Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 June 28
2007 June 30 >

29 June 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Bellinghaus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Delete due to infamatory and defamation of character links and irrevelance to modern history

I am requesting the reconsideration of the deletion of Mark Bellinhaus' Wikipedia page. Not only are the links that are attached to his profile filled with misguided and hateful propaganda but I cannot see the relevance that this person has to the modern world. It is a waste of Wikipedia's space and a serious embarrassment to the integrity of this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.50.16 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 June 2007


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.
Nirmal ashram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. However it seems to me that an article about a charitable foundation which states that it has created and runs two schools, a hospital, and an Eye institute; that it has existed for over one hundred years; and that it is "an important spiritual destination of Northern India" at least asserts the significance of that institution. This would need sources and probably expansion to pass an AfD, but I don't think a speedy deletion is warranted. Overturn the speedy, and optionally send to AfD, to allow sources to be found if they can be. DES (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy restore An extremely confused article--I cannot tell if it is primarily about a person, a particular Ashram, or a religious movement. But whatever it is, the importance of all 3 is asserted as clearly as importance can be asserted. non-notable does not mean "low quality article" DGG 23:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. While weak and unsourced there was some assertion of notability here. If no sources can be found to verify notability then an AfD would be appropriate, but it's not really a speedy candidate. Arkyan • (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion; several rather clear assertions of notability. No objections to an AfD if anyone feels it necessary. Heather 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse; copyvio from http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060924/society.htm. Chick Bowen 05:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC) [see below][reply]
  • I'm not really seeing the copyvio? The cached version at least is not a word for word copy that I can tell. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Down at the bottom of the page, under heading, "Blend of Sikhism and Vedanta". Chick Bowen 05:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, now I see. The June 10 version is fine. Later versions are copyvio. Chick Bowen 05:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then after restoration, revert to a clean version, or if only part of the content is a copyvio, delete that part, and posisbly selectivly delete any copyvio revisions. No need to delete the whole thing if there is a clean version.DES (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the viability of the article has to be judged from the clean version. The top version can't be restored. The obvious thing to do is to restore only the June 10 version and list it on AfD. Chick Bowen 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Joey Jett – Speedy deletion overturned; sent to AfD. – Xoloz 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joey Jett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, and salted to prevent recreation. The article, as it was before deletion, asserts that "Joey skates in local and national competitions and has been invited to skate at the AST Dew Tour in both 2006 and 2007. In 2006 he became the youngest skateboarder in the world to perform a 540 at the Dew tour." and "Joey skates at competitions around the United States". The article as it was written would require both cleanup and sourcing to pass an AfD, but it seems to me that those are pretty clear "claims of significance" -- sporting competition in any sport at a national level is a pretty good indication of significance, and if sourced, will normally pas WP:BIO. Therefore i don't think A7 applied. Overturn. DES (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn I have not the least idea of the criteria for skateboarders, but since it asserts notability AfD is the place to find out. DGG 23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. He was featured in a Washington Post article! Not bad for an 8 year old. In any event, not A7 and definitely should not be protected from re-creation. -- DS1953 talk 23:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and List at AFD per DGG. Not sure that the article will survive AfD, but it deserves a chance. A7 is not justified. EdJohnston 04:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am the person who created this page. I also do his PR and his website. He has gotten massive press locally, regionally, at LAT34 (the extreme sports network news outlet), and has had interest from national TV morning shows, and even Ellen DeGeneres.

My plan was to just make an entry and later add supporting details but I never had the opportunity to do that because it was immediately deleted (within minutes).

I would be happy to do a detailed page and submit it. Is there an area to submit to for approval? This is all very new to me. Thank you!

How do we get it unprotected so I can do that? What is Afd?

