Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 15 Deletion review archives: 2008 February February 17 >

16 February 2008[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nokia 1200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reasons:
- Several editors mentioned that the article should be kept saying that it was notable.
- The closing summary states that WP is not for a directory of Nokia phones, which is incorrect
- The overall closing summary may not reflect the discussion.
- Merge may not be a good option because the article contained a linked image, which would be unbalanced if merged on the general page without images of all the other phones there too. Snowman (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure Wikipedia is most certainly not a directory and the reasons for keeping were quite weak. Everything Nokia produces is not inherently notable, as for opposing a merge because it has an image, that's about the silliest reason I've ever heard. There is no rule that says if one item on a list has an image that all need an image. If its such a huge deal, don't merge the image. Mr.Z-man 20:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I was the closing admin. Yes, many editors did chip to say "it's notable". Per WP:JUSTAVOTE, though, since they did not say why, I was forced to look at the article; which, again, did not assert any major notability. The image is irrelevant. And is the nom seriously suggesting that Wikipedia is a directory of mobile phones? Black Kite 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, "it needs a bit of editing", "we have quite a few articles like this one" and "notable mobile phone" without any sources are not grounded in policy and were rightfully discounted. east.718 at 21:05, February 16, 2008
  • Endorse, as per East718, and I'm very disappointed in the way this came about through a thread on the incidents noticeboard. Majorly (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Mr Z-Man. That said, I think it is time ad hoc AfD nominations of mobile phones were replaced with a community discussion, producing specific guidelines on the notability of mobile phones. EJF (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that's necessary, they aren't so different than any other product that WP:N won't be sufficient. Mr.Z-man 19:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mobile phones have changed society and are rapidly developing, so they are products with social and historical significance. Secondly, Nokia is a huge company and the mobile phones they put into production have significance to the company. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, significance to the company, not on an encyclopedic basis. Nokia is notable in the world of mobile phones, every single one of their phones is not. It remains that this article was almost entirely souced from the Nokia Museum and failed independent reliable coverage. Travellingcari (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mobile phones in general have changed society, or did the Nokia 1200 change society? The same could be said about almost any consumer electronic product introduced in the last decade or 2. We don't need specific rules just for phones, computers, televisions, etc. Is the specific product discussed in independent reliable sources? Yes: its probably notable. No: it probably isn't. Mr.Z-man 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Nokia 1200 is the first phone with the Amharic keypad for Ethiopia. It has also had other African language keypads. There are areas in Africa where mobile phone networks have developed and had social impact where a wired network has never existed. The Nokia 1200 is an industry first with multi-phonebooks for shared used in a family who together own only one phone, perhaps in Africa. (see links to independent third party sources below) Snowman (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • and ghits!notability. You've provided some interesting sources but I'm still unconvinced of WP:N, and Wiki is still not a cell phone catalog. I think these would have been interesting sources initially and can still help in the merged article, since that seems to be what's going to occur. Travellingcari (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - correctl guaged consensus. "The closing summary states that WP is not for a directory of Nokia phones, which is incorrect" in this DRV nom says it all really - We are not a directory, and if there's no independant information available showing how a mobile phone is more notable that any other one, then it should be deleted, or redirected. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse although I didn't give a reason in my original !vote, I agree with a re-direct. Wikipedia is not a catalog of cell phones so a re-direct to a list of similar products is a good move. I don't think any phone made by Nokia is inherently notable, the 'sources' added to establish notability were not independent as they were from a Nokia Museum. There's nothing special about this particular phone. Travellingcari (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of Nokia phones article is a mess. Redirecting articles on individual phone brands without merging any of the content does not improve our encyclopedic coverage of mobile phones. Having a long list of mobile phone models looks far more like violating not a directory than having individual articles that help distinguish between the different models. Catchpole (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having done a bit of digging I believe the most sensible course of action would be to restore the last non-redirected version of Nokia 1xxx series and to redirect the Nokia 1200 article there. Catchpole (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The non-redirected page that you found is a very appropriate article for a redirect at "Nokia 1200". Snowman (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote or headcount, and