. Recury 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alela Diane – Overturned and listed at AfD – trialsanderrors 07:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alela Diane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alela Diane is an up-and-coming artist of renown, for whom at some point soon there will clearly need to be an article. She is already cross referenced in the psych folk and New Weird America articles. She currently has 47,000 Google hits (up from 45K yesterday), is touring in the US, and shortly in the UK. She has an All Music Guide entry. I suspect that one factor in the summary deletion of the article may have been the references to her early work being self-published. However, her album has now been issued internationally to widespread acclaim, as evidenced by a simple Google search which will show numerous positive reviews, establishing her importance as a singer-songwriter. Information should be made available on this current artist who is in the process of becoming one of international renown. Ghmyrtle 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete. Avid readers of DRV may wish to know that "up-and-coming" in this context can be backed up by mentions in the New York Times ("And that's not to mention promising artists like Alela Diane ...") and other papers, not just the usual MySpace stuff. Without seeing the history it's hard to be quite sure, but based on the available sources, and Ghmyrtle's solid track record when it comes to creating music articles, I suggest undeleting ASAP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. A quick Google news search suggests she might meet WP:MUSIC on that note, and she has toured nationally and will be touring internationally, so this doesn't really seem to be a question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/Recreate Without seeing the original article (I can't find a cache or mirror on Google), I can't speak to its state, but the sources and assertions made here (touring, NYTimes) clearly put her above the A7 standard. Eluchil404 16:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Part of history restored for review. I restored only the 2007 versions, the 2006 versions met WP:CSD#A7 and add no evidence of notability. GRBerry 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The original version had no claims of notability and no sources. No objection to rewrite with sourced claims. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List Looking more closely at the restored history, this was obviously a contentious speedy deletion. A speedy deletion tag had been added and removed by the same user previously. They had decided the article should be kept. Contentious A7s should be taken to AFD. Article in its current form is unlikely to survive AFD unless the sources are available. Hint, hint... GRBerry 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and List at afd Shouldn't have been speedied as article has basic claim to notability. Being in the All Music Guide (low barriers to entry) and a passing mention in the New York Times are not reliable indicators of encyclopedic notability however. Also, it is said that there has been an international release - but I cannot find non-import versions of her latest album on Amazon UK or even Amazon Canada. List at afd and let's get things sorted out. Bwithh 00:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, what basic claim of notability? Please point it out to me in Alela Diane is a part of the pysch folk scene. Hailing from Northern California town Nevada City, Alela grew up singing songs with her parents (both musicians), and performing in the school choir. During a stay in San Francisco in 2003, she began teaching herself guitar and writing her first songs. These soon caught the attention of friend and fellow Nevada City native Joanna Newsom, who in turn invited Alela to play her first live show. She resides, with her cat, in Portland,OR.. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zoe, I'd restored the portion of the edit history that is being contested. What you quoted is last year's versions, that remain deleted and aren't being contested. I probably caused this by only partially restoring. The claim, I think, is the release of two albums, at least one of which has come out on a label instead of just being self published. By WP:MUSIC standards, (much lower than mine), that is a claim, but not itself a claim high enough to meet WP:MUSIC, which requires more of the releases than was in the article. But failing to meet WP:NOTE/WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO isn't the speedy deletion standard, failing to make a claim is. GRBerry 00:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What GRBerry said + I typically do a quick check on google and related links before I will nominate for CSD in order to satisfy the recommendation "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub" on WP:CSD. While the Holocene Music label is a very small one, there is initial evidence on their page for the album suggesting possible/debatable encyclopedically significant media coverage of the album[4] Bwithh 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, sorry, I apologize, I didn't catch that there were two versions. However, the new version only mentions one released album, doesn't that fail WP:MUSIC? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have revised the original article to include more evidence of notability and placed it for the time being at User_talk:Ghmyrtle. The suggestion made earlier that her album has not been released in the UK is incorrect; it is available at Amazon.co.uk (not as an import), as is her more recent vinyl release. I'd be grateful to be kept informed of the process from now on, as luckily this question of notability has not arisen with any of my previous articles. Ghmyrtle 11:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction - it is an import to UK, but readily available. Incidentally, the criterion of being released by a "major label" or even an "important indie" is surely an anachronism in this era of downloads, when (in UK at least) musicians can make the charts through downloads alone without being signed to any label ... ? (Not for this forum, I know...).Ghmyrtle 14:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete I dont think there was the intent to be unfair, but it seems to have turned out that way.DGG 06:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Assburger syndrome – Löschung bestätigt (deletion endorsed) – trialsanderrors 07:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Assburger syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|RfD)
