Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 February 20
2010 February 22 >

21 February 2010[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hurricane Katrina fringe theories (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as "keep" with no closing rationale. While there was a numerical landslide in favour of keeping the article, polling is not a substitute for discussion. The main reason for people arguing for keeping were "notability", although no argument seemed to successfully argue that said "fringe theories" were notable (just asserted that they were "notable" without explanation), and, indeed, held by enough people to qualify for coverage per WP:FRINGE; indeed, one of the sections covers a "fringe theory" that is quite wide held! Additionally, there was no argument on why the most "sourced" (read: linked to religious demagogues and satire) section, the section on divine retribution, was acceptable for an article about a natural phenomenon; indeed, one of the keep !voters argued that the section had weak sourcing. Thus, I believe the close was wrongly judged—I assume the article was kept simply because of the numerical strength of the keep arguments—and should be overturned. Sceptre (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - might you consider discussing this first with the closing administrator? I can assure you that he would be more than willing to talk about it and would likely make proper amends :) -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close- A closing statement might have been nice, but the consensus was accurately read. And yet again I should point out that DRV is still not AFD round 2. 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse though a closing statement, even retroactively placed, wouldn't hurt. I'd say consensus and policy were on the side of keeping. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but probably this would not have been necessary if a full closing explanation had been given in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close the consensus at AfD leaned strongly towards keep and the article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy a claim of notability. No evidence that the close violated policy. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was no consensus to delete. The material is somewhat sourced (could use more inline refs). The arguments in the AfD were if the collection of all info is worthy of an article or not. Both pro and con arguments were brought. Closing outcome was within admin discretion. Pcap ping 09:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's saddening to see people just endorsing the close just because of the abundances of "keep" votes. As I said when listing this review: no argument in the AfD really argued that the theories were notable; they just said that they were. I even argued that the vast majority were not! Neither did anyone argue that the theories hence covered were "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Thus, the article should have been deleted despite the abundance of "keep" votes because the arguments for deleting were really the only ones given. Sceptre (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; I think that participants in the discussion evaluated the claims made by Sceptre and judged them to be lacking; while Sceptre characterizes the people cited in the "divine retribution" section as "religious demogogues", the participants in the discussion disagreed. I would describe the AFD as an effective discussion in which the nominator's claims about the article were addressed head-on and rejected by the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that, no, that's not what happened at all. Two of the "keep"s were kneejerk "it's notable" votes which were shown to by specious; that reduces the headcount to three-all. BD2412's argument does not reflect current policy regarding fringe theories: his argument can be reduced quite easily to "better here than there". Umbralcorax's vote made assumptions that the sourcing of the article was acceptable, and I showed that it wasn't. Infrogmation's "keep" vote... was actually quite a good argument. He argued for an retooling of the article to make it more acceptable for Wikipedia. It's a shame that no-one else followed him up on that. And, in fact, the AfD actually doesn't really touch on the "divine retribution" section, and where it did, reactions to the section were universally negative. Sceptre (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have any opinion on the deletion discussion, but it looks like Sceptre has removed all content from the article, which doesn't seem appropriate to me. Calathan (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reverted those changes per WP:BRD. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the talk page; I removed the content by applying policy fairly to it. Sceptre (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As it's pretty clear that you disagree with the consensus about this article, I'd suggest it would be wisest not to apply your interpretation of policy to it unilaterally. It's pretty clear that you are a bit out-of-sink with everyone else on this topic. Hobit (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this is an indication that the AfD process is out-of-sync with policy than anything else. It's nearly impossible to get articles like this, which shouldn't exist, but do, and carry problems which everyone cries "will be fixed because there's no deadline" but never do get fixed, deleted at AfD because of the poisonous ultra-inclusionist culture there which would probably keep libel on the site if it had half the chance. Sceptre (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spectre, I accept that I'm an inclusionist in general, (though hardly an ultra- one, considering I've done almost 10,000 speedy deletions), but I do not think this could be said of everyone else here, or everyone who said keep during the afd. Personally, I think we have a deletionist culture, though not an ultra-deletionist one. while most deletionists think the opposite. . In general, when each of two sides are dissatisfied with the balance, the balance is likely to be pretty fair. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD shows that people do not look at an article before electing to keep, and neither do the people who close the AfD. That, and silly maxims such as "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built". And really, DGG? You're an inclusionist I would prefer to work with on someone; you seem to be pragmatic and accept that some articles just can't belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs more inclusionists like you, not the inclusionists that run the show and don't even admit Wikipedia has problematic content. So, basically, you're the Olympia Snowe of inclusionism :) Sceptre (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Correct read and determination of consensus (which was keep). –MuZemike 22:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse I'm not convinced that I would have argued for keeping if I had seen the original AfD but the consensus here seems pretty clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2010 (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.