Also....there are videos on YouTube from two of the stations that interviewed him, along with pro skater Bucky Lasek (also from Maryland)- WBAL TV and 98 Rock Radio

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Oakley Lehman – Deletion overturned; sent to DRV. Participation at this DRV is a little low, but there is a broader consensus that the deleting admin involved here was having a bad day. – Xoloz 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Oakley Lehman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. The article was about a stunt performer. It said "Oakley has doubled for many of today's top actors including Paul Walker, Josh Lucas, Chris Evans, and Josh Duhamel." And the IMDB lists over 30 stunt roles for Lehman, some in quite notable films such as Snakes on a Plane, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Timeline, and The Fast and the Furious. I think that working as a stunt double for multiple notable actors is at least a claim of notability. Overturn and send to AfD DES (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Abhash Kumar – Article restored in light of new sources, sent to AfD. – Xoloz 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Abhash Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. I think that "He shot to fame for putting down caste based riots in southern Tamil Nadu with iron hands" and "He was awarded with the 'Communal Harmony Award' by the Governor for his efforts." and "The Periyar University, Salem in Tamil Nadu has appointed him as the Honorary Visiting Faculty" are at least assertions of significance or importance. it might well be that this article would have PoV problems -- it might even be that it would be deleted at an AfD, but no one can be sure of that in advance. A good article might result. Overturn speedy deletion. DES (talk) 20:44, 29 June 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.
Sweet Noise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article clearly asserts notability. I tried to contest this prod, but Spartaz refused to undelete the article, stating that it was a7 - but it's not: it clearly asserts notability. A7 says nothing about sourcing anyway, though I can include some: Polish newspaper, independent South African site calling it a "top Polish band" (I can look for others, but I speak no Polish). The archived version of the page can be found here. 64.178.96.168 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This would need expansion and sourcing to pass an AfD, but "The band released several CD" is a claim of significance, and if sourced might alone pass WP:MUSIC (depending on whether they are self-published or not) This was deleted as an expired prod, which is supposed to be an automatic undelete if anyone questions the matter. But ignoring that technicality, and assuming it had been speedy-delted under A7, Overturn and send to AfD so that notability or lack of it can be established by consensus discussion. DES (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me I'm not the deleting admin and I haven't refused to do anything. Can the nom please explain where my involvement comes from? Spartaz Humbug! 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated in the nomination, right here. You said you wouldn't restore the prod. 64.178.96.168 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, I remember this now. Personally I don't see any reason why you simply don't go ahead and rewrite it with sources as the deleted article was one line and from April. Hmm I seem to be reversing myself a lot this week - but this clearly was a lousy decision. I have undeleted. Spartaz Humbug! 21:52, 29 June 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.
2007 London car bombs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD 1|AfD 2)

A deletion discussion was never permitted. Event happened today (29 Jan) and both of the AfD discussions were speedily closed today. First was closed with just two comments (lasted just 14 minutes since start to closure). Second with mere four comments (lasted just 13 minutes since start to closure). I feel this is a minor event that is worthy of a wikinews article but not a wikipedia article. A merge would be a fine alternative to delete. I do not see why it was speedy kept