  • I would like to ask that the people who based their "endorse deletion" !votes on it not being a plausible misspelling be discounted, because they are continually repeating proven-incorrect assumptions about how the name is properly pronounced, and have not responded when challenged. This is not a vote. --Random832(tc) 14:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC) In other words, OF COURSE "Assburger" isn't a plausible misspelling of "az-PAIR-gher" - which is immaterial because "Asperger" isn't pronounced "az-PAIR-gher".[reply]

I think there is substantial evidence that this exists as an innocent misspelling, and the presence of a so-called "bad word" should not have automatically caused it to be seen as disparaging and used as a reason to delete the redirect. Random832 13:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think the controversy at Redirects to Asperger syndrome is grounds for a speedy relist at the very least. —Random8322007-01-26 13:44 UTC (01/26 08:44 EST)

  • There is a related deletion discussion at Redirects to Asperger syndrome
  • Comments from talk page: "I hate to do this but i am beginning to wonder whether i should have nominated it each time it appeared. Yes it seems to be a personal attack (at least my POV) but i am finding it not uncommon in web search. Simply south 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Google redirects it. It's an offensive term, but would still be a pretty functional redirect. Philwelch 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC) -- —Random8322007-01-25 13:49 UTC (01/25 08:49 EST)[reply]
  • Relevant discussion at User talk:Omnivore Oprah. Note that Simply south is incorrect here; the proper way to pronounce it [6] is indeed with a hard /g/ that could easily be misheard as this redirect, NOT with /dƷ/ as Simply south seems to believe. —Random8322007-01-25 13:58 UTC (01/25 08:58 EST)
    • Comment: Further down the aspergers talk page i have also put on a section on pronounciation. Here in the UK, it is common to use a soft g and it is pronounced officially like this. I say it has and indistinguishable p or b sound. Simply south 17:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really hate to say this, but Restore. For someone who casually hears the term and does not know the correct spelling, this is actually a pretty likely guess. As a likely vandalism target, it might be a good idea to protect the redirect. Fan-1967 15:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, nothing but a puerile joke. >Radiant< 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think the motive behind its creation is particularly relevant, only whether the end result improves the encyclopedia. —Random8322007-01-25 16:30 UTC (01/25 11:30 EST)
  • Protect the redirect, but restore as a likely misspelling. This is exactly how it is pronounced. -Amark moo! 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion According to US dictionary sites [7] (Merriam-Webster) [8](American National Heritage), the correct pronounciation is As-perger's (hard p not b, and hard g) not "Assburgers". Wikitionary's (possibly unreliable) entry has a UK pronunciation which is the same but with a soft g[9] (this UK Asperger's Syndrome site suggests "Ass-pairghers" (hard g)[10]). I don't see the need for Wikipedia to cater and coddle for every kind of misspelling and mispronunciation out there ("Assburger Sindroam", "Bifpairgher") - we already assume that users are able to handle a computer keyboard/mouse and an internet interface. Bwithh 16:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unlike syndrome, Asperger is not a familiar word. Also, /p/ and /b/ are identical in most dialects when placed after an /s/. I'm not sure why you noted the hard g, since that's also present in the pronunciation of the redirect. And, anyway, it's not a mispronunciation because they are pronounced the same, and it's not just any misspelling, it's the only spelling that consists of common english words whose pronunciation EXACTLY match the proper pronunciation --Random8322007-01-25 17:01 UTC (01/25 12:01 EST)
      • Comment I would say less than 10% of the people I know are careful enough in their diction that one could easily hear the difference between "aspbergers" properly pronounced and "assburgers". How it should be pronounced, and how it commonly is, are two different things. Fan-1967 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting admin. I speedied this as a clear attack page. Common sense should tell any user that "Assburger" isn't right, and I don't think Wikipedia should include anything that appears to be making fun of mental illness. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: Common sense won't tell them what actual the proper spelling is, and they might figure that a pronunciation spelling for an unfamiliar word will have been created as a redirect. —Random8322007-01-25 17:02 UTC (01/25 12:02 EST) PS once I actually clicked the link it turns out "pronunciation spelling" is not the right term. Is it sufficiently clear, though, what I meant? (as for "appears to be making fun of mental illness"; I have this condition and I wasn't offended. As it happens, if anything I'm more offended by your use of the term "mental illness". But, of course, you don't have to believe me. —Random8322007-01-25 17:05 UTC (01/25 12:05 EST))
