Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 8

My Tomato Pie – Deletion endorsed. Keep deleted and protected from recreation, pending a draft in userspace that is not subject to the criteria for speedy deletion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't know how to work this deletion review, however I have figured out how to make an artical with relevancy. My Tomato Pie was cited for not showing its the business's significance, however, it was my first article, and I didn't realize the "sandbox" option, so I continued to make the article, even after it was deleted. It was deleted repeatedly, so now I'm not able to make the article. It is a business that people are curious to the history of it. Anyway, I would like this article available to be made again, so the public can have wikipedia to learn about the company. Thank you. If you need some reputable sources, here is an example; [1] --JamesLTIII (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you should rewrite the article in your sandbox with sources and them bring it here for discussion. Please read WP:N WP:RS & WP:CORP before taking in the draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The topic appears to have a fair bit of coverage, mostly local and "bizjournal" but IMO is probably notable enough for an article. That said, a draft would be a good idea. [2]Hobit (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When a user has chosen not to follow Wikipedia's processes for contesting a deletion and recreated the article so repeatedly that an administrator has felt it necessary to prevent the page from being recreated, I think a minimum requirement for lodging a deletion review request is (or should be) to present a sourced, neutral draft in userspace (see WP:SUBPAGE) which overcomes the main reasons for deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in case it wasn't clear, keep deleted pending such a draft. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hank Green – Unprotect target to allow new draft to be moved to mainspace at editorial discretion. Any further AfDs on the target article are at editorial discretion as well. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Hank Green article has a long history of notability issues, vandalism, etc. The last Afd was in December 2008 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hank_green. The issue at point there was wrong capitalization to avoid protection, so notability wasn't talked about that much. But I did get some positive response there even though the article wasn't quite ready yet. (The last full blown Afd is over a year old. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hank_Green_(2nd_nomination)) Since those reviews, the most important new source is the ranking on a Billboard chart of Mr. Green's first studio album. As per WP:MUSICBIO#2, this provides some notability. In my opinion enough to, together with the rest of the sources, establish Mr. Green's notability.

A draft of the proposed article can be found here. (Sources are listed in the reflist, numbers 14,15,16,18,25 and 27 are the most important sources.)

I would like to call for a new deletion discussion; i.e. relisting at WP:AfD.
Any input is much appreciated. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd cut the unreferenced material (e.g. the whole "personal life" section) if I were you.
Hank Green's not exactly the most notable person in the world, and a lot of those references are passing mentions, but personally I think there's just about enough sourcing for an article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see if I can find a source that's a bit to the point for the personal section, or otherwise cut it. Thanks! JoinTheMadVender (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could link to the guy's Myspace, that would be a reliable self-published source, right? (Which is, if I'm not mistaken, allowed for information about the writer, as per WP:RELIABLE) JoinTheMadVender (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added two new sources: one of their video blogs to cover his birthplace and moving to Florida, the other Hank's MySpace to source his education. I'm not sure how reliable these sources are in Wikipedia terms, but I suppose they'll suffice, as I noted above.JoinTheMadVender (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Added one last footnote to "personal life" to cite the final sentence. Madithekilljoy (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD discussions are, in chronological order:
Also note that the abovelinked sandbox is duplicated at another single-purpose account's sandbox, User:Madithekilljoy/Sandbox. And before you ask your usual question, Stifle, the answer is here. Uncle G (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is customary to prepare a userspace draft in cases such as this before bringing a case like this to DRV. I strongly suggest that you do this as we can actually see what we will be looking at. Please also declare if you have any connection to Hank Green. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I already linked to a draft above (I put it in a subpage of my userspace), I've made the line bold so you can't miss it now. As to my connection to Hank Green, he is an online acquaintance. My interest is to write a correct, well sourced, informative article about Hank, because I think he's notable enough to have one. Also, given the history of this article, I felt that someone should do it properly, otherwise the vandalism would just return. I feel that that doesn't conflict with Wikipedia's aim. It's absolutely no secret that this article is the only thing I've worked on, here on wikipedia (except for trivial edits). But I try very hard to not let my involvement cloud my judgment, so please don't imply it does, unless my behaviour gives you reason to suspect otherwise. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow creation It looks reasonably sourced and would seem to meet WP:N and WP:BLP, though not by a wide margin. The NPR interview pushed it over the line for me. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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