Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 20

< January 19	Deletion review archives: 2008 January	January 21 >

20 January 2008[edit]

Erik Rhodes (porn star) – Speedy closed, too long ago, and nom is not addressing closing but rather a new argument for deletion: please just open a new AfD. – JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This is a non-notable porn actor with no awards and no significant contrib's. Article is full of fluff and does not assert notability. Not a candidate for speedy delete as article has survived past AfD. Bringing back for another look: article has not been significantly improved; actor does not warrant an article. 72.76.92.30 (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renominate at AfD. The last discussion was over a year ago. If consensus has changed the place to find out is AfD not DRV. Recommend speedy closure. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to review... just start a new AFD. The last one, which was valid, was 1.5 years ago as far as I can tell. Sorry, but Account4taste's comment on the talk page was wrong... you can renominate for AFD at any point. --W.marsh 00:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Alesana – Speedy close as recreation allowed. As JERRY says, these kinds of issues don't generally need to be brought to DRV unless discussion with the deleting admin fails to produce a workable solution. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Page was deleted yesterday after the 2nd AfD, which determined the band to be non-notable. This AfD appears to have ignored the presence of not one, not two, but six interwiki links; this American band has an article on the Spanish, French, German, Polish, Portuguese, and Swedish wikis, which is perhaps the best proof I can give of the band's significant international renown. They have also, just this month, charted in the US on the Billboard Heatseekers chart. I was generously provided with a copy of the deleted article, which I have beefed up with references that establish the band's notability per WP:MUSIC points 1, 2, and 4. Here is the revised version. This is not salted and I could just recreate it, but I am bringing it here to keep from being slapped with a G4. I am requesting restoration of my sourced copy to mainspace. Chubbles (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural objection (as closing admin) required discussion with closing admin prior to delrev did not occur. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my closure (as closing admin) clear consensus to delete was established. The assertions of the sole keep was disproved per policy/guideline (Only provided source was WP:SPS, and the show that the band was supposedly on was never aired.) The deletes cited sound procedural grounds for deletion, and the debate had sufficient participation to demonstrate that further input would not change the outcome, which I saw an an obvious delete. I recommend that the nominator withdraw this delrev as unnecessary and create the sourced article as she described, and then if it gets deleted submit a delrev for THAT deletion. A preemptive DELREV for this proper deletion is not the way forward. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no objection to the closure as it was taken care of by Jerry; as I think is obvious, my main claim is that the band is notable despite the lamentable shape of the article at the time it was deleted. If I have violated procedure here (and I don't think I have, I've been quite open with my actions and intents), I apologize; Jerry, we can talk over the re-creation right here, if you'd like. Do you have any objections to the article as it has been revised? Chubbles (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do not object to you making a new article of the same name, which you seem to be calling recreation. That would be completely unreasonable of me if I did. This whole issue does not require a DELREV.JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the article as written didn't assert notability. We now have a draft that does. So why don't we just allow recreation and be done with it? I'm not even sure this requires a deletion review. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation per JoshuaZ. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. The article page is not protected. Any editor can create an article there as long as it is not a substantially identical one to the version that was deleted without addressing the deletion concerns. This DELREV is not necessary. The nominator seems concerned that if she creates this article that an admin will come along and speedy delete it under criteria CSD#G4. The best way to avoid that would be to discuss this on the talk page of the new article, and if it does get deleted, just ask the admin to undelete it. From that point on, any subsequent admin would certainly see the undeletion on the delete action page and would know not to do it. Any outcome of this DELREV aside from undeletion of the old version which is clearly not appropriate, would not address the nominator's concern. This should be withdrawn by the nominator. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Progress spacecraft/Launch & GPS satellite/Launch – non-controversial request fulfilled. – JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Template:Progress spacecraft/Launch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache}

and associated talk pages.

This is a rather complex request. I am asking that the pages are recreated, moved to Template:Launching/Progress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Launching/GPS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) respectively, and the redirects at the original locations be deleted. I was responsible for the original nomination for speedy deletion on both of these pages. Originally they were deleted under G6 to get rid of unneeded clutter in the mainspace, and template namespace. Since then, we've started storing some of these pages, which may be of use in the not-to-distant future as subpages of the main template, Template:Launching (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and it would be useful to have these two back as they are recurring events. Therefore, I am withdrawing my request that led to the speedy deletion of these pages, and am requesting that they be speedily undeleted, and moved to the suitable location. The templates are used to put current event tags on articles related to rocket launches, nominally 2 weeks before they are launched, and the Progress one will be needed in two days' time. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally unnecessary review (as deleting admin) Just recreate the template. G6 is a non-controversial deletion, and there is no prejudice against recreation. As for moving them to a different name, this is not within the jurisdiction of deletion review. Please withdraw this DELREV and just do it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was after the page histories and content as well. The page move is just so it is clear what is happening with these pages. I am happy to do that bit myself, and flag the redirs as G6 when done. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rusty Little Bike – Deletion endorsed – A ecis^Brievenbus 23:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

My bands page 'Rusty Little Bike' has been deleted. I don't not know why as it was only a few paragraphs. Can we please have it restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.36.223 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy deletion as CSD#A7; article did not assert notability per WP:BAND. Creator was WP:SPA whose only 4 edits were to this article and the image on it. Creator account is a variation of article name rustylittlebike (talk · contribs · count). I also note that the closing admin was not consulted prior to this delrev being listed. Nominator should read Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? and Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas, as well as WP:BAND. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Pretty clearly an A7 from the deletion summary and cached version. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, clearly no assertion or claim of notability was made of this band. I recommend MySpace, it's a website that many bands use for self-promotion. --Stormie (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - no indication of importance. BlueValour (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.