  • I have started a fairly similar discussion to this on the Aspergers talk page. See both talk:Asperger syndrome#Assburger issue and talk:Asperger syndrome#Pronounciation. Simply south 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion I don't think any reader with an ounce of common sense would spell anything phonically if it clearly appeared to be a nonsensical, compound slang word. The mere presence of this redirect insults the intelligence of any person that goes on Wikipedia. Yanksox 18:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Yanksox said all that needed to be said, and if common sense was actually common then we wouldn't need even that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Common sense isn't that common. Even if someone knows "assburger" can't be right, they may well have no idea what the right spelling is. We still ought to make it possible for them to find the right page. Fan-1967 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That logic would lead to an indefinite number of redirects. We can help users who don't know the exact spelling of "Asperger's" without resorting to infantile jokes about the disorder. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How? If someone heard a reference on TV to something that sounds like "assburger" (and I've heard what sounded like that pronunciation dozens of times), and they were curious to get information on it, how would they find the article? Fan-1967 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is absurd. Any adult who thinks he heard "Assburger" would immediately think, "That's not right," and try other spellings It requires the tiniest sliver of common sense. Anyone over the age of 8 should be able to figure out that "Assburger" is NOT the name of a developmental disorder. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But "should" does not translate to "will". For that matter, why would someone hearing it on the TV know it was a developmental disorder, and not just an insult? -Amark moo! 02:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Read my comments more carefully - I never said "should." I said "would." I don't find the idea that anyone over the age of eight would mis-hear it and not immediately self-correct to be even a tiny bit plausible. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • How would they know it's not a valid name? Not possible that it could be a real name? Many German names start in "Ass". Many end in "burger". It's really not that implausible. Fan-1967 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've never heard of a German name starting with "ass", could you cite sources on the statement that "many" such names do? >Radiant< 11:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as redirect - It's definitely a likely misspelling. --adavidw 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as redirect per Fan-1967. Flyingtoaster1337 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like anyone who claims that nobody with an ounce of common sense would think they heard correctly to visit this town please. -Amark moo! 05:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And then maybe send a letter to this guy. -Amark moo! 05:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • An Austrian town and a Brazilian man? Find a counterexample in English. Otherwise, you're just being argumentative. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Asperger isn't an English name. Fan-1967 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I never said that it was. The point is that I don't know of an English term that incorporates an offensive word (really, an offensive term) in the way that "Assburger" does. And again, even the impression that we're making fun of people with a developmental disorder is something to avoid. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • "even the impression ... is something to avoid" wtf are you talking about? --Random832(tc) 14:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You assume that all people should know that no such name could possibly exist. I guess that they should likewise assume that there could be no such name as Assman or Assmann? This is not about your being offended by the name. This is about people being able to find the article. Fan-1967 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Swastika, Ontario. ColourBurst 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In English? How about Arsenal? (or does UK English not count?) --adavidw 08:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too lame; didn't read. Tossing a coin can settle this, unless it really needs to come to pistols at dawn over a mondegreen redirect. You couldn't make it up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Grow up. Proto::► 11:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and protect Readers looking for a term will likely enter what a term sounds like and expect to be redirected, like on Google. Until the Wikimedia software allows for improved search capabilities, there is no better answer than to create redirects for what the titles of articles "sound like," no matter how puerile. If people are really worried about this being an attack on the mentally ill, a protected redirect will at least stop it being an attack article. JChap2007 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I can't understand the argument that this redirect should be deleted because it is a stupid phrase. I have a real hard time searching things that I don't know the specific name of on wikipedia and redirects are one of the better solutions where there is a similar sounding phrase that is a realistic search term. MLA 12:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion a redirect that's not a likely spelling mistake and insensitive as well.-- danntm T C 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, and protect if wanted/necessary. I do think that there is probably a marginal possibility that one will mishear it, but it greatly outweighs any actual negative effects (which deletors have failed to point out.) Abeg92contribs 03:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - This "innocent misspelling" involves three sound changes, with the first one being the difference between a "z" sound and a soft "s" sound. I also have difficulty with the change of "e" to u", and while the "p" to "b" switch is plausible it none-the-less completes the transformation from of the name of a syndrome into an insult derived from it. IMO, if someone is that lost then they are best off going to autism and linking to the article from there while gleaning the correct spelling. I therefore fail to see how the process did not work in this case. IMO, a judgement call had to made on this one, and it was. --EMS | Talk 02:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • the so-called '"e" to "u"' is actually ə (no change), and the "s" is in the original pronunciation, I don't know WHERE you're getting "z" from. And someone having heard it in a conversation might not know it's a variant of autism. —Random8322007-01-29 16:23 UTC (01/29 11:23 EST)
