Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 5 Deletion review archives: 2008 April April 7 >

6 April 2008[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
====
User:21655/AFV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Now I realize this page totally fails WP:DENY, but if us Wikipedians want to give ourselves a laugh once in a while, I say we do it. After all, I know like 5 or 6 users that do the same thing. If you disagree, I can move it to somewhere a vandal wouldn't bother to look. Maybe link to it from my userpage instead of transclude it. But that's just my view. 21655 τalk/ ʃign 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and MFD Speedies don't apply in the userspace Alexfusco5 20:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: Its a userspace page, which was not in violation of any policies. I fail to see the reason for deletion without discussion. WP:MFD would have been appropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse: After thinking about this a bit more, and adopting a new term (courtesy of MrZ below), there really is no need for 'policy wonking' here. If it were MFD, I would support its deletion, so, why not cut out the extra step here? I do disagree with Nicks deletion without discussion, but, can understand why he did it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: per it being in the userspace, and not being against policy. Speedy deletion does not apply, and it should have gone to MFD if the admin thought it should be deleted. --ChetblongTalk/Sign 20:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a terrible and dangerous precedent to set here, if we permit such pages, we're encouraging vandalism "let's see if we can get on that list". There's also the very real problem about judging what should go on these pages, it'll get to the stage where OTRS are handling e-mails from disgruntled subjects of articles complaining about how we highlight some terrible comments that were made about them or their companies and so on. I deleted this page and I would strongly urge the deletion of every other such page on the grounds that we simply cannot control what goes on these lists and that such lists promote behaviour that is entirely against the mission of Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, was that it? I see. Well, if it makes you happy, I can make it less conspicuous. 21655 τalk/ ʃign 20:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Would MFD have been appropriate? Yes. Would this be kept at an MFD? Probably not. Does it help the project in any way? No. No need for policy wonking here methinks. Mr.Z-man 20:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for reading anything I say, but you're probably right. (No, that does not imply a request for speedy close). 21655 ωhαt do yoυ wαnt? 21:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify something here: the lists are for STUPID VANDALS ONLY. Libellous material doesn't apply. I don't know about Steve, Kafziel, J.delanoy, and the rest, but my list is libel-free and it'll stay that way. As for the "oh, can I get into that" question, hey--it's just one more step to WP:AIV, since it'll get reverted anyway. 21655 ωhαt do yoυ wαnt? 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per beans/deny, but also acknowledge that speedy is generally not appropriate for userspace. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Overturn deletion I am a process wonk, and the more I thought about this, the more it bothered me. Speedy deletion criteria simply does not apply, and must not be stretched, even one half of one angstrom. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and add to this MFD. There is no valid reason for speedy deletion - WP:DENY is not a policy, or even a guideline. Vandals are probably more aware of WP:LTA or WP:ABREP - the pages in userspace are a way for vandals to gain recognition without causing as much disruption. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deleting pages in userspace per an essay is obviously outside policy. This is the only way we can stop people making bad deletions. Hut 8.5 10:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No need for gratuitous process, this is nothing but BJAODN reincarnated. We have consensus for not retaining lists of vandalcruft, additional consensus is not required. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn needs discussion at MfD. Otherwise it becomes a matter of "delete anything an admin thinks is deletable and hope nobody appeals it. "DGG (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not really. This is material that immortalises vandalism, we have quite a lot of debates that suggest this is no longer what we do, including the BJAODN deletions and the deletion of long term abuse pages. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but, as you see, Guy, this is your personal view--and other people here feel differently, which warrants a discussion, and the place for that is MfD DGG (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Small ripple in teacup hidden in distant cupboard (until now). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This at least needs an MfD. Captain panda 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Eh, I was going to offer some long, divagating !vote about why process is important in situations like this, but DGG and Hut, inter al., put it sufficiently and more cogently than would have I. It should further be observed, I think, that, even as overturning would be appropriate even were we relatively confident that MfD would counsel deletion, it is not entirely clear that the community will support deletion here (CCC, etc.), toward which one may see, e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Best Vandalism Lists, which, at the very least, suggests that there is some opposition to the deletion of pages not entirely dissimilar to the instant page. And so I managed an exorbitantly long !vote after all. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to undelete this just for formalities. I endorse the deletion because we should deny recognition to vandals and because having this page doesn't help the encyclopedia whatsoever. John Reaves 22:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should also deny recognition to people whose sole purpose here is to rack up edits and get barnstars (e.g. the disgusting message in the above commenter's signature). John Reaves 22:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, it's a joke, a play on I Can Has Cheezburger?, and I can't imagine that anyone would take it as solicitory of a barnstar or as otherwise inappropriately jocular (of course, your comment might well not mean to take it seriously; in fact, I assume that it doesn't, remembering AGF and all, and offer an explanation only in order to make the situation plain). For the first twenty-seven months of my time (during which time it happens that my purpose was other than to rack up edits and get barnstars) here I signed only as "Joe", and I recently undertook to expand my sig just a bit (if our most vigilant signature shortener can adopt a username that necessitates a long sig, one feels free to go wild); apologies if the humor was lost in my undertaking that rather trivial pursuit. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, if Nick wants to go around deleting pages in userspace, he'll have to take it to MFD unless the user requests it, the user doesn't exist, or it's a non-free gallery of images (or if WP:CSD is amended). Essays are not a criteria for speedy deletion for pages in userspace. --Pixelface (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, due to procedural irregularity. xenocidic (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per all above TheProf - T / C 15:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I find the argument that the BJAODN case established a clear consensus for these deletions unconvincing. BJAODN went through multiple MfDs, and the GFDL issue was crucial in tilting the balance. Besides which, "consensus" isn't a speedy deletion criterion; "consensus can change," but how can one tell if consensus has changed if there is no discussion? Groggy Dice T | C 22:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Whatever about the page being in the userspace, WP:DENY is not a CSD. It even specifically says so. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - purely on narrow procedural grounds; I'll cheerfully support its deletion in an MfD discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Station Jim – Deletion overturned due to misuse of CSD A7, with no prejudice to future AfD listing. Page history restored; unredirection/expansion is subject to editorial decision. – --PeaceNT (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
====
Station Jim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I created this article today but it seems to have been speedily deleted. I am not sure who did this and the reasons are mysterious since the article was already better sourced than Old Yeller and had potential to become as good as Greyfriars Bobby. Since I am not aware of a good reason to delete this, please can it be restored. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my own deletion; the only thing I can see that might be out of process is whether CSD:A7 (Bio) applies to animals as well as humans. It certainly hits A7 - for non-admins, the entire text was
"Station Jim was a popular Canine Collector for the Great Western Railway
Widows' and Orphans' Fund who became the mascot of Slough railway station. He was
stuffed upon his death and can still be seen in a glass case there." Black Kite 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that we have articles for many such animals at List of famous dogs. The article was going to be fleshed out with photographs and more content which was not done right away since it appeared that there was already more than enough notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Black Kite fails to point out that there were two citations to books and an external reference. For a stub, this article was quite good in my experience of such things. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that it didn't assert the notability of the animal. I obviously have no way of checking the book references (though I suspect they'd do little more than confirm the existence of said dog), but the external link was a blog and thus not WP:RS. Black Kite 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither WP:N or WP:BIO make any mention of categories. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are irrelevant to the article. Otherwise CSD could always be circumvented merely by placing the article in a "notable" category. Black Kite 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... you, Colonel Warden, placing the category "Famous dogs" onto the article really doesn't make it notable. You need to write why the dog is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Having photographs, a blog site and a book reference does not assert notability. I hope this clears things up for you. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, propose merger It seems this would be a good addition to the Slough railway station article - notability criteria only apply to articles, so if this is reliably sourced information there'd be no problem including it in the article, especially if a photograph and more content are forthcoming. However as an article in its own right, it failed A7, and I don't see its chances improving much. Orderinchaos 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not add it to the Slough railway station article, and add a redirect from Station Jim for now? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion endorsed While I'm not sure it was necessarily an A7, I don't see anything in the article that necessitated the dog having his own article. I'd support merging the content into another article as Orderinchaos suggested, and recreating the title under debate as a redirect. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be quite happy to go along with that. Black Kite 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:N guideline indicates that common-sense is to be used. Also, the body of the article indicates that the animal was popular and that it became a msacot. Its subsequent preservation also seems an obvious sign of notability. The matter does not belong in the article for the railway station since a railway station is not a famous dog and so the category would not work well. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The category has absolutely nothing to do with it. As a stuffed animal in a glass case, he can broadly be regarded at least for the present as a subset of the station. Furthermore he has a historic association with the station as its mascot in somewhat happier times. So it would seem that the station article is a suitable location for those reasons. "Popular" is relative, many animals are preserved which are not notable, and the dog would not be notable beyond its context with the railway. Orderinchaos 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This line of argument is turning into an AFD discussion. We have a process for this and it is the AFD one. I request again that the article be reinstated. I will then improve it rapidly since there are more sources and interested parties can then tag it and take it further as needed. Speedy deletion seems quite inappropiate. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability guideline applies regardless of whether AfD is entered into or not - it's not limited to a particular set of circumstances. Otherwise there'd be no point in having an A7 speedy criteria. Anyway, I am more interested in solutions than arguments, and I believe I have proposed a fair one that meets all comers and dodges the notability issue entirely. Orderinchaos 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think enough notability was asserted to avoid A7, which after all was introduced to deal with "Joe Bloggs is a student at Smalltown High School" type articles, not obvious good faith efforts like this. But in any case note that this dog has had a whole film based on it. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 18:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That appears to be a different fictional dog, and is set in Devon. Black Kite 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but seems to be at least loosely based on our dog in slough wouldn't you say? A dog called Station Jim, taken in by the local railway staff, helping orphans? I think that link sounds worth some further investigation. But anyway, here's at least one good non-blog source about the real dog. [1] Iain99Balderdash and piffle 18:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn while I think the whole mess is an unfortunate consequence of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ealing_Broadway_Platform_9 and the hullaballo there, although I'm assuming good faith on both ends, it appears the dog is notable. It can be deleted at AfD if it turns out it isn't notable enough. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To save this going on ad infinitum, I have re-created the article as a redirect to Slough railway station, and added some info on Jim and a better reference into that article. Black Kite 18:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not entitled to pre-empt the result of this discussion, are you? I'm still asking for the speedy deletion to be undone so that I can continue to work on the article and so that my contribution is respected per the GFDL. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine. I've deleted it again. I'm not taking any further part in this discussion, because it's plainly ludicrous. I was under the impression that this was an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia, but it has become very clear in recent months that I was wrong. Black Kite 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn since I don't believe A7 applies to animals. I go with the interpretation that if it doesn't explicitly state that it does, it doesn't. Still, the deletion was done in good faith. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to sources provided above. Hobit (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; animal or not, the article made enough of an assertion for notablilty that A7 should not apply. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to its own section in Slough railway station, change to redirect, put redirect into Category:Famous dogs. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, seriously... I am a process freak, but extending A7 to animals is definitely not stretching CSD far. -- lucasbfr talk 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I can say exactly what started all this. It was a comment I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9. Let me lay out the timeline:
    • 09:54, 6 April 2008 - I mention "Station Jim" as an example of interesting historical items (not trivia) that can be written into station articles.
    • 10:31 - Colonel Warden creates Station Jim (content provided at start of discussion).
    • 10:34 - Colonel Warden notes at the AfD that he has created this new stub on "Station Jim", and invites me to add my photo and help expand the article. I noted the creation of the article and thought it looked fine, though I did think it would eventually get merged into the station article.
    • 10:58 - Colonel Warden leaves a note for another editor (this note would later upset Black Kite)
    • 14:09 - Black Kite closes the Ealing Broadway Platform 9 debate as "redirect", though the process he describes is actually a merge, and then makes the pointed, if rather cryptic, comment "I have protected the redirect given some of the remarks made in this AfD."
    • 15:06 - Black Kite leaves the following note for Colonel Warden, under the title "A stuffed dog": "I'm not sure if there is a method behind you creating less and less notable articles just to see what happens (per your talkpage comment to User:Kmweber), but I'd suggest that it's borderline disruptive. Stop it, please it is quite obvious that you are able to create notable content when you wish." To me, it seems that Black Kite was not aware of the exchange between me and Colonel Warden at the AfD that led to the article being created. If he was, then he was brushing aside me, as well as Colonel Warden, when he pressed the delete button. If he wasn't, then he is closing AfDs without fully reading them. I'd like to know which it is.
