Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 March 6
2007 March 8 >

7 March 2007[edit]

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

established notability for a local preformer Crazychris2704 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This artilce was deleted by NawlinWiki on March 7, 2007. I believe the musical group, Simpleton, has established notability through local media coverage. They are a rising music group based out of Central Oklahoma. Listed on the wikipedia page were several newspaper and magazine articles ranging from July 2003 to March 2007.

  • Can you provide the details of the local media coverage to enable us to make a judgement? --Spartaz Humbug! 19:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Local acts will get reviews and mentions in local media. To pass beyond the local and regional act, an artist needs non-trivial coverage on a wide scale. The band does not present evidence of this. The act fails WP:MUSIC guidelines and makes no claims to, so a valid deletion. Geogre 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about #5 under the criterion for musicians and ensembles. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." One member of the group, Simpleton, was a former band member of Tyson Ritter from the All-American Rejects. The same member also learned his instrument under the instruction of Nick Wheeler who is also from the All-American Rejects. ?CrazyChris2704 15:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't quite follow this. One member of this band was a member of another band that had a member who was in notable-on-its-own-merits band, the said band's article inevitably having lots of myspace links but nothing that might pass muster as a reliable source? There's at least one level of redirection too much in there, and probably two, not to mention far too few sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, articles require sources, not passing a subguideline of notability on a technicality. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:25, 11 March 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.
William_Sledd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Notable and consistancy Reboot 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The William Sledd article was deleted without any real consensus and the reason "absolutely nothing appears to suggest that the subject has become notable outside the Youtube community/geek subculture" is dubious. The discussion linked to Television programs and magazine articles which mentioned Mr. Sledd. Moreover, the bar seems to be MUCH lower for other YouTube-celebrities: Geriatric1927, Esmée Denters, Chad Vader all linked from the YouTube article itself. Reboot 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We are woefully inconsistent on YouTube people. Could you provide even a couple sources that you speak of? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid AfD, no new evidence, no indication of a problem with process. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This particular gentleman, Mr. Sledd, is a part of my community. He has a HUGE influence on the community, now has his own fashion line, and has been discussed on the view and numerous other national media outlets. I believe he is worthy of an article, and I'm not even gay.

Here we go again. This is news to me. When did he make his own fashion line? I highly doubt that fact. The article is being deleted I don't even have to waste my time. (Pleasantview)

Unless the information was factually inaccurate, I see no reason that this article should be deleted. He is a minor, though recognized, pop culture figure, as evidenced by his appearances on The View and in Elle magazine.

Could you provide a link to a source? superapathyman 17:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (from this week's google news):

Additionally:

There were others in the original discussion that were disregarded without comment.

Reboot 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently deleted. I don't think editors have the sources from the article memorized. Is there a way for an admin to check the claimed sources in the deleted article? -- Richard Daly 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its latest state has a simple assertion with no source mentioned. -- Hoary 09:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please undelete both the latest state and a selected more full earlier state. This discussion is hinging on the merits of closure in relation to the merits of the article, and cannot be judged without it. DGG 09:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The links given above show that he's not a nobody; he does have a modicum of recognition. Thanks to YouTube, thousands do, maybe tens of thousands. I don't see significance being asserted, other than in a context that accords significance very quickly indeed and then perhaps forgets all about it just as quickly. If he were written up (and not merely mentioned) in newspapers, magazines, etc., or if he won awards, that would be a different story. -- Hoary 09:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, see nothing here that would've substantially changed the AfD's course, sources mentioned here are either primary, unreliable, or trivial "blurb" type mentions. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • myg0t – Speedily closed, sixth renomination based on spurious new evidence – trialsanderrors 02:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Myg0t (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD1, Aug. 04|AFD2, Mar. 05| DRV1, Apr. 06|AFD3, May 06|DRV2, May 06|DRV3, Jul. 06|DRV4, Jul. 06|DRV5, Aug. 06|DRV6, Sep.06)

