Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 March 30
2009 April 1 >

31 March 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Madras Bulls (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article had passed an AFD after I cleaned it up, but an admin speedy deleted it a year later with no discussion. I think this should be restored to the version before the deletion by User:DJ Clayworth Corpx (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Restore and fish slap for not talking with the admin first (unless I missed it, in which case I apologize). It is likely (though not certain) the admin missed the previous DrV and might have restored and relisted on request. In general speedying something that survived DrV seems unwise. I can't see the article and the DrV result back in 2007 was a relist (which never happened?). But something that the community let survive a DrV (even this weakly) should have been sent to AfD rather than undergone speedy deletion in my opinion. Speedy should be reserved for things that clearly don't meet our guidelines and that others felt it _might_ in the past should be enough to cause an AfD rather than speedy. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AFD is here. The XFD link above also goes to the relisted AFD Corpx (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a fishwack for me too, I missed that. IMO this is now a speedy restore. Changed it above. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (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.
List of Exalted comics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I created this as a new article today. Someone placed a "CSD" tag. I placed a "hangon" tag, expanded the content, and asked for some more time on the Talk page. Despite this, Nihonjoe deleted the article. Discussion with Nihonjoe was unhelpful. I am particularly concerned that Nihonjoe is speedy deleting articles when in fact he does not understand the principles of "CSD" and "hangon". Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am unsure why Axl says the discussion was unhelpful. I suggested he create the article in his userspace and then move it to the mainspace once it was ready. The article which was deleted had almost no content at all. If he wants, I'll even userfy it for him. As for my understanding of "CSD" and "hangon", it's apparent Axl doesn't understand how they work as the "hangon" tag specifically says that the article might still be deleted even when tagged with {{hangon}}. I've been doing CSD for years now, so I think I have a handle on how it works. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:46, 31 March 2009 (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.
SkillStorm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have reached out to the administrator that deleted this page and his suggestion was to opt for a deletion review. I would like to suggest an Overturn of this deletion. I think that with several improvements, this article is a good addition to WP. After doing some research in the consulting industry, I think this is a notable enough company that had a poorly written article. If overturned, I will definitely be contributing to make this article meet WP standards. Adiaza2181 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to correct cases where the deletion process was not properly followed. It is not a de novo examination of the article, nor a chance to get a second bite at the cherry and convince different people of the article's merits. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. The article was deleted due to a lack of third-party coverage, not writing style. For the community to consider revising the original decision, the time to present any new sources is now so they may be considered. Restoring based on "I will definitely be contributing to make this article meet WP standards," while noble, does not justify the subject's notability. Spring12 (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This company has third-party coverage ranging from Entrepreneur Magazine (see here) and Staffing Industry Analyst (see here), both highly regarded publications in the staffing/consulting industry, not to mention extensive coverage in bizjournal publications in San Diego, Tampa, Orlando, Dallas, Charlotte, South Florida and Indianapolis. I don't understand.Adiaza2181 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the links to the rest of the coverage so we can review? The problem is those two links you gave are merely passing mentions, they're not in depth enough for Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Spring12 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. At this point you need to show significant coverage per WP:N. If you can do so, it is likely the article would come back. Trivial coverage (just a passing reference to the name) won't help much. A detailed bit of coverage by reliable sources would help a lot! Hobit (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That SkillStorm,, received the San Diego Better Business Bureau's 2008 Torch Award for marketplace ethics might also help a bit. No idea how notable that award is. Hobit (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found several articles regarding SkillStorm in bizjournal publications here:

I have a few more notable articles but unfortunately they are in the print edition only. Is there any way to submit PDFs into consideration? Also, the company was featured on the radio on an AM business talk radio show see here.In regard to the awards that the company in question has been awarded, there was an extensive list on the deleted article. For example, for the Better Business Bureau award, I found mention of the company on the BBB site. How can that be submitted for consideration? I'd also like to thank all of you for your help.Adiaza2181 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A posted scan of the articles in question (posted on some other website) is generally acceptable unless someone has reason to believe the sources are forged. Quotes from the sources on the talk page of this AfD could also be posted. Hobit (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more articles for consideration:

Thanks again.Adiaza2181 (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow restoration South Florida Business Journal appears to be reliable and coverage is certainly significant. entrepreneur's ranking of the company gives us more than just local coverage. I will note that the nom is a (the?) primary author of the South Florida Business Journal article. I would like to hear any WP:COI disclosures. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion even considering the above, the article does not appear to pass WP:CORP at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse all the above are incidental or local., or,. in the case of Online Business Week, a directory listing. The only keeps at the afds were from spas or people with COI. DGG (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think local awards are generally notable. In any case, WP:N doesn't restrict local sources in any way. WP:ORG does, but it isn't clear that that SNG can restrict the sources for the GNG. Hobit (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2009 (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/2009_March_31&oldid=1082338465"