|
Retching Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)
The deletion did not meet criteria. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Endorse. The article did not remotely meet A7, as there was not even the vaguest assertion of notability. --Smashvilletalk 03:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion. This was deleted as G4 despite never having been the subject of an AFD (Articles for deletion/Retching Red & The Twats was in regards to an album, not the band itself). The deleted article was deleted as {{db-band}} but clearly passes WP:BAND#C6, as it contains former members of two other bands considered notable by Wikipedia standards. (Full disclosure: I recommended filing this DRV to STBB, having intersected with them on another AFD of an article of theirs). – iridescent 03:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The original deletion at 17:40 was an A7 deletion. The second wasn't a G4, but it was purely talk page material and should have been a no context deletion. --Smashvilletalk 03:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- (assuming you are responding to me) No, I mean exactly what I said. There was no assertion of notability. It merely stated the band existed. It made no assertions of notability. --Smashvilletalk 03:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I indented the posts to make it clearer who is talking to whom. -- Suntag ☼ 12:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was deleted so quickly that there wasn't much time for a discussion... ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He means after the article was delete at 18:40, 30 September 2008 , but before you post at deletion review at 02:45, 1 October 2008 , you should have attempted to discuss the matter with non-admin closer Ten Pound Hammer. -- Suntag ☼ 13:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (e/c)I believe Stifle is referring to the instruction in regards to discussing with the deleting administrator before taking the issue here to DRV. GlassCobra 13:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was deleted by X!. So discussions with TPH don't seem relevant; he just closed the AFD to note that the article was gone. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance of an update on why you didn't talk to X! first? Stifle (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its clear that a reasonable effort was made. DGG (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion
and permit recreation but present userpace draft article to DRV for review before posting to article space. (see my note below) - Outside of Reaching Red will be playing at ... notices, some info is at The feminine force, Retching Red and three sentences. Reaching Red maintains information about its press coverage at press and it is not all websites and blogs. I think Reaching Red would pass AfD. Retching Red & The Twats AfD was closed after two hours, so whatever was considered in there was a speedy delete, not an XfD deletion. I can't see the deleted article, but between the first A7 deletion, Retching Red & The Twats AfD, Smashvilletalk's 03:04, 1 October 2008 post above, and the fact that no one has yet to provide any quote from the delete article, it seems reasonable to concluded that the article did not contain text that indicated why its subject is important or significant. Endorse valid speedy deletion and permit recreation. On a related note, since Retching Red & The Twats AfD was a non admin closure, any admin can reopen it. -- Suntag ☼ 13:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Lifebaka's 15:16, 1 October 2008 post below, I struck out my comment above. TPH's non admin closure of Retching Red & The Twats AfD was correct since the article was speedy deleted during the AfD. -- Suntag ☼ 15:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regrettably, I revised my "permit recreation" position in view of the newly created article. The article newly created during this DRV still fails A7 and uses websites that are not reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even though there could be a viable article on the topic, actions show that one will not be forth coming if DRV allows recreation without out first seeing a draft. -- Suntag ☼ 13:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, but the deletions we're dealing with are all speedies and not an AfD closure. I've given the otters a note for TenPoundHammer asking him to amend the closing statement to reflect this. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The article was a two-sentence stub which only barely mentioned that the band's members were part of another supposedly notable band. Even if that doesn't quite make it qualifiable for an A7, I still feel that there is no way that the band meets WP:MUSIC. Just having another member of a notable band doesn't always guarantee notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, article is now recreated at Retching Red. I was about to re-list it on AfD to reach consensus, but perhaps this process need to finish. Since it was speedied before, one suggestion would be that we take it to that forum to get consensus or not on this deletion since the content of the new article appears better than the content of the one speedy deleted. JRP (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the one who recreated it, apparently too soon. If so, I apologise. I was under the impression that this review was already closed and earlier I had been advised to create a new version if I felt that was necessary[1]. Sorry if this makes things even more confusing then they already are. The combination of an AfD and speedies for the same articles didn't make things any clearer for me. All I saw was an AfD that was closed in no-time. I do think the current article definitely meets WP:MUSIC's C1, C4, C5, and C6 (see refs). Thanks,
SIS 12:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