the smaller number of deletes had more relevant and accurate citations of policy than the larger number of keeps. Nokia is notable, but notability is not inherited, and by extension not all products of a notable company will themselves be notable. This particular model of phone is not notable. Horologium (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure perfect determination of consensus and flawless closure. Speedy close this DELREV under the snowball clause. JERRY talk contribs 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except, the un-redirected page Nokia 1xxx series (which was not found earlier) has been suggested to be a better target for the redirect. Snowman (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that page is a just a redirect to the page where this article was redirected to already. JERRY talk contribs 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The un-redicted version, isn't a redirect. It's pretty awful anyway, the intro apparently consisting of someones opinion and a piece of trivia. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An un-redirected article will be available for editing, and those comments may not be relevant after a few edits to the article. There is discussion on Talk:List of Nokia products#A proposal about developing these sort of pages. Snowman (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this article before deletion, but if the current redirect page is developed the way it currently looks as a set of "mini" articles one one page, then it'll likely fall to the same problems that this article did. Content in such a page would still need to meet the appropriate criteria. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; the close was quite proper taking into account policy more than headcount. — Coren (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More than one editor gave reasons to keep. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 1200. Several editors came to the same conclusion as keep as notable; even if this was intuitive, why does this not carry an weight here? It seems that the mainstream intuitive theme of the AfD discussion, is dismissed. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try reading about notability, including the heading "Notability requires objective evidence", there is no such thing as intuitive notability. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A handful of people saying "its notable" does not make it so. Mr.Z-man 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • An internet search for the phrase "Nokia 1200" found 1,530,000 hits. The Nokia 1200 is the first phone with the Amharic keypad for Ethiopia; Page 5. The Nokia 1200 was the first Nokia phone to be made in Rumania; Rumania. The first with 2 other phones with an energy saving prompt; Energy. Industry's first call-time tracking application and multi-phonebooks; multi-phonebooks - - Snowman (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & relist; need further discussion to reach consensus, and admins who believe the page should get redirected could participate in the discussion and convince others there, not at the DRV . While agreeing that WP:NOT is absolutely non-negotiable, I'm unsure how the redirection made this any more compliant with NOT than before. As it stands, a short article with 3 references has better potential to be improved and abide by WP:NOT than an endless list enumerating product codes. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have four more references to add (see above) to make a total of seven; these were very easy to find. The page is protected at the present time. Why were the opinions of the four people who thought that the article should be kept quashed, rather than being asked to explain their reasons? Snowman (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question, at what point do you draw the line then? If many agree that WP is not a directory, how many cell phones (or camera models, or servers (recent AfD discussions off the top of my head) or other product get listed because at the moment it's notable? I think it opens a slippery slope. Travellingcari (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question, What is the difference between a directory and a list? Snowman (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • List v. directory, none in my opinion, which is why I heavily favor categories for things that need their own articles. Bottom line is in a year or so, no one's going to remember what was so special about anything but the 'first X'. I question whether anything but the first ever of a product (cell phone, camera, computer, etc.) is truly notable and the rest are variations or...? I think a list is useful in that it prevents having umpteen articles and 'collects' them into one place. I think someone's going to be curious about Nokia phones rather than Nokia Model X, to which they'd likely turn to Google/Nokia. Make sense? Travellingcari (talk) 18:15, 19 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.
  • Per Bylund – Since the offwiki canvassing appears not to have been noticed by the closing admin, there is a clear consensus within that the AFD result is invalid and the article can be relisted immediately. Offwiki canvassing should not occur. However, the relisting is being left for an editor that wants the article deleted. – GRBerry 14:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Per Bylund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The notability of this topic has not been established. The admin who closed the discussion, User:Nihonjoe, claims there to have been multiple, independent, reliable sources. Asked to do so several times, he was unwilling to say exactly which sources he was referring to. He ended the discussion by accusing the editor who approached him, User:Slarre, of being POV and being on a personal vendetta (a clear violation of WP:AGF, BTW; for the whole discussion see User_talk:Nihonjoe/Archive_30#Per_Bylund).

