Creator not informed of proposed deletion, wishes to know reasons and revise in keeping with Wikipedia standards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriciajane (talk • contribs)
Undelete and AFD It doesn't look like it'll pass AFD, especially as written, but PRODs get undeleted by default. To Patriciajane, I suggest withdrawing this request and creating a well-sourced version in userspace so we can give it proper consideration. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind23:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete but it will need 3rd partry RS references talking primarily about the organization to survive AfD; neither the WSJ or the Economist ones seem to do that. It's time we automated notification, it would be better than dealing with requests here.DGG (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Requesting restoration of a deleted page
Sirs/Madams: I have rewritten the page on Retarded Animal Babies. My version meets all the requirements of Wikipedia. It includes reliable third-party citations and proper formatting and NPOV. Since there are now a number of Wikipedia articles that link to it, I feel that it should be remade.
I have only a secondary relationship with the RAB creator. This is being done as a courtesy to him--we feel that he deserves a decent representation on Wikipedia. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. EricBarbour (talk·contribs) 21:10, February 11, 2008
Endorse deletion Ugh, where to even start on this one... Sourcing isn't there: first 2 "sources" are the RAB creator, the 3rd doesn't even mention RAB, and the last doesn't look reliable. The article tone drifts from advert to fansite and never touches anything like an encyclopedia article. The vast majority of the text is trivia. The nomination sounds like a WP:COI case... need I really go on? Take a long, hard look at WP:WEB and WP:MOVIE. This looks like a major case of "never gonna happen". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind22:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - no reliable references to prove notability exist. Note all the images lack copyright tags and if the verdict is to keep it deleted, the sandbox version and the images need to go, also. Neıl☎15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything has changed even with this latest set of edits; the new sources are still trivial passing mentions. What the article needs are reliable, secondary, independent sources that talk about RAB itself, and not Weird Al or a passing mention of RAB. Until this happens, I say keep deleted. If this DRV is closed as "endorsed", the images will need to be deleted, at least. --Coredesat02:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, per comments above. This still lacks credible independent sourcing. Surely there is a "crap off teh internets" Wikia where this can go? Guy (Help!) 13:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I restored this article without realizing that it was previously on AfD, so I am listing it here now. The article was deleted due to "not one valid reason given for keeping", despite the keep/delete ratio being 3:2. On a closer look, it seems that those in favor of deletion were confusing subject's "notability" with "notability based only on the English-language sources". As per WP:RSUE, while English-language sources are always preferred, sources in foreign languages are still permitted when English-language sources of equal quality are not available. I hereby request further review of this article's status.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as AFD closer - the three references are still alexa, a blog, and vkontakt itself. The citing of WP:RSUE is an irrelevancy and has nothing to do with the closure - the article was deleted as the sole reasons to keep were "it has a nice article on the Russian wikipedia", "it's big in Russia" (with no sources to back this up), and "there are articles on other networking sites". If some decent references could be provided, I'd have been happy to undo the deletion myself. And if some can be provided now, then of course the article should exist. If none are forthcoming, I'd go for "keep deleted". Neıl☎19:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Neil. I'll ask the editor who was interested in seeing this article undeleted to provide better references. Meanwhile, I assure you that the subject is notable and that better sources are available. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the addition of some more reliable references, this is now fine. I found some more that should be added - [1], [2], [3], [4]. I would suggest needs rewrite and expansion, but keep undeleted. Speaking as the original closer of the AFD, this review can probably be closed. Neıl☎13:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and undelete. This is valuable event/place/site for Russian-native speakers. But now this short article has promotion style and it should be rewritten. The shortcomings and drawbacks of the Vkontakte.ru, which are exist for any big systems, are not presented. --AKA MBG (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain status quo - now that there's a well-sourced article. The AfD-deleted version had only two "references": Alexa and Vkontakte itself. The latest version is so much better that I don't see the need for this DRV discussion - all the issues mentioned in AfD's delete comments have been addressed (other than the last comment which I can't make sense of and might not be addressable anyway). Pegasus«C¦T»01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original AFD closer made the correct decision at the time. However, the improved references and sources since then mean that the article is now of sufficient standard. This doesn't need to be here - anyone is free to recreate articles if they improve them. Not sure what to but in bold, but no further action seems best. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason given for deletion was "Un notable, COI with user creating it" non-notability is a reason for speedy deletion only for articles. I was planning of moving the page to article once I could better establish notability. Further, this deletion was only done after I nominated MediaWiki for deletion because of lack of independent coverage. Reedy Boy(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) closed this and threatened to block me, then deleted a page in my userspace. Charles Stewart (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt threaten to block you - [7]. As per the edit, doing things such as the AfD of MediaWiki, will cause you to be blocked by someone.
As for the actual deletion review of your subpage. You had that in mainspace, and it was deleted, due to lack of notability as a website. The page you are linking to Ameripedia, is a dead link - no page is there. You also list yourself (or at least, someone with the same name as the account you are currently using), as "Director of Operations and General Consul". This therefore is a Conflict of Interest, and therefore, any of the page cannot cant be classed as reliable due to a COI with the creator. The fact, therefore of it being on your userspace is pointless, as it fails on COI, and Notability, there is no point it being there, as it will never be moved to Mainspace, meaning its little more than spam. —ReedyBoy18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The page had been deleted from the artile space, and served only as an advert. Once coverage does come up (if ever it does...) the article will look completely different to the deleted page. J Milburn (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
