This game is too huge, and boasts too many players for there to be no article on it. I looked at the reasons for deletion and they were something like not enough sources or something. Anyway, that shouldn't matter, it's obvious that it's a game, and judging by the number of players, a popular one too. Whoever closed it didn't take the time to look around the site itself. I think there needs to be an article on it. It actually did lack many secondary sources at the time of the RfD article, but that has changed now. They have booths at conventions and I have seen it referenced and linked to on other sites. MannyKing (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, no new arguments. Provide the sources. Corvus cornixtalk 03:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Invalid reasoning. "Too many players" isn't going to get anything undeleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:37, 31 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.
Temporary review - Requesting the source of the article emailed to me to review 'off-Wiki'. Thank you :) Mike411(talk) 01:05, 31 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.
Sofa (Canadian band) – Speedy deletion overturned; improved version moved into mainspace from userspace. – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
UNDELETE_As for the admin's demands for notability - any 2 minute google search will turn up all the criteria that is needed to meet the "notable" tag. The first such red flag should have been noted when it is the only entry from the Constellation records catalogue that has been deleted from wikipedia. This alone should have given the admin pause, but I assume they neither know the label, it's place in recent independent rock history, or even the fact that the band in question was the first to appear on that storied label, home to such major international acts as Godspeed you black emperor and a silver mt. zion, and that its guitarist is one half of the founders of the label and now plays in a silver mt. zion, whom have played with everyone from Cat Power to Patti Smith. Sofa has appeared on compilations in magazines and cst comp's that have sold tens of thousands of copies, have garnered an international fanbase in the ten years since their demise and are still cited and played on college radio stations around the world. Just the fact that they are the premier release on one of the biggest indie rock labels in the world should suffice to be alloted an entry. Please see the reviews section of the band's page on the constellation site for a roundup of critical texts regarding the band's eponymous release "Grey" from such influential magazines as the UK's 'The Wire" and NY's "Vice" magazine. Please see http://cstrecords.com/cst002_reviews.html for the texts as well as these links which i quickly grabbed from a google search http://www.unmute.net/recensioni/v/v-a_constellation.htmhttp://cstrecords.com/bands_sofa.htmlhttp://so-fa.ca/Sentinal9 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Sentinal9 (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentinal9 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Comment - see here for further info. Khukri 13:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and trout-slap the deleting admin for showing advanced levels of WP:ADMINITIS. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment although there is merit to the argument that WP:BAND has notability criteria that the deleting admin did not consider (actually xe says that the only evidence of notability is not sufficient, in contrast to what the guideline says); the issue seems to be sorting itself without the need for undeletion. A userfied version has been constructed, and it will be far superior to the one that was deleted. So even though deletion is not a good tool to cause article improvement, all is well that ends well. Leaving it deleted without prejudice against creation seems the best course of action for now. JERRYtalkcontribs 15:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the userfied version of the article is here. The band at least meets WP:MUSIC notes 1 and 6, and the fact that it was the first ever release on Constellation Records is probably of note, as well. Chubbles (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not my usual subject, but even i can tell from the article that it makes claims at least to notability, which is all that is necessary to defeat speedy. It should not be left deleted--it sends the argument to admins that their decisions will be sustained even if in opposition to clear policy--in this case WP:CSD A7. DGG (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn clear assertion of notability at the time of deletion. "I can't see anything that screams notability here except the label"... well, there you go. Suggest that closing admin unarchives their talk discussion so others don't have to go through the edit history despite it being linked from here. –Pomte 18:11, 1 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.
Moshpit Tragedy Records – REVISED CLOSING: Non-controversial history-only undeletion approved without extended discussion. Closed as not DELREV not required. New article with reliable sources and evidence of notability may be created without the need to overturn the previous deletion. Requester may ask any admin for a copy of the deleted article for research purposes.JERRYtalkcontribs 12:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Someone made an article on Moshpit Tragedy Records which was deleted late last year. Since then the website has made an Alexa rank and articles of important nature: Please view this or a google news search: http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/article/?id=47668 May this deletion be reviewed now? 74.56.180.192 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malformed nomination moved here. No opinion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 08:55, 30 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.
A band with 2 studio albums is notable enough. This one has 5. Óðinn (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I closed the AfD for this without any prejudice, but criterion 5 on WP:MUSIC, which I assume is what you're referring to, actually says "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". The deleted article has no information on what labels the band released their albums under, even though it gives a list of releases. Also, the rationale given by the participants in the AfD was that the band has no coverage in reliable sources, so this would need to be sorted out most probably for it to be restored. - Zeibura( talk ) 07:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per WP:BIAS. This should have been relisted for insufficient consideration. Two "Oh I can't find anything on Google" opinions is hardly a convincing deletion rationale for a band for which reliable sources, if they exist, are most likely in Russian and offline. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Relist would have been a more appropriate action, with a suggestion for the discussion to focus on the appropriate notability guideline, which is clearly WP:BAND. JERRYtalkcontribs 15:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Relisting so as to confirm whether or not the subject passes the notability criteria is more faithful to the intent of WP:AFD. Interested parties should see much more clearly the evidence in support or opposing their own opinion. - CobaltBlueTony™talk 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:a band for which reliable sources, if they exist, are most likely in Russian and offline is a clear failure of WP:V, which is undebateable. Provide those refs, then we'll talk. Corvus cornixtalk 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Inaccessible is not unverifiable, and both foreign-language and offline sources are permitted to source an article. Unverifiable means reasonable attempts to source the article have been made and have been unfruitful. In this case the nominator didn't seem to have done any kind of research, the only commenter looked in the wrong space. Certainly a case for relisting. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if they exist indicates that there are no such sources. If they aren't forthcoming, then this article must be deleted. Corvus cornixtalk 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The group has gotten plenty of international attention in the metal press: [1][2][3][4][5]Chubbles (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; two participants is a incredibly small selection, and had Óðinn turned up in the AfD discussion, there's no way I could have seen a delete closure. Let's relist it and get some more discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:17, 3 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.