Several links to external websites were provided in an attempt to establish notability: Bylund's CV, several articles written by Bylund himself ([1] [2] [3], [4], [5], [6]), a blog, a dead link, three extremely brief mentions in the Swedish media ([7], [8], and [9]), an article in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, which briefly cites Bylund's master's thesis, advertisement for a book he contributed to, his personal website, and a list of grad students at the University of Missouri. These links quite clearly do not establish notability. Most of those sources are not third-party. The few that are are only very brief mentions of Bylund and therefore are not enough to establish notability. Carabinieri (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Renominate The close did unfortunately accurately reflect the discussion. I missed this AfD; I would have !voted delete. This is a graduate student with some trivial publications. His cv [10]indicates his true lack of importance. If it had been listed for the Academic task force, I'm sure people from there would have commented similarly. Further, there was really substantial off-wiki canvassing [11]. The canvassing should have been noticed during the AfD; subsequently, the closer in his comments on the talk page mentioned seems to have interpreted the canvassing interverntion of the subject as a reason to make an accusation of bad faith--against the nominator! DGG (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, no. I merely indicated that it was blatantly obvious that the nominator had an anti-Per Bylund POV, based on all his comments, and Bylunds post someplace about how adamant the nominator seemed about removing any mention of Bylund. The POV is very plain to see. As for off-wiki canvassing, I had no way to know of that as I had never heard of Bylund prior to closing this discussion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a full disclosure when I pasted Bylund's statement on the article deletion nomination that it was an off-wiki canvassing. I even put Bylund's argument and statement for why he was notable in quotation to make it extra obvious. Lord Metroid (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just modified by statement above for greater precision; I apologize to Nihonjoe for my initial wording. DGG (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn/relist per DGG I'd like to just call for overturning and deletion but having a another AfD seems like a good idea. So overturn and relist. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closer, I'm fine either way. I don't really care what happens. I don't give a damn about Bylund, nor do I give a damn about the obvious POV pushers who seem to want to get rid of him. I've expressed the reasons why I closed the way I did elsewhere, so I'm not going to bother reiterating them here. All this hullabaloo is way out of proportion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you have to accuse other people, including me, of "POV pushing" just because one questions the notability of an article? Isn't that a perfectly legitimate thing to do? Your other accusations, that I'm on some sort of personal "vendetta" and "crusade", are both insulting and baseless. I do not know Per Bylund, have never met him or had anything else to do with him. In fact I think he seems like a nice person and as a libertarian myself I probobly share many of his political views. Your comments are inflammatory and I think that you should apologize. /Slarre (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep results, I suspect POV pushing:
8 January, Slarre first proposed a deletion of the Per Bylund article with the reason "Non-notable. Hasn't written any books, appeared in any notable public events or been active in national politics. Absolutely non-known person in Sweden."[12] which was soon thereafter loudly objected to by anarchists. [13] Slarre hurls a satirical insult against me thinking I am Per. Suggesting Slarre has a thorn against Per or his viewpoint.
28 January, Slarre nominated the Per Bylund article for deletion [14], with the reason "Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. The article does not explain why this person has any notability outside of his subject. He has apparently edited some book and designed some "anarchist logo", but not acheived much more that would deserve an article of its own."[15] Bylund through off-wiki canvassing as I told him what would be needed for notability to be established provided argumentation and sources off some of his appearences. Showing Bylund's notability as of WP:BIO and which also definetly covered the proposed deletion reason made on 8 January.
6 February, Slarre vehemetly disagrees with the deletion [16] of why Nihonjoe finds Per Bylund to fulfill sufficient notability criteria.
10 February, Carbineri who argues strongly for deletion even when as showed in the nomination for deletion by the selection of a some of the published articles and events that makes Per Bylund notable. Is also not satisfied with the keep result and decides to bring it up with Nihonjoe[17]