4, count em' 4 notable mentions, in notable articles... are we notable yet??? Myg0tlefty 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, but you can have a warning for incivility from an administrator biased against inclusion of content which does not meet policy if you like. Has it ocurred to you that attacking the admins may not be the most effective way of achieving your aim? Guy (Help!) 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "mention" is not enough to write an article about. An article should only be written on a topic if a non-stub article can be written solely consisting of facts from verifiable publications. —Dark•Shikari[T] 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you even taken a look at the homepage with all sorts of information on myg0t? Myg0tlefty 19:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I find it hilarious that one of the so-called sources does not even mention myg0t, and you still think it's a source for myg0t! Clearly the deletion debates and previous endorsements have failed to achieve anything in the way of education on sourcing policy. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • QuestionWe need third party sources. Can you supply any of these? --Spartaz Humbug! 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. After 6 DRVs, I don't think we even need to pretend that reliable sources might appear. -Amarkov moo! 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Ok, first of all, i could make 4 tshirts on the market using a pc and a printer that prints labels. Secondly, those tshirts are hardly what you call "wearings". Third, his article was like it was describing someone who was about to drown or something. Fourth, [b]posting on youtube shouldnt be a prerequisite for an article on wikipedia[/b]. Now lister carefully, if we allow this last one, and the article is restored, then everyone posting at youtube is intitled to his or her wikipedia page. That is just not logical.. 24.132.108.178 04:17, 11 March 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.
NFL on Christmas Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Relist for further debate, most voters for delete did so before the arguements to keep were expressed Nitsansh 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin: I deleted the article because there isn't really anything significant about NFL games being scheduled on Christmas Day. Why not create NFL on Christmas Eve or NFL during Hannukah? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AFD. Not having enough time to argue to keep the article is not a reason for undeletion, because the AFD ran the full five days. Even then, King of Hearts' justification makes perfect sense. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat 18:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not indiscriminate collection of info. For most of its history, the NFL did NOT schedule matches on Christmas Day, because it was thought do be inappropriate. If I recall the years correctly, there was one match in 1971, and only in the last decade or so it became usual to play on Christmas Day.
      Maybe it doesn't merit its own article, but the info there is significant and should at least be included in articles on NFL and/or Christmas.--Nitsansh 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as nominator. Closing admin obviously correctly interpreted the results of the AFD by deleting the article. I saw the arguments for keeping before the AFD closed and meaning no disrespect thought they were so weak that no response to them was warranted. Otto4711 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The two late keeper opiners offered differing opinions, but nothing in the way of new facts, so sequence is inconsequntial. ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I find no process problems with the debate and no justification to ignore the opinions presented early. The arguments raised by the two "keepers" were already in the article itself and were found to be insufficient. That said, this topic might deserve brief mention in a larger article about the NFL. If such a change is made and if it survives editorial review, I would support history-undeletion and creation of a redirect in order to comply with GFDL. Rossami (talk) 01:30, 10 March 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.
Asif Hossain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article was deleted due to non significance of the person, however he was a candidate who ran for Memember of Parliament in two seperate elections, and is mentioned in at least two seperate articles on wikipedia. Admittedly, I only had a brief paragraph but I mentioned his candidacy as well as his party affillations. --GNU4eva 12:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. No problem shown with the deletion process, and no new information such as featured coverage by reliable sources that have been shown since the deletion. GNU4eva, please note that it's been the consistent consensus over dozens of deletion debates that candidates for office are not automatically notable; and a few newspaper mentions that refer to one's candidacy and party affiliation aren't enough to satisfy the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the notability guidelines. Can you provide magazine articles, television programs, or other sources that show Mr. Hossain is much more notable than other MP candidates? Barno 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fairly consistent recent practice at AfD has been that major party candidates for national parliaments are notable, and if the afd was closed otherwise it might have been against consensus. So of what party was he a candidate?DGG 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Against what consensus, pray tell? There were no "keep" comments, and the nomination contained the information "Finished 5th out of 8 candidates in the only contest mentioned." If a major-party candidate finished fifth and there was no evidence of other notability, I would still strongly support deletion. Barno 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the last version of the article, he ran as a Progressive Canadian Party candidate. Rossami (talk)
  • Endorse the closure in 2005 and the redeletion in 2007. The only thing that changed since the deletion discussion is that he ran and lost a second time. According to our article on the election results, he received 392 votes (down from the 531 votes he collected in 2004). This alone does not convince me that a new debate would return a different result. Rossami (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse closure per Rossami and Barno. JoshuaZ 15:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • The Game (game) – Speedy endorsed. Yet another listing of this, as normal provides no actual information just vague assertions. If there are non-trivial reliable sources show them, otherwise there is nothing to review. – pgk 10:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)