    • Like he said. Where I live, an "s" is never pronounced like a "z", "bur" and "ber" are pronounced exactly the same way, and same with "sp" and "sb". -Amark moo! 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It's not a plausible spelling mistake. YechielMan 04:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion essentially because I think that the case for deletion in the first place was a good one. DGG 06:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Asperger's syndrome is not a joke, and the closing admin tok the right decision.--Newport 13:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree that the redirect is intended as a joke - it is a VERY plausible misspelling (NOT a mispronunciation. That list of sound changes it supposedly requires is patent nonsense. We're supposed to believe that it's "properly" pronounced with /zp/? I'd like to see a minimal pair of that with either /sp/ or /zb/) --Random832(tc) 13:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it stays, will it really hurt anyone? I mean, can't we give it the benefit of the doubt? Abeg92contribs 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and restore the redirect. This was clearly created in good faith both the first time (here) and as a redirect. It is a plausible misspelling based on phonetic transcription of the correct name and is exactly what redirects are designed for. To answer MrDarcy's concern above, we don't go randomly creating redirects for every possible misspelling but once one has been created in good faith, we keep them around. As the old saying goes, "redirects are cheap." Restoring the redirect would also be consistent with the emerging consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 23#Redirects to Asperger syndrome. Rossami (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It doesn't matter how it's "properly" pronounced, if it's meant to be a redirect from a mispronunciation. What matters is how it is pronounced. Calling for people's opinions that it's a reasonable error to make to be discounted is weird. -Amark moo! 02:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm the only one who's called for anyone's !votes to be discounted, and it's the ones who are saying that it's NOT a reasonable error who I think should be ignored, because THEY are making up random pronunciations to say how different this "mispronunciation" is from it and therefore implausible. /zp/, honestly? --Random832(tc) 02:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oopsies, I completely misread that. My point still holds, though; it doesn't matter what the correct pronunciation is. -Amark moo! 02:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd be comatose from reading this if'n for the language course. It's a hard "g" btw. ~ trialsanderrors 07:22, 1 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 transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season – relisted at AFD – GRBerry 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

No reason given by closing admin. WP:CRYSTAL was cited by many delete proponents, however, content was referenced and citations inserted. A message left on the closing admin's talk page has gone unanswered. Neier 12:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am not required to give a reason for deletion of an AfD - I found consensus to delete, so I did. --Majorly (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was that concensus after discarding the WP:CRYSTAL arguments? All but one delete comment (plus the nominator) mentioned speculative or WP:CRYSTAL. After most of those arguments had been made, documenting evidence was added to the article proving that it was neither speculative, nor WP:CRYSTAL. That is why I brought this to review. Neier 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying please don't expect me to give a reason. --Majorly (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Not enough discussion, discounting WP:CRYSTAL stuff, which is irrelevant with sources. -Amark moo! 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. A couple of references were added, to an otherwise nearly-empty article. I think relisting might be the best option. --Majorly (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment History restored for review. GRBerry 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Gawd, a list with two inhabitants. Nevertheless, WP:CRYSTAL is not a valid delete reason when the information about the future event is sourced. JChap2007 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ProductWiki – Deletion endorsed among established editors – 06:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ProductWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I recently discovered the ProductWiki article was deleted from Wikipedia. I read the debate that lead to the deletion, and feel that the comments in the debate were unfair and inaccurate. I am a co-founder of ProductWiki, and we are not a spam wiki, nor new, nor an insignificant wiki. We have been growing for over 1 year, and have 13,000 products contributed by our community of almost 2,000 members. We provide a voice for the consumer, and have chosen the wiki format as the best medium.