-- Cat chi? 20:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure if you want a merge why do you want an AFD? Just discuss on the article talk page. At any rate it's impossible to assess how important this will be in the long run at this point... if people want to generate a verifiable article here for now, that's fine. --W.marsh 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdrew merger suggestion. It isn't worth a merger. -- Cat chi? 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy - it's worth having a discussion, and falls under no categories of WP:CSK. The Evil Spartan 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarify: as long as it's on the front page, I agree with Tariq's reasoning. It's ugly, and it will probably be keep, so we should keep the deletion notice off the front page. The Evil Spartan 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind. Endorse speedy for now clearly appears to be a notable event. The Evil Spartan 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by one of the closing admins Although this does not nicely fit one of the points under WP:CSK, WP:CSK "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". This is an example of "common sense" and "occasional exception", as there was overwhelming support for keeping the article and the event is still unfolding (thereby making its notability impossible to assess). Besides, the rationale behind this deletion request was almost entirely a "What about article X?" rationale. -- tariqabjotu 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep - Attempting to open a debate to delete an article related to top-headline news event just seems extremely premature. The nominator should have considered that not only the information on the event but also the significance of the event story is in flux. He should have waited a few days to see if the story would achieve the notability level that is justified for a Wikipedia article. (While Wikipedia is not a news source, Wikipedia can be used to record recent events as described in news sources.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by other closing admin: I fully agree with Tariqabjotu. It's entirely too early to tell if this will be notable or not. If in a week or so we decide it's not, AfD it then. What's the rush? Why this has to be deleted now is what I truly fail to grasp. ^demon 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep This sails over the notability bar. Haddiscoe 13:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. For now this is useful. In addition to its role as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is acknowledged in the international press as a very competent chronicler of events as they happen. In due course we may want to merge it and trim, perhaps into an article about post-2001 terrorist bombings in London. --Tony Sidaway 14:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keeps there's a line where deletionism goes too far, and that line was crossed sadly by requesting the article to be deleted. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep according to WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". It is definitely clear this sentence turns out to be true in the case. --Angelo 03:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, current events that is well-covered by international press (particularly the BBC), comparable to 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. As a thumb of rule we do not nominate Main Page material that has passed vetting for deletion. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep Notability completely obvious Johnbod 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. This event has been the subject of days of non-stop international coverage and the article cites dozens of sources. Notability is proven. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep This comment on the second AfD says it all: Airplanes collide with structures in New York on a regular basis. That doesn't stop us from having articles on all of them. Mathmo Talk 06:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep and why are we still debating this? per the above and WP:SNOW - let's see there are about 30 footnotes with such reliable sources as Reuters, BBC, SkyNews, etc. At moment 1 questions as to notability may have properly been raised, but is anyone still contending it's not notable now? Let's just endorse the keep and if someone really wants to delete it send it to AfD to see how that proposal would fare. Carlossuarez46 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg – IfD closure endorsed. Per Nv8200p commenting below, the image may be re-uploaded with a substantially different fair use rationale, if its proponents really wish to press the argument. The DRV consensus below is that the old rationale was insufficient, and the deletion therefore justified. – Xoloz 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