New third-party reliable sources have been found. Deletion was wrong. Apoplexic Dude 09:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy endorse, no sources listed. You lose the game. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 7 March 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.
Lackadaisy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The comic's showing at 2007 WCCA makes it appear notable SanfordAbernethy 09:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC) — SanfordAbernethy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Speedy endorse - proper AFD close. DRV is not AFD take two. – Chacor 09:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion, this isn't AFD part 2, and the close was valid, since none of the keep arguments was really valid (one criticized Wikipedia for the current state of its inclusion guidelines, the other admitted non-notability and unverifiability). --Coredesat 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the fact that since the deletion, it's won four awards and its forum community has increased significantly in size doesn't mean that its non-notability should be reconsidered? Because to me, it sort of seems like it might. SanfordAbernethy 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which awards has it won? If they are considered among the most major awards in the field, and if the awards were reported in multiple reliable sources, then you may have a good case for the article to be restored. Making an unsourced mention of its "showing" at an industry event isn't a strong enough nomination to get it reconsidered. Barno 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. One of these days, I'm going to get really annoyed, and replace my userpage with a block of size 7 text saying "NOTABILITY IS NOT THE ONLY CRITERION FOR INCLUSION. THERE STILL MUST BE SOURCES." To be serious, there are no sources, so there is no article. That is how it is, and should be, until/unless there are sources. -Amarkov moo! 01:09, 8 March 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.
Jewdar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

First off, the word/concept has had an article in Wiktionary for a long time, but no one has objected to that. I also found a few new links that use the word and refer to the concept, including some sources from the Jewish Heeb magazine and others (also note that the original sources include the Washington Post, Salon.com, the Weekly Standard, the NY Press, the American Dialect Society, and others). Someone also told me once that "Jewdar" is also a Jewish dating service of some sort (maybe it is local somewhere?), yet I haven't found it on the web (remember: not EVERYTHING is found on the web). Also, just glancing at "Category:Neologisms" shows that there are dozens of other words that are 'allowed' to have articles here on Wikipedia, even though "Jewdar" is more notable, widespread, and more widely known than most of the words in that category. I also believe that, for whatever reason, the article was unfairly targeted by a group of tight-knit editors that ganged up on the article and unjustly forcing its deletion. The article was and is more well sourced that 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, and yet it was still deleted. I'd like to know why. --WassermannNYC 04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. There was a strong consensus that there were still no reliable sources, to the point where even some of the people that said to keep agreed. This isn't the place to say "But I disagree with the consensus!". And conspiracy theories of people wanting to delete the article are unconvincing, without any sort of evidence. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment - Article already deleted? Corpx 06:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) deletion. Note article was deleted two months ago following the AFD. If there are other articles that are unsourced neologisms, then the solution is not to have more of them ... can you guess what it is? Neil (not Proto ►) 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no new evidence. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not grounds for overturning. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion deletion process was fine, consensus on this pretty clear cut, failure to meet the required standard also pretty clear cut. --pgk 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of the AFD discussion and the redeletion under case G4. I find no process problems in the AFD discussion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The consensus was not decided. Additional sources were found during the discussion, and not taken into account by most of those voicing an opinion.DGG 05:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per presence of new sources. JoshuaZ 15:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Per Neil. Wickethewok 03:21, 12 March 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:Cities in the UTC timezone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|CfD)