United States federal laws governing offenders with mental diseases or defects (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hello all. This page was speedied under criterion A10; see the user talk page discussion. In my opinion, it is good to have an article covering 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241–4248 and related Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (e.g. Rule 12.2) and case law (which includes several notable U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as Washington v. Harper.) Note that, although much of the material in articles such as United States also appears in other articles (e.g. Geography of the United States, History of the United States, etc.), we find it useful to summarize them in one broad-scoped article. The same is true with this subject matter, especially in light of the fact that the procedures for dealing with incompetence to stand trial, insanity pleas, civil commitment, involuntary medication, etc. are all interconnected in the federal statutory framework. I should also point out that procedures under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 are not adequately covered under other articles. If the deletion is allowed to stand, please restore to my userspace for reworking. Thank you for your consideration. Tisane (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn speedy and list at AfD. The speedy deletion template used does not say which article this supposedly duplicates, but it seems that Title 18 of the United States Code and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are what are linked to in discussions. Looking at these articles and the deleted article, it doesn't seem obvious to me that the latter duplicates either. The argument raised by the nominator is that it is good to have a general overview article for these related topics, which on the face of it seems like a good idea to me, and really needs to be seriously considered. In cases like this, speedy deletion is never appropriate and so this should be taken to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at AfD, or userfy as a reasonable request. The deletion summary "‎ (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, [[:{{{article}}}]])" is unclear on what the existing article is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at AfD if desired. Not a clear A10 and the deleting admin's response wasn't helpful in clarifying it. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and optionally list at AfD. This is the sort of use of A10 that I and the others opposing it anticipated would happen; fortunately, such misinterpretation is rare--the overall results using it have been much better that I thought they would be. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the article it supposedly duplicates? Tim Song (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy. No indication what article it duplicates. It's sufficiently non-obvious that an AfD should have been opened instead to allow discussion. Pcap ping 09:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn – I also am not seeing how A10 was properly applied here. If the CSD-tagger wishes to further pursue deletion, then AFD would be the way to go here. –MuZemike 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn not clear which article this material was copied from, the deleting admin hasn't said despite being given a chance to do so. Even if the material is covered in another article this one was sufficiently detailed that the "does not expand upon, detail or improve information" part of A10 probably won't apply. This is not what A10 was intended for and another process should be used. Hut 8.5 23:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn The edit summery of the application of the A10 tag says "Material covered elsewhere across many other articles". That alone should mark it as not a valid A10 apeedy. A10 is intended for exact copies of existing articles, and for attempts to create an article at a new name when there is an existing article on the same subject. It is not for summery style articles, or other cases where new articles overlap with existing articles, but cover a different range of information or from a different aspect. An A10 speedy tag ought to indicate a single specific article that the tagged article is redundant to, and in the absence of such an indication (or the ability of the reviewing admin to find and indicate such an article) should be declined. DES (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2010 (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.
User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was speedy deleted by Nyttend as a G4 after JBsupreme initiated a MfD. I attempted to discuss this with Nyttend before bringing this to DRV [1] without resolution. [2] If Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wishes to maintain his biography in his own userspace it is his prerogative to do so. While I think someone should have offered to userfy the David Mertz article for Lulu during or after the third AfD, a G4 deletion was improper. As I understand it, Lulu largely wrote the David Mertz article so there is also not a GFDL licensing/attribution issue here since he was the original author (and if Nyttend disagreed then a simple userfication/history merge would have resolved it). Considering this AN/I discussion regarding the third AfD, the reasoning JBsupreme used as justification for initiating a MfD for the bio page in Lulu's userspace is also questionable at best. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why should G4 not be considered to apply to userspace? "Should have offered" is insufficient reason to say that we can repost content that was deleted by consensus. There was never an attempt to userfy this page, so this was a clear example of reposting deleted content; and regardless of the motives of JBsupreme (about which I have no opinion), this would properly have been tagged for deletion by any other editor. I'm totally uninvolved in any controversies involving JBsupreme: it had been a long time since I had last run across JBsupreme, and I'd never heard of User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters or of David Mertz until this came up. Nyttend (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Editors matter --Tothwolf (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Policy trumps essays. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think your comment of "Policy trumps essays." is rather uncalled for here. It is also somewhat ironic given Wikipedia:Editors matter#Policy is not a trump card. The reality of it is that there is no "trumping" to be had here. While WP:EM may in fact currently be marked as an essay, you would be hard pressed to find many people who disagree with the spirit and principles behind it. CSD G4 simply was and is not intended to delete a bio page someone creates in their userspace. G4 is intended for pages recreated in the same namespace. While this particular case may have in the past been somewhat rare/unique, given this incident and the issues surrounding BLP articles as of late, perhaps this is something that should clarified on WP:CSD?