I do not believe the closing admin followed policy in deleting this image. His closing comments indicated that he deleted the image based not on the consensus of the people who commented below, but on his own opinion that the image violated WP:NFCC #8. In the discussion below, 3 Wikipedians (Abu, Howcheng, and Ilse) stated that they believed the image to violate NFCC #8, while 8 Wikipedians (me, Pageant, nadav, Mecu, Angelo, Videmus Omnia, TCC, and Andrew c) stated that they believed the image passed NFCC #8. (In addition, Knulclunk voted to keep the image, but did not say why, and Iamunknown thought the image should be deleted, but gave no opinion of whether the image passed NFCC #8 or not, since his argument was based on other criteria.) I can't see any way to interpret 3 to 8 against as being consensus for deletion based on NFCC #8. In the instructions for administrators page, it says "Before deleting an image, make sure. . . No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." This was not followed. There were disagreements as to whether this image passed both NFCC #2 and NFCC #8, but I can't see how anyone could in good faith come to the conclusion that there was consensus to delete. I informed the closing admin of this, but he does not appear willing to revisit his decision. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I deleted the image because the arguments that the image didn't meet WP:FUC, particularly #8 and #2, were particularly compelling, and the arguments that it did not were not. WP:IFD's standard that Quadell is quoting are for typical editorial actions, not fair-use issues. Fair-use issues are, broadly: do not allow an image unless and until an image can just justified as fair-use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: If an image clearly violates policy, we can't keep it, even if a lot of people vote "Keep" just because they like it. In this case, however, the contention that the image violates NFCC#8 (that it doesn't "contribute significantly to an article") is a matter for the community to decide. A closing admin should follow consensus, not his own personal opinion on how important an image is. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a lot of people contend an image is useful, but that isn't a standard that meets WP:FUC #8, then the force of their numbers counts for nothing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It sounds to me like you're saying that your interpretation of how NFCC#8 applies to this image is a valid view, but that the views of other people (some of whom are admins, some of whom have been working with non-free images longer than you have, some of whom know a great deal about the nature of beauty pageants) are not valid and should not be considered when determining consensus. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I evaluated the arguments and the standards advanced on the IFD, not my own preconcieved decision. I am personally ambivalent on the image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn consensus was not followed. PageantUpdater 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclaimer - the vote above was from the image's uploader. --Abu badali (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclaimer - the disclaimer above was from the image's deletion nominator. ;-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I am a bit shocked of how the clear, reasonable consensus in keeping the image was not followed at all. A discussion was made on if the image would violate NFCC #8, and a wide consensus was found in support of the fact that this picture is significant for the beauty pageant article, probably even the only one to be really significant in it. --Angelo 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. One admin should not decide that an image fails #8. The fact that many more people disagreed with him in that did not matter, it seems. Have a legitimate discussion about it instead of simply wiping the image based on your opinion and nothing else. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some sort of misconception that I decided this by myself and ignored the arguments. Rather, I examined the arguments, looked for what arguments weren't refuted and which were, and decided based on that. Since when are copyright issues decided with a nose count? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not decided with a nose-count, but they are decided with consensus. – Quadell (talk) (random) 06:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's being claimed, here, that I just forced my own opinion through. Instead, I examined a discussion and derived its conclusion. That's what closing admins are supposed to be doing when they determine consensus, no matter what the context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Detailed discussion, administrator discretion in interpreting the weight of the arguments -- and the "Keep" arguments didn't hold much water -- not the unilateral and arbitrary decision some people above seem to be trying to imply. Calton | Talk 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Policy trumps snoutcounting, especially our policies in the realm of how Wikipedia interacts with copyright. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am of the opinion, as can be seen in the original discussion, that the image is simply not a fair use. It is a recently (as in, this year) photograph that I argue is still marketable. Wikipedia, as a top-ten website, can seriously affect the market of non-free images. Our use of every non-free image must be with discretion, not simply by seeing a non-free image and saying, "Oh, that image is not free ... well, then, its fair use!" I am also of the opinion that the "keep" comments were not particularly weighty. That said, I did make several assumptions in my own argument, and it could be said that my own argument was flimsy. I wish we had had more time to discuss. If this decision to delete this image is overturned, our use of the image will need to be discussed, on the image talk page / article or at another IFD (but please, no procedural listings, that's simply a waste of time and it drags the drama out longer). --Iamunknown 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of your views on this image, do you think consensus was followed in its deletion? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I offer no comment, for there is, or so I observe, a disparity between the popular concept of "consensus" and the marginalized concept of "reasonable interpretation of law", and I do not wish at this time to become embroiled in it. My previous post was more of a rambling about copyright issues, which unfortunately were not well addressed in the original deletion discussion because of (what I consider to be) a premature closure. (I do not begrudge the closing administrator; IFDs are, generally, promptly closed after five days, barring backlogs. I do wish, however, that we had more time to discuss.) --Iamunknown 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The IFD was closed after more then ten days, although it might have been wise for the closing admnin to wait until discussion had stalled. I agree with Quadell's comment here, your opinion on the matter is not the issue, what is the issue is whether consensus was followed. PageantUpdater 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, thanks to both of you for regarding my opinion as irrelelvant. How we can actually engage in a productive discussion while summarily considering another's opinion as irrelevant is beyond me. I think you are both asking the wrong question; copyright is not consensual. Our