16 February, Carbineri appeal the article for deletion result for a deletion review.

Lord Metroid (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those two comments are paradigmatic of how this whole discussion about the notability of this topic has been going. Lord Metroid votes keep, yet refuses to point to evidence of Bylund's notability. Instead, he accuses those who disagree with him of POV pushing. Let me get the record straight. I have never had anything to do with User:Slarre before I became involved in this Bylund issue. Although anarchism is the main topic I write about on Wikipedia, I also have never heard Per Bylund. I came into contact with the issue, when Lord Metroid posted a note of the AfD on the Anarchism task force page. I then read the article and had a look at all of the evidence that was given for this topic's relevance and decided it definitely did not meet the notability criteria. I think it's ridiculous that I am now being accused of POV pushing.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and trout-slap anyone who makes an evidence-free !vote. Since this is an editorial matter, this review is probably unnecessary. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On a tangentially-related note, I find it amusing that the anarchists seem so organized (even having a task force!) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anarchism is not chaos, it doesn't mean no rules or no organisations. It is a system where no service of goods is offered through the barrel of the gun but on a voluntary basis. Lord Metroid (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary would seem to disagree with you. "Anarchy: can mean several things, including "confusion; chaos; disorder". I suspect you are going for the "a state of society without government or law" meaning, though. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary does not disagree. It only represents what the most common contemporary interpretations of a word is, and lists them. It also cannot compensate for your inability to properly delineate anomie from anarchist socio-political philosophy. You'll have to learn how to do that on your own.--Cast (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:But I like chaos! Chaos is without moral bias, representing the free, dynamic flow of energy unrestricted by repression. ("Beauty is to be found in disarray" – Sakae Osugi) Can't we say Anarchism isn't "mayhem", "carnage", or "bedlam"?--Cast (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And on that note, this article has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force page for deletion. скоморохъ 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure due to a vast majority being in favour of keeping, but allow renomination if desired. Stifle (talk) 12:11, 21 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nial Djuliarso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article Nial Djuliarso has been deleted again for the second time. I am tired of having to explain that Nial Djuliarso is a prominent musician in Indonesia. I created the page of Nial Djuliarso. Although he is not notable in the US, he is a notable jazz musician in Indonesia, because he's a child prodigy of jazz and has created a number of recordings which won awards in Indonesia. Deletion of his article is regretted. Again, I am really sad that Wikipedia uses American standard for notability, while ignoring people from developing countries. We can see categories such as Indonesian Journalist, Indonesian Musician, and Nial Djuliarso is one of them. (Sorry for the late comment regarding this matter because I was away to give birth of my son). The AFD has been discussed many times, it has been contested and approved to be reinstated. Please explain why Nial Djuliarso is deleted again on January 23. Chaerani (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion (as closing administrator) The requester has mischaracterized the deletion processes that have occurred. Here is what really happened:
02:27, 23 January 2008 Jerry (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Nial Djuliarso" ‎ (AFD: Deleted after discussion at Articles for Deletion) (Restore)
06:22, 10 January 2008 Stormie (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Nial Djuliarso" ‎ (28 revisions restored: Contested PROD: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 10)
03:26, 10 September 2007 Coredesat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Nial Djuliarso" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Non-notable musician.) (Restore)
--- You will see that what happenned is that an editor placed a prod notice on the article, which means that they felt the article was a very clear candidate for deletion, and that deletion would likely be non-controversial. They placed a warning template on the creator's (requester of this DRV) talk page, as well diff. After 5 days this prod notice was not removed, per the instructions on the template, so it was then assumed that deletion was indeed non-controversial. Therefore Coredesat deleted the article after a likely quick, undetailed review.
--- Somebody went to deletion review and questioned the undeletion. Our policy in such a case, (where the deletion was the result of an expired prod), is to immediately restore the article without any detailed review of its merit. Therefore Stormie did in fact restore the article.
--- As is typical in such a case, it was subsequently nominated for deletion at WP:AFD. That was the first and only time that the article received detailed scrutiny from the community. I closed this deletion debate as delete, following the rough consensus guidelines. JERRY talk contribs 16:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for undeletion for the above reason by me (Meutia Chaerani). Plus I was not available to participate in AFD discussion. Nial Djuliarso is notable Jazz Musician in Indonesia, the same as Indra Lesmana and other Indonesian Musician. (Please correct me if this is the correct procedure to request for undeletion) Chaerani (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider instead the temporary userfication of the article to User:Chaerani/Nial Djuliarso, to give you an opportunity to address the notability and sourcing concerns? Then you could just improve it and ask me to cross-namespace move it to the main space it was previously in. If you accept this, then just request closure of this delrev request as userfication. JERRY talk contribs 16:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. The problem is that now I do not know what was the objection that had caused the deletion. Specifically, which references that has been cited there that is considered as inadequate to the admin standard. If you're able to restore the full article under my page, inclusive the full talk page, plus, list down the concerns that had caused deletion in that talk page, I would agree to accept this interim solution. Chaerani (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand the deletion process, in general, and also seem very much not familiar with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. The administrators who close deletion debates at AfD do not determine on their own, whether the article had adequate sourcing, in terms of doing extensive google searches, going to public libraries and looking at periodical guides, et cetera. These administrators, instead rely upon the remarks and recommendations made by those members of the community who choose to participate in the debates. The only subjective part of this process is to determine that the remarks left were made in good faith, are not inherantly flawed or counter-factual by obvious evidenciary review of the article, it's history and talk page, and the remarks left by others in the debate. Remarks left by very new contributors who have little or no edit history outside of the article under discussion and the debate itself are normally given lesser weighting, as are edits made by people identified as sockpuppets and/or single-purpose accounts. As far as not understanding the rationale for deletion, you really should read the afd itself; it is linked at the top of this deletion review, as added by you. Then review the policies and guidelines that I linked at the beginning of this paragraph. That is the information you need, and the only information I can provide to you. JERRY talk contribs 18:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. Would it be possible for you to restore the article, either to the original namespace or under my userpage. I can't do improvement to the article unless it is restored to somewhere. I will yield to the decision of the admin to scrap the article (even though I don't agree with it, because as an Indonesian and if you ask other Indonesian people, we know that Nial Djuliarso is a renowned pianist in Indonesia - perhaps not in the USA but surely in Indonesia)Chaerani (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability argument:A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. Yes, Djuliarso has performed in Indonesian national televisions, for example in 2001 ANTV giving music education workshop. Moreover, to my knowledge, the old Wikipedia article has contained independent news article of Djuliarso.