As per the WP:WEB Web notability criteria, we meet criteria #1. We have been sourced multiple times in published works, including Popular Science magazine (both print and online), the Kitchener Record, and in Ben McConnell's latest book Citizen Marketers. Ekkalvia 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Popular Science link appears to be incorrect; it is totally unrelated.The Popular Science link gives only passing mentions. The Kitchener Record link was in the deleted article. "Mentioned in" is not the WP:WEB standard, "been the subject of" is. The amazon link doesn't help us know the extent of that book's coverage. Why the Kitchener Record link, which to my eyes is a clear slam dunk first piece of coverage, wasn't mentioned in the AFD I don't know. But one is not multiple, so where is #2? GRBerry 16:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citizen Marketers was written by Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba of the popular marketing blog Church of the customer. He was on ABC Money matters discussing the book: link. As for #2, how about this feature in the University of Waterloo's newspaper: link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ekkalvia (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, as AfD nominator. What new information was missing from the AfD debate? None presented as yet. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, do we need to make it clearer that you're not supposed to use DRV just because you disagree with consensus? -Amarkov blahedits 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, ProductWiki meets WP:WEB criteria number one by being the subject of two different printed independent publications. The Kitchener Record, and The University of Waterloo's Imprint Newspaper. In light of these two pieces of factual evidence that ensure ProductWiki meets the standard for inclusion, I don't see how this can even be debated further. The other "mentioned in" articles further strengthen the point of significance. All arguments made in the original deletion debate to form consensus were uninformed. Now, with the full information come to light I see no other reasons for deletion to be a consideration. If people have an opinion about the quality, integrity or "spamness" of ProductWiki then they should come up with objective observations to justify this viewpoint and place it inside the Wikipedia article for ProductWiki. (full disclosure: I am also a co-founder of ProductWiki). Omarismail 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... no, it is not the subject of those two publications... -Amark moo! 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how there's any dispute about the KW Record article. As for the Imprint article, it's about ProductWiki and more specifically how I (as a founder) was able to find and utilize the resources available to me to benefit the business. Can you guys help me out here to understand the spitefulness I sense here? I mean, everybody against is simply giving one line answers that don't really justify anything. The only reasonable response given so far was a comment that agreed with the Record article "a slam dunk" was the term used, and requested for another article, which has subsequently been provided. If the Imprint article isn't sufficient as an independent publication then please explain why and point to the relevant Wikipedia policies that define what an article is "about", because it's definitely more than a passing mention.Omarismail 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the Imprint article is about the UW program, including, as an example, ProductWiki. That's really not more than a passing mention. -Amark moo! 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "As an example" is being inaccurate, such a statement implies that ProductWiki is just one among many, when in fact the article focuses entirely on ProductWiki and me. I'm the only person who is interviewed, and the entire piece revolves around my experiences and my advice, with information as to what I've done and where it's got me with the site. The article would mean nothing if you took away the context that these are my experiences with launching ProductWiki. And fundamentally, this makes the article about ProductWiki. But it's about the site in a different way. It's behind the scenes kind of information. That's why I said the word "about" in regards to "publications about the site" is ambiguous. Do the referenced pieces have to be strictly about the site itself and factual information concerning the site like an encyclopedic entry? Or can the piece examine other aspects to the organization not just the web address itself? This isn't defined in the policy, and for now is up to people's judgements. Now, let's go back to the original point of this entire discussion and the essense of the policy, is ProductWiki a notable and significant site? If ProductWiki wasn't notable and insignificant then there would be no reason to interview me as a success since my product would be unknown. It's precisely because ProductWiki is notable and significant that the article exists. This is the independent, objective, unbiased real world references that Wikipedia is looking for to determine notability.Omarismail 07:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)— Omarismail (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • once more, I would probably like to comment but I can not see how to do so, without seeing the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Repeating, I would probably like to comment but I can not see how to do so, without seeing the article. Could someone explain the purpose of having an appeals procedure if it has to depend on memory of the original process? I remember someone said once that it is enough to look at the arguments during the afd, but this and many other DelRev involve the original article. DGG 01:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, you certainly don't need the article. The issue is if there is new information here that wasn't considered or if it was closed incorrectly, not anything else. Unanimous decisions are pretty clear consensus, so that leaves new information. Nothing requires the article, regardless of what some people would like. -Amark moo! 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be dismissive of ordinary users requests for notice, openness, fair process and access to information in AfDs and DRs. These are not trivial concerns. I am not weighing in on the merits here. At issue is "will editors work be destroyed in a manner that is not involved in edit disputes." Histories are removed. It is a "Kafka-tutional" issue. I agree with the need for reasonable access. Edivorce 18:41, 23 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 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit history restored for this review. ~ trialsanderrors 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The book and the major article (neither of which showed up at the AfD) give the impression that it likely meets WP:WEB. More eyes at the AfD, and perhaps a clearer review of the book, would generate a consensus of more than 4 editors. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete Now that I can see the edit history, I endorse the deletion, because there is no evidence whatsoever of the significance of this site.DGG 01:29, 25 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_25&oldid=1138430030"