This is a coup from all sides with a total lack of respect for wikipedia's deletion process. The sub-categories are being deleted but they are also all auto-generated via {{Template:Infobox city}}. This template was recently changed removing the list of 5000+ cities. The template was tampered with several times prior to the closing of the CfD to only support deletion. Furthermore the CfD is not even closed and appears to be far from a discussion and closer to a big nasty poll. Finally the category's explanatory FAQ, which could be found on the CAT was removed. Again this is a masacre from all ends without any discussion. Deleting admin did not follow the correct procedures. He is trying to sneek this one by via violating WP:CIV in failling to notify interested users, failling to have a conversation, and failing to notify interested paries. This CfD gives other reasons on why it should be kept. --CyclePat 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that the most recent discussions are not even closed yet; but there is no doubt that the cat's will be deleted; I have no objection to early deletion of the cat's because of re-creation of deleted content.) -- Eugène van der Pijll 13:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - This is overcategorization. If you want to create it again, get a consensus _before_ doing so. The argument about depopulation and the FAQ are specious - everyone by now knows exactly what you're trying to do with these categories, they just don't agree with it. --Random832 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - overcategorization, and I must say I don't much care for the assumption of bad faith and the accusations of dire conspiracy on Pat's part. Otto4711 01:11, 9 March 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.
Pligg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I do not understand the deletion of the article. I came accross this usefull piece of software by googling to its now deleted wikipedia page. I've not written the original article. And I'm not involved in the development of this software. The article was not perfect and certainly needed "Wikify" but was useful. Before deletion I added external sources, and a simple search on Google for "pligg" returns 2.090.000 results, thus I don't understand the "not notable" (WP:WEB and WP:ORG) argument. The deletion process was initiated by a false argument (User:Mattarata) saying that Pligg is a copycat of Digg: this is a mistake, one is a service the other is a software to create easily multiple services of the same kind. Benoit rigaut 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the closing admin; the original AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pligg. The point I guess I was trying to make to this editor on my talk page was that notability on Wikipedia is generally based on reliable sources, not google hits. Grandmasterka 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to rebut your last sentence. Few (if any) people on en.wikipedia.org care whether a contributor is a native speaker of English; most care only whether your contributions are supported by multiple citations from reliable sources, and whether they can understand your comments enough to grasp the meaning. People who write far worse English than you, including some native speakers, are sometimes successful in these debates. I'd also like to rebut that paranoid statement from the Pligg forum, in two ways. First, most editors would consider an article with some description of a program's functionality as being much more worth keeping than a short stub. It's far more likely that the change was noticed because more people watch the "recent changes" page than was the case months ago or years ago. Second, the point actually reinforces the case against Pligg being notable enough for its own WP article: There are plenty of computer programmers and others knowledgable about software among WP's editors, including myself. (I learned my first operating system, my first high-level programming language, and my first assembler language in 1978 and 1979.) If a program is so widely known and so widely used that it's "encyclopedic", then over several months, a few people will probably run across its article and improve it. This doesn't mean it can't be important in its niche, but it suggests that either it probably hasn't had much influence or that its niche is probably not of widespread significance. The WP:SOFTWARE guideline is not perfect or absolute, but it's generally a good guide in interpreting how software fits against WP's basic policies. As for WP:DOSPAGWYA, citing an essay (read the box that says "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline") that basically says "this other essay is wrong" is no help in explaining why you find the cited policies and guidelines to policy to be incorrect or to be wrongly applied to this topic. Barno 00:35, 9 March 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.
The noob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I'm frankly at a loss as to why a supermajority for keep on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_noob_(Second_nomination) became delete and salt, and the administrator isn't responding to a polite request I made, so this seems the only way to find out. Adam Cuerden talk 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The AfD was 3 more for delete than keep, if nose counting is important, which is not even a numerical majority, and certainly not a super majority. Additionally, there were three administrators and one IP editor involved in the delete & salt, it seems. Geogre 04:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2: Looking at the last version, it was a really, really, really, really crufty, self-absorbed article with somewhat deceptive characterizations. It said that it's in print (at a web site) and relied on web site hosting as evidence of popularity. I deplore web comics, web comic coverage, and web comic fans, so I won't say anything about the deletion, but it was a bit treacle-ish as an article (more than 2 screens on the characters and running gags). Geogre 04:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nobody managed to demonstrate the existence of reliable sources, even with all the hand-waving about notability. And "supermajority" does not mean "superbly yelled at the majority for being biased", which is what happened. -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. We just endorsed the deletion of this three weeks ago. --Coredesat 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse We did this recently. Unless there are new arguments to listen to and in particular some reliable sources to verify the article then we really don't need to be discussing this again. Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per previous review, no new information. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me, I couldn't find that, and didn't know how bad the old article was. Adam Cuerden talk 11:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With the current format of deletion review, you can use "What links here" to look for deletion reviews since November 2006. GRBerry 14:21, 7 March 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.
Nearsourcing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