    • 15:07 - Black Kite deleted Station Jim as "CSD:A7 (Bio): Real dog, doesn't indicate or assert any importance / significance" (I would dispute this).
    • Discussion ensued at User talk:Black Kite, User talk:Colonel Warden, User talk:Carcharoth, and here at the DRV.
    • Black Kite also tried to meet Colonel Warden halfway by carrying out a merge (though the actual content was different enough to not be a copy of what Colonel Warden has written), but Black Kite only re-created Station Jim as a redirect (this is in the deleted history). Colonel Warden, here at this DRV, correctly pointed out that he was entitled to have the deleted history restored per the GFDL, as his contribution could be seen as the first draft of what Black Kite put in the Slough railway station article. Unfortunately, Black Kite took affront at this, and deleted the redirect with the words: "Fine. I've deleted it again. I'm not taking any further part in this discussion, because it's plainly ludicrous. I was under the impression that this was an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia, but it has become very clear in recent months that I was wrong.". He also removed the content again from the Slough railway station article.
    • Black Kite then went off in a huff, but has now returned and is busy closing AfDs.
  • What I think happened here is that Black Kite got a bit burnt out from too much AfD work, as he said to me here. Hopefully he will put things into perspective, and everyone will calm down a bit. I will (later on) go back to uploading that picture and writing something about Station Jim in the Slough railway station article. As I will be using the sources provided by Colonel Warden, it will be necessary to restore the history of the deleted content as a redirect to correctly attribute the source edits to Colonel Warden per the GFDL. Carcharoth (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to put a couple of things in perspective here. I still believe the A7 delete was correct, but that doesn't mean the content can't be covered somewhere in the encyclopedia, as I suggested when I re-created it as a redirect and put the content in the railway station article. I don't think it can really stand alone (because I think any notability rests on the fact that it's a historical stuffed dog, rather than a historical dog), but I've been known to be wrong before (really). I fully admit that I didn't read Carcaroth and Warden's exchange at the bottom of the AfD - it was after the last of the !votes and quite honestly by that time the exchanges were going round in circles. I believe that was a perfectly correct close, by the way. And yes, if I had read it, I probably wouldn't have speedied the stuffed dog given that Carcaroth said he had some material on it. But regardless of that, the actual A7 I believe was correct. And while my comment to Colonel Warden may have been inaccurate in retrospect, it is undoubtedly the case that AfDs have recently been liberally splattered with "it's notable" votes from the Colonel and other editors [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], which, whilst they should be ignored by closing admins, can be distracting and can lead to incorrect closures. Hence, as Carcaroth rightly says, my frustration. Anyway, back to the encyclopedia.... Black Kite 22:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm very tempted to agree that A7 is not stretched significantly when applied to the biographies of creatures, but I suspect it's a bad precedent somehow. WT:CSD can debate that. From a process standpoint, I feel kicking this to AFD is just a waste of time, as I'm willing to bet cash money that it will end up as a redirect to Slough railway station. The dog is not famous for having been a dog, but for being a stuffed dog, so far as I can tell, and thus an artifact essentially associated with the station. There just isn't that much you can ultimately say about a stuffed dog who wasn't famous in life (e.g. for rescuing someone). Nevertheless it should have been prodded (again, a waste of time in practical sense, as Colonel Warden would have disputed) or AFD'd. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, considering that he was a live working dog for only two years, and has been a stuffed dog for well over 100 years, it is hardly surprising that he is more famous now for being stuffed and still there at the station. Some people, too, are more notable for being dead and preserved, rather than for what they did while alive. Consider Tutankhamun, Ötzi the Iceman and Jeremy Bentham (see Jeremy Bentham#Auto-icon). Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was wrong with the redirect? Slough railway station#"Station_Jim" seems to cover it nicely, and in better context, so the redirect seems to me entirely reasonable. Incidentally, this is geographically local to me. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and let AfD decide what to do with it. We shouldn't be discussing that here. I mention that printed books are as good sources as the web, but it might be appropriate to ask for a quotation. DGG (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - new evidence is also emerging, suggesting that the topic of stuffed dogs on railway stations is not as esoteric (or maybe still) as some suggest. See Wimbledon station#Miscellaneous facts, which mentions the stuffed dog "Laddie" that used to be there until 1990. It is now at York Railway museum, see here. See also this (search for stuffed dogs), which says, among other things: "The scheme caught on in other places too and railway collecting dogs became a familiar sight. There was Nell at Bournemouth and Prince at Croydon, Gyp at Southampton and Bernie at Waterloo. ". There is also this, from the Railway Magazine, which says "Reid, J.A. Canine collectors in the cause of railway charity. 