interpretation of what is a "fair use" is, to some extent, consensual, and it should be informed at least by the fair use factors and relevant case law, at most by our mission to be a free encyclopedia. Relevant case law is all about marketability. [1] [2] That wasn't even addressed in the IFD prior to my comment. Most of what was talked about was the significance of the image to the article (though these type of discussions are necessary in order to reconcile our mission to be a free encyclopedia with our use of non-free content). There was, however, no consensus to be followed concerning the marketability (i.e. what really matters as determined by recent cases in actual courts), because no one talked about it. --Iamunknown 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider an overturn if use of the image is reworked The original reason for nomination for deletion was correct and I believe the closing admin acted properly. The image was being used solely to illustrate the information that she was crowned. However, the image itself is unique and presents an emotional response that cannot be conveyed in words. If the image was used properly in the article, I believe it would meet NFCC #8. This means providing commentary on the image and what the image conveys. The website the image came from specifically states that images are provided at no charge so I don't see a conflict with NFCC #2. Beyond Wikipedia policies, I believe the image would also pass muster for a claim of fair use under U.S. Copyright law. -Nv8200p talk 04:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    About the re-work... any discussion about "the emotional response" this image conveys should be properly sourced, to avoid original research. I.e., Wikipedia can't be the first publication to talk about the "emotional response" of these kind of images.
    About the image being provided "at no charge"... the whole conditions from the source website says that the images are to be used solely by "news publications", and "for a period of sixty (60) days following your download of the photographs". We would need a strong fair use defense to use these images, since the copyright holder explicitly opposes to our use. --Abu badali (talk) 15:39, 4 July 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.
Fields (1970s band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Should not have been deleted because it passes criterion 6 of WP:MUSIC due to Andy McCulloch's membership in the band. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and expand. Speedy was valid, as the article didn't mention the involvement of anyone notable. A decent article should be possible for this notable (but extremely short-lived) prog band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/expand. Did you talk to the deleting admin on this? Seems likes that could have avoided a DRV. --W.marsh 20:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete per nomination. JoshuaZ 01:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment yeah I mentioned this deletion review on the admin's talk page.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The AMG's entry is short and contains an inaccuracy (Alan Barry was never in King Crimson). The other two band members do not have articles on WP and as such may not be notable. But this is still a clear undelete per the WP:MUSIC guideline criterion 6.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: criterion #6 of WP:MUSIC says, "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." This sounds like an ideal place to apply that principle—the AMG entry says, "The group lasted about a blink of an eye". I tend to doubt that any expansion of the article would be necessary or possible. Xtifr tälk 18:51, 3 July 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.
Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Process error. This category was deleted on 25 June following a deletion discussion in which only the nominator himself had commented. This was probably because few people knew about it, as there was no notice on the main article UMIST of the category, as suggested in Wikipedia guidelines for category deletions [3]. I was one of the main contributors to the deleted category, and I only found out about the proposed deletion a few hours after it had taken place. Previously suggestions regarding articles and categories related to UMIST or Manchester University have always attracted vigorous and knowledgable debate on the appropriate talk pages. I therefore request that the category deletion is reversed and relisted, with notification on the UMIST article page so that others can join the discussion. Although I'm asking for a relisting on the grounds of process, I would be equally happy with the categrory deletion simply being overturned, as I feel there is no prospect of reaching a consensus on this deletion. I myself strongly oppose the deletion of this category and there are solid reasons for retaining it. (The nominator has been kind enough to chat with me about those reasons on my user talk page - See [4] ) Dodo64 13:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19#University_of_Manchester. Chick Bowen 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist These were names of the 2 precursor institutions to U.Manchester, and there are major relationship problems between the UMIST & the merged university; this is presumably a desire to keep their alumni separate. On the principle, the guideline for notifying people about XfDs other than CfDs is rarely observed, & even resisted. I think it's essential that they be notified, These are obscure processes to most WP editors, as it usually doesn't pay to keep checking them just in case something relevant is on the list. On the fundamental issue of fairness, this needs a wider discussion. Invoking IAR for the sake of elementary fairness is one of the best places to use it. I would propose a policy change, but requiring notice at XfDs has in the past been rejected. DGG 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - This probably deserves comments from more than one person. Dr. Submillimeter 22:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist per Dodo and DGG. JoshuaZ 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closing admin, I have no objections against relisting. Conscious 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist Lack of awareness of CfD's is a perennial problem. Really what is needed is a bot placing at least talk pages notices on all articles in the categories affected. Johnbod 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I would support a bot that notifies WikiProjects that tag the talk pages of relevant categories or that adds a notice to an article listed in a catmore template, but leaving notices at all categorized articles seems too much like Wikispamming. Dr. Submillimeter 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - I nominated this category for deletion, and believe that it warrents further discussion. Mike Peel 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Since the original discussion attracted little notice, having a second CfD debate seems harmless. Although the relisting has a slight WP:IAR flavor, none of those involved on either side seem to mind. EdJohnston 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Danny_Sveinson] – This appears to have been recreated while the DRV was ongoing - not that there was much interest in it. Although the previous article was deleted at VFD, this version is superior to this so I have listed at AFD. – Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Danny_Sveinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