company's concept based on its own experience - please revise for not deleting Nevalex 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Deleted per request above. It was tagged for speedy by me. The article was an unsourced & unverfied contention that Itransition created the concept of "Nearsourcing". Ignoring for a moment that the term appears to be something of a neologism, there are no reliable 3rd party sources that support this claim. Indeed, many companies appear to be advancing this concept and term, which would suggest it is not the intellectual property of the company that was claiming it in the article. Also note that the person who created the article and initiated this review would appear to have a conflict of interest.--Isotope23 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are other companies which are using this concept and term, doesn't that imply that it is a well-used term and therefore an acceptable article can be made of it? Assuming there are reliable sources, of course. Corvus cornix 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some companies are using the term and it's occasionally popping up in business press. It can still be a neologism and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. This particular term doesn't even rise to the level of neologism yet - it would be categorized as a protologism - definitely not appropriate here. It may be appropriate in Wiktionary, though. Rossami (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this was relisted, perhaps I should clarify my comment above. Endorse deletion from Wikipedia but permit a temporary undeletion for the purposes of transwiki to Wiktionary if requested. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G11 speedy, thinly-veiled spam. I'm not active on Wiktionary anymore (even to the minimal extent I used to be), but there's nothing there that will aid in creating a dictionary entry. —Cryptic 01:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Element td – deletion endorsed since no independent reliable sources about the topic have been identified, even after two AFDs and a DRV – GRBerry 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Element td (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The first version of the article was deleted for not beeing notable, but the second version was not a recreation of the original version but an entirely new one. The second version was deleted by FayssalF in a speedy deletion and he messaged me: "Please do not recreate Element td article. If you want it recreated you must go through Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks. -- FayssalF", but I disgree with this, since this is not a recreation of the original version, and I claim that the notability has been achieved by me and this new article should be at least discussed before beeing deleted. It would be great if FayssalF, or anybody else, could point out what exactly is missing, so I can provide additional material/sources. Cisz Helion 13:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not sure to how the article can be reviewed, as there seems to be no trace of it left, so I made it temporarily available on my user page. Cisz Helion 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn and list if true, out-of-process G4. Deletion review is NOT for permission to create an article, unless it is the same content that was deleted in an XfD. --Random832 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC) However, the most serious problem with your userfied version is that it lacks independent references. I cannot support the article in this form.[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I really apreciate it. Let me ask for further assistance. Are the battle.net map vault, the maps webpage, the epic war entry and the flash page not what you consider "independant references"? Or do you mean that these are valid references for parts of the text, but too much of the article lacks such sources? Cisz Helion 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about like an actual news article about it. or something in IGN, wired, gamespy, etc. --Random832 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some (small) changes to the version. I would consider the news section of battle.net a valid source, do you disagree? Cisz Helion 10:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was voted upon weeks ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element TD) and the result was to delete it. It was recreated yesterday by User:Cisz Helion, who is a new user and i don't blame him for recreating it. User:Shenme reported the incident on March 1 before i deleted it. I don't have any problem with recreating it again if people agree. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In two details I have a different view of what happened. A totally different article got voted on and deleted weeks ago. I was planning to edit that one to get it into shape, but never did. So I have nothing to do with the old version. My new version of the article was never voted upon. And I feel uncomfortable with the term "recreation", as it carries the connotation of "the same text", which is not the case. I suggest that we discuss the latest version. I have hope that this is meeting wikipedias requirements, or can be brought to meet them by me. Since I'm new to wikipedia, and english isn't my first language, I'm gratefull for any tips or help I can get. Cisz Helion 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll summarize what we have got so far. An article about Element TD got deleted, recreated, deleted again. After that I