263-6. Dogs collected for railway charities, notably orphanages: muts mentioned included London Jack, Basingstoke Jack, Southamton Gyp, Help (which ended up stuffed and placed in a glass case at Brighton station), and Tim of Paddington who was prsented with two Royal sovereigns by Queen Victoria and another one by the Prince of Wales.". So there is lots that could be written about railway collection dogs, so I suggest someone write that article before I get round to it! And thanks to EdJogg for pointing out the Wimbledon stuffed dog. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is one of those bits of esoterica that is quite properly covered in the station articles, and therefore makes the station articles into encyclopaedia articles instead of directory entries. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think both! :-) You can have paragraphs and sections on the dogs at each station (where references survive), but in some cases only a few sentences will be possible. An umbrella/overview/topic article on railway collection dogs would be easily writeable. Or even an article on railway animals in general: there are other interesting stories about railway animals, including some cats - at least one of which also got stuffed, what was it with Victorians and stuffing things? Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, the article shouldn't have been speedily deleted per A7, which is "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." The article isn't deleted now, and the content now appears to be in Slough railway station, re-added by Carcharoth who occasionally attributed Colonel Warden. I suppose the edit history could be merged into Slough railway station. So what are we doing here? --Pixelface (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or the edit history by Colonel Warden could simply be restored to the redirect created by Guy, and dummy edits made to put edit summaries in the page histories cross-linking them and attributing the content merges. What we are doing here is debating all this while I expanded on and added a photo to the stub that was created by Colonel Warden and worked on by Black Kite. Ironically, the Station Jim section in Slough railway station is now better referenced than the railway station article it is a part of - the section on the stuffed dog has five references, and the rest of the article has two references (one is an external link for the quote in the 'History' section). Well, three if you count the source in the infobox for the passenger stats. Still, I hope people will consider putting as much work into sourcing and improving the rest of the station article as they did into this debate. It doesn't take that much effort to improve an article like this - to rustle up a few broad historical and present-day references and to tighten up a bit of text here and expand some there, and add some links, and look for a few free historical pictures, and ask someone to take a better picture of the station entrance. We could end up with a really nice article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Wasn't a candidate for speedy if there were available references. The "They were in a book so I couldn't check" laziness bit doesn't convince me. If you don't have the resources to verify a source, ask someone with academic database subscriptions or go to a library; things should be kept by default, not deleted. Celarnor Talk to me 03:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm so lazy that I write articles and admin here out of pure altruism. The point, if you;d bothered to think about it, is that because the sources were books, there was no way of checking if they asserted any notability over what was asserted in the article, which at the time was none. Black Kite 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at your own hard work, the first example of an article created by you which you list on your user page started as World Domination Enterprises. Please could you indicate your claims of notability here for comparison. Or do you later assert the notability when you add sources such as A posting by Keith Dobson. I have to ask since I see no trace of notability here while, when I put a claim that something is famous in an article and cite actual published books, it supposedly doesn't count. It is most perplexing. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly - read WP:MUSIC - that particular band hit enough parts of it to pass our notability guidelines, and the original article contained evidence of that notability. To show an opposite, I have this article User:Black Kite/Fin in my userspace, which I hven't yet put into articlespace precisely because it doesn't show that notability, and I won't until I can do that. To answer your other question, just putting "famous" in an article doesn't in itself assert notability, otherwise anyone could start an "notable" article saying, for instance, "Fred Smith is a famous Wikipedia editor". Black Kite 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't see any notability here, so endorse deletion. But the redirect is fine. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, current outcome is fine, subject doesn't merit an independent article and does quite well at fleshing out a railway station article (which, as Guy mentions, tend to get a free pass on "not a directory" solely due to the power of those who lobby for them and most of which are in desperate need of fleshing out anyway). Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_6&oldid=1140155797"