VFD_question Was poking through my watchlist to clean it out a bit, and remembered this article: Danny Sveinson, which was deleted back in 2005. I submit that the subject is notable, for reasons that I state in the original incarnation, but which were later removed in the version of the article presented in its VFD. Furthermore, it appears that the old version of this article was never examined for the purposes of the VFD. It's worth noting that I'm not really heavily invested in this article anymore, but I'm curious to find out if that version of the article would provide notability. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was just about to copy it to your talk page, but it looks like I was beaten to it. By the looks of things this would have, shall we say, an uphill battle to pass an AfD to say the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Adam Long – The result is to unsalt the page. – — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Adam Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

SENSIBLE_NEW_ARTICLE -->I am Adam Long from the Reduced Shakespeare Company, and I'd like to write a new article about myself. I know that it's not the done thing, but it looks like people have written a lot of rubbish under 'Adam Long' and I'd like to write a short piece detailing my work with Reduced Shakespeare and post-Reduced Shakespeare (Raindance award winning film, comedy for Lucasfilm, radio work for BBC Radio Four). Best, ajaxsemaphor Ajaxsemaphor 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted Whether with good intentions or otherwise, autobiographies aren't acceptable. Please see WP:COI for detals. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse salting for now. I'm technically the deleting admin, but only because I did a mass migration of Salted pages from old salting to Title Protection salting a few days ago, and thus I had to delete the old salt page. I did not delete/salt the article originally. That said, looking through the history, we have a page that has indeed had a lot of "rubbish" in the past. Student vanity pages, etc. But the idea of un-salting this just so that another potential vanity page can be written, with no idea of whether the new page will be of any worth, is not appealing. My suggestion is that the nominator withdraw this DRV request, and first build out their intended article in theri User space, maybe at User:Ajaxsemaphor/Adam Long for instance. Then, once they actually are able to show that the intended article meets the various project policies (WP:BIO, WP:RS, etc.) a new DRV could be submitted and the situation could actually be effectively evaluated. As it is, the proposed new article is just too big of a question mark in my mind to support the unsalting of the page title. - TexasAndroid 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with the suggestion of salting. I'd be happy to work with Adam to compile a decent biography. My early research suggests that Adam is not only an early member of the Reduced Shakespeare Company which had a pretty heavy West End presence at one time, long a fixture at the Criterion Theatre in Piccadilly, but also The Barn, the screenplay of which he cowrote with fellow Reduced Shakespeare alumnus Jake Broder, won a Raindance award at British Independent Film Awards in 2004. More recently he contributed the script to "Star Wars: Shortened!", a Sky Movies-commissioned movie which does to George Lucas' magnum opus what the Reduced company earlier did to Shakespeare's oeuvre. --Tony Sidaway 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With Tony personally mentoring the page creation, I would consider unsalting to be acceptable under that circumstance. - TexasAndroid 13:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect and undelete if there's anything salvageable. WP:COI says If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. - well they won't write anything if it's salted. In addition, autobiography is discouraged but not outright forbidden and since Tony S is offering to help out we shouldn't have any worries at all. CIreland 14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to be salvaged. Of the three previously deleted versions, two were for different, totally NN Adam Longs, and the third, which was for the same Adam Long, read, in total: "Adam Long is a hilarious member of the Reduced Shakespeare company. He, along with his fellow members, has become a role model for many people out in the world who find Shakespeare dull." - TexasAndroid 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt, conditional on Tony S's mentoring of the page creation. (Changing my opinion) - TexasAndroid 14:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: maybe Tony and Adam can work in userspace, and bring the result here when they're done? I have no objection to unsalting if Tony is involved, but a userspace version would really help resolve any lingering doubts anyone might have. Xtifr tälk 09:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • unsalt there is always afd if the result is unacceptable. Spartaz Humbug! 18:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked Adam to start in user space. He's confirmed that he's going to write a piece and submit it to me for review. Thanks for the vote of confidence. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No thanks. Reduced Shakespeare Company may well be notable but autobiographies of members is not what we want. A redirect would be OK though. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt. Let him give it a shot, and if you like, put me down as someone willing to watch over the article for problems, too. --Calton | Talk 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt per above Catchpole 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt and let Tony or Calton give it a look. As Spartaz says, there is always AfD. -- DS1953 talk 23:34, 2 July 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_June_29&oldid=1138430510"