created another acrticle about Element TD, but I wouldn't call this a recreation, because my version is totally different. FayssalF disagrees with my view, he calls what I did a recreation. This bothers me a bit, as it seems to me, I am held reliable for the bad work of other contributors, and I am concerned that my version might be kept deleted without ever beeing evaluated or looked at. I came up with what I call several independant external sources about eletd. The old version didn't have such references. I claim that at least the battle.net news section is a good source, and even if the maps homepage, the Epic War entry, and two independent flash games inspired by the map (this and this) are not meeting wikipedias standards for good sources, overall notability should be achieved. Random832 seems to disagree with this, although he seems to have missed some small changes I did to the latest version. All in all the question seems to be, if the number and quality of the references I provided is enough to establish notability. Cisz Helion 14:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Casa By The Sea – deletion endorsed, article rewritten, old sources dumped on the talk page for evaluation – GRBerry 02:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Casa By The Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I agree (based on my recollection of the article) that this was highly POV, and I can easily imagine that there was no good version to revert to. The underlying problem is that the institution discussed in the article was and is highly controversial, together with its parent organization, WWASPS. Unfortunately, deleting a subject because it is controversial does not make the controversy go away; it merely makes it appear that Wikipedia is suppressing free speech. I think a reasonable neutral article could be written from the various scraps of material that have been contributed at various times. orlady 01:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could we compromise by giving you a list of the sources in the deleted versions, to write an article afresh with. Having been involved with some of the discussion at WP:ANI that preceeded the deletion of this article, I'm also fairly sure there wasn't a good version available. And I know that some of the supposed sources used weren't reliable. (E.g. "copies" of newspaper articles on partisan sites, for some of which we couldn't prove that the newspaper ever ran the article, and if the copy had been 100% accurate then it would have been a copyright violation.) I think starting afresh is the best way to move forward, but there might be some useful sources in the history. GRBerry 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the discussions at WP:ANI? I have had the WWASPS article and most of their schools/institutions on my watchlist, but I was not aware that there had been a discussion on the noticeboard (although the sudden appearance of PROD notices led me to believe there had been a notification about the NPOV problems with the articles). I have been aware of the WWASPS organization and the myriad controversies surrounding it for several years. I don't have time right now to write articles (nor am I especially interested in the individual schools). However, I believe that the anti-WWASPS organizations provide reliable copies of the articles that appeared in newspapers; I read some of those articles in the paper or online editions of the newspapers when the articles were new, and the versions I see now look OK. --orlady 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found the WP:ANI discussion...--orlady 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone else, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive208#OTRS related assistance needed. GRBerry 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Given good sources, writing a new stub from scratch takes about half an hour. If necessary, history can be undeleted afterwards, although in this case it doesn't seem to be judicial to do so. ~ trialsanderrors 19:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Good sources" can be difficult to find in this case. Objective information about WWASPS and its subsidiaries is hard to come by, and any information has a habit of disappearing (WWASPS is rumored to strong-arm the publishers of negative information, and when WWASPS facilities get a lot of negative publicity their names tend to suddenly change). If anyone is going to try to recreate the article, a list of the sources of the deleted article would be helpful. --orlady 19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the deleted article is best left deleted, but I have no problems with someone writing a properly sourced one in its place. – Steel 19:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the status quo (i.e., keep the deleted revisions deleted, but leave the current stub in place), and perhaps paste the sources from the deleted revisions onto the talk page. The previous version was unsalvageable. —Cryptic 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and rewrite. Which amounts to the same thing as the opinion just above, but seems much more direct.DGG 05:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but allow rewrite provided that all material is sourced. Orlady, however difficult it may be to find such sources, it is absolutely required that article content be attributed to a reliable source, not a recounting of personal study or experience. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 20:54, 10 March 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_March_7&oldid=1090671916"