    • 2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. I am checking on this one
    • 3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. I am checking on this one
    • 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. National concert in Indonesia definitely: he has performed in Java Jazz and Jak Jazz, two most prominent annual jazz festival in Indonesia. Also he has performed in Mosaic Music Festival Singapore and North Sea Jazz Festival Netherlands, two prominent world jazz festival.
    • 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). He has released two jazz albums from a Omega Pacific Production, and Indonesian Jazz label.
    • 7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.** He is Indonesian Jazz Pianist.
    • 8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award. He has won awards albeit not major to american standard as above
    • 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. He has won many competitions for young pianist, it is listed in the old article.
    • 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) I am checking on this one
    • 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Yes this is applicable for Indonesian radio network
    • 12. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. Yes in Indonesian TV network, please see point 1.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaerani (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 February 2008

Please examine the phrase the subject of, and contrast it with "appeared on", "mentioned in" and "quoted in". JERRY talk contribs 01:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are disputing criteria no.1. I try to explain: He became the key speaker and resourceperson on music education program in national Indonesian TV (ANTV) in 2001 due to his notability and musical skill relative to other musicians in Indonesia. Not strictly as "the subject of" but i would argue that it is one grey area. Also, for notability does not need to fulfill ALL of the above criteria, fulfilling one criteria can be considered as notable. As you can see, Djuliarso has already fulfilled at least one in Indonesian music scene. Sure, not in US or Western World music scene, but Djuliarso is an important musical personality for Indonesia. Chaerani (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider instead the temporary userfication of the article to User:Chaerani/Nial Djuliarso, to give you an opportunity to address the notability and sourcing concerns? Then you could just improve it and ask me to cross-namespace move it to the main space it was previously in. If you accept this, then just request closure of this delrev request as userfication. JERRY talk contribs 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK provided that you will move the article once the sourcing issue is solved in line to WP:N. thank you Chaerani (talk) 09:46, 17 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Caitriona Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was listed as speedy delete, but fails speedy delete criteria. I placed a hangon message, and within a minute the page was deleted. I was just about to add more information and link The Advocate reference at the time of deletion. See [18], also found on their site here [19]. I was also going to seek more sources here: [20], atop the book references that were already in the article. Administrator did not use proper precaution in this instance. See these following sources as well: [21] and [22]. Additionally, she wrote 16 pages in the book What makes a man : 22 writers imagine the future edited by Rebecca Walker. Mind meal (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It contains no assertion (or hint) of notability. I'll restore this to your user pages if you want to fix this or work the article up before reposting it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability does not mean famous, gorgeous, special, whatever. Notability is something we establish, by providing sources. Those who have covered her seem fine with the fact that she's "Just a Zen teacher", which is your assertion, basically. She is authorized to teach by Thich Nhat Hanh and, if the article would have lasted another second, that would have been clear. No need to restore it to my user page. We'll just let this process follow course. (Mind meal (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Withdraw It seems all has worked out. I'd like to withdraw this review. (Mind meal (talk) 10:14, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_16&oldid=1138432315"