Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 6

Attack Attack! – Unprotected by User:Spartaz to allow re-creation. – Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A7'ed a billion times and salted a month ago. The group has charted on the Billboard 200. Requesting Unsalting. Would also like whatever the most advanced copy of the article was restored, if there was ever a decent stub put up; I will add this assertion of notability to the article upon restoration. Chubbles (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything other than a directory listing to support notability? Chillum 20:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since charting on the Billboard 200 meets WP:MUSIC, there's not really a need for anything else. But since you asked, there are reviews here and here, and here is MTV reporting the chart placement. Alternative Press also reported their nationwide tour with Escape the Fate and William Control. Chubbles (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse recreation, I think the content should be limited to what can be confirmed with reliable sources, but it does seem to have some level of notability now. Chillum 21:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I went away and unsalted. There is nothing worth looking at from the history and there is a BLP vio in one or two revisions so I don#t want to undelete the history anyway so feel free to work your magic Chubbles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Magic worked...thanks Chubbles (talk) 23:19, 6 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.

Pier_Solar_and_the_Great_Architects – Closed because DRV is not a platform to attack other editors – Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

While reading the latest issue of [M! Games] 04/2009 P. 116-117, a popular German vIdeo gaming magazine, I stumbled across Pier Solar. I decided to look up further information on the net and turned to wikipedia only to find out, that the article about this game had been deleted. The deletion discussion seems strongly biased to me. Internet sources were claimed as being unreliable and print media as unverifiable. Digging into the user User:Stifle deleted this page one will find, that he is a passionate deletionist trying to delete as many pages as possible with no constructive intent to contribute to the articles. Even during the time of the deletion talk there was solid proof for the games existence. It was by no means doubtful. Even if it is a hoax it is none the less worth mentioning due to the broad media coverage it received the past few months! I vote for a restore. PabloGS (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The logs for this page indicate it was deleted by Kurykh and Davewild, not Stifle. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was the last person to !vote in this deletion discussion, which I assume is how PabloGS connected it to me. Endorse deletion because of a clear consensus at the deletion debate, and strongly condemn the nominator for violating WP:NPA. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, no failure in the deletion debate, a reasonable call by Kurykh. The concept of a Genesis release this long after product end of life is interesting and if released in a large print this game will almost certainly become notable. Thus: If this game is actually released and is covered in such a way in reliable sources as to establish notability then an article will be warranted. At the moment however, this is advertising and crystal ballery. Along with Stifle I remind the nominator to retain a civil tone in discussions and point out that personal attacks and accusations are more likely to hurt your case than help it (many editors will interpret it as a bad faith nomination). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as reasonable close based on clear consensus, and agree that the vicious personal attack in the nomination is completely inappropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as based on consensus, and I agree that the personal remarks about Stifle were a bit strong.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:06, 6 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.