          As I mentioned previously, Lulu largely wrote the David Mertz article anyway, so there are no attribution or GFDL issues here either. Lulu has been an extremely active contributor and if he wishes to have his bio in his userspace, then there is no reason for him not to have it there. While WP:BITE is a guideline intended mainly for newcomers, deleting Lulu's bio in his userspace is akin to biting a well established editor. This sort of thing could very well alienate someone who has otherwise been an excellent contributor to a point where they walk away from the project in disgust. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Comment/Whatever- How is this user posting this page any different from having a previously deleted article userfied for the purpose of bringing it up to Wiki standards? If this was G4 eligible, why aren't those? And if those aren't, why was this? Umbralcorax (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and OVERTURN- Let me actually add a vote based on comments after mine. A whale shark sized troutslap to both the admin and the nominator. The admin for their boneheaded lack of judgment, and the nominator for what seems almost certainly (I use "almost" because I'm trying really really hard to assume good faith, difficult as it may be) vindictive tagging for deletion, even though they had practically zero grounds for it. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refrain from the personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Boneheaded" refers to your deccision, not you. I phrased it that way for that very reason. And while I'm sorry if you take offense at it, I stand by my feeling that the decision was a downright bad one. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (relist at MfD) Improper speedy. An AfD doesn't authorise a userspace G4. These improper speedies are damaging to the project, and there is no harm in letting an MfD run its course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). (mine emphasized)" The only part of G4 that could justify speedy deletion is that which I have bolded. Having seen Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs)'s work here on Wikipedia, I do not believe that he created the page to circumvent the deletion policy. The GFDL attribution concerns are valid though, so a resolution to this would be to restore all of the revisions of David Mertz and userfy it to User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kindly observe that the content was not moved: it was recreated after deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the content was recreated after deletion, so speedy deletion could be justifiable under {{db-copyvio}} but a way to resolve the GFDL attribution concerns, is, as I said above, to undelete David Mertz and userfy it. Cunard (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the copyvio/GFDL "concern" is pretty nonsensical here. Despite the misunderstanding above, I did not write very much of the bio (the bit that I did was before the guidelines on autobiography existed. But whoever wrote it, it is entirely material contributed to WP under GFDL; there is no conceivable copyright issue in using the same content on a different namespace on WP that falls under exactly the same license tersm. Moreover, even if I write some brand new content (on whatever topic, not necessarily biographical) on my user page, that material is itself GFDL licensed, and equally usable in any Wikipedia namespace (assuming it is relevant, of course... but user-space might be used for drafts, or to collect quotes, or to work out formatting, or whatever). LotLE×talk 16:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is a concern exactly because it was GFDL-licensed and you did not write it. GFDL requires attribution for everyone who edited the page, which is normally in the page history. Since you reposted the material without the page history, there is a GFDL violation. QED. Tim Song (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The fact that the text is in a different means that it is almost per se a page "to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies", because most policies and guidelines have different force in different namespaces. Tim Song (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn of course. This is a userspace bio that a Wikistalker nominated purely out of malice (and perhaps because JBsupreme noticed LotLE was offline for the week, and might not notice the speedy... as proved the case). LotLE×talk 13:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Userification of the deleted article space bio is probably better. I copied over the text, being a non-admin, but having the history is obviously cleaner. LotLE×talk 13:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn. This bio is within the bounds of what is permissible. Tisane (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and userfy the originally deleted article to keep history for licensing purposes. Certainly within the realm of reasonable to have your own bio in your userspace. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and userfy the originally deleted article to keep history for licensing purposes. (I just broke GFLD by copying the above line from Hobit, lol.) Seriously, we allow other editors to keep a lot more personal info in their user space. Just look the subpages of User:Charles_Matthews for instance. Let the MfD run its course. I don't think Lulu posted excessive material about himself in his user space, but others are free to disagree. Compare with Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MaynardClark, and look that user page history; he did get useful feedback from the MfD. Pcap ping 08:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, restore and userfy, and reopen/relist MfD. It seems that a number of participants here should review WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, restore and userfy deleted article, and merge history. Many wikipedias have more or less extansive nis on their user pages, I see no objection to this as similar even if never readied for the article namespace, and if the author wants to try to fix it up so that it would be acceptable for mainspace, why not? the usual practice is that any admin may restore and userfy and deleted page on request that is not a copyvio, attack page, or other content that is improper even in userspace. DES (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Userspace is not mainspace, nor are userspace essays required to neet mainspace requirements. Collect (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The rationale used would be sufficient to delete any userified content at any time, which is silly. Restart the MfD. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Mindful Eating – While the provided rationale isn't a valid reason for speedy deletion, the article has been restored for improvement to user space. For further guidance see below. – Tikiwont (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mindful Eating (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

"(cited sources do not support article)" Rturtle (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)rturtle The article Mindful Eating was deleted without discussion by DragonflySixtyseven for the reason "(cited sources do not support article)". I have discussed the issue with DragonflySixtyseven but am unable to get a clear statement of why this would qualify for speedy deletion without discussion. The admin suggested I discuss the matter with other admins. Then later suggested he would, but has yet to resolve or explain the issue. I have made repeated offers to provide additional references for any subject matter in the article and made an effort to clarify book references, included in the article, that were possibly overlooked by the admin.[reply]

Doing way too many things at once, sorry. I'll put it back in his userspace right now. DS (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring it to my userspace, but I am unclear as to what the next step is. I realize this article needs some work and better references, but is it my responsibility to do this before it can be put back in main, or can it be put back in main now to allow others to collaborate on improving the article? Rturtle (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)rturtle[reply]
comment. In your userspace it is generally your responsibility to do the main work on an article. Inubation is a relatively new process that is more focused on collaborative improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that doesn't really clear it up for me. I realize the article could benefit from more work, but is it acceptable to move it back into main as is? Am I to understand that this is at my discretion now? If that is the case then this DRV can be closed. If that is not the case, can anyone give me some guidance on what specifically needs to happen before it can be moved back to the main? Thank you.Rturtle (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)rturtle[reply]
Before you move it back, you need to deal with the problems that caused it to be deleted in the first place. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no point in restoring it until it has been further improved, as I do not see how it could pass AfD at present , but the deletion rationale is clearly wrong. I note that the admin who deleted it has a reluctance to use the standard reasons -- from the log "silliness" "homework" "Notability is based on unsourced claims, and on claims from unreliable sources" DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't understand what I mean by "cited sources do not support article" ? DS (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, mostly per DGG. No point to engage in further process wonkery. Tim Song (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfication is, of course, permitted as a matter of course, and I see no reason why this is one of the rare exception. Tim Song (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation in user space I am very reluctant to specifically endorse a clearly erroneous administrative active--it sends the wrong message. A close such as i suggested fulfills both the end of sending the right message about deletion process, and about the article, which is not ready for mainspace--I think it would be possible to make an article on this, though I do not plan to try myself , at least not immediately. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
  • overturn as a clearly improper speedy. However, since it has been userfied, let it stay there until the creator has done enough work to allow this to be rather more likely to survive an AfD. Were this moved back to mainspace today, and put up for Afd at once, it might well be deleted unless improved during the AfD. Oh, and to Rturtle, my advice would be to add what you think are sufficient sources, and then to ask for advice on requests for feedback, or from one or more experienced editors, such as DGG. DES (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2010 (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.
The Only Exception (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of the page entitled "The Only Exception". While the single is just released, it has significant notability because it's been confirmed as a third single, it's released a music video, also I've written what I considered to be a good enough article for the song (which can be viewed here from my user sandbox). In my opinion I think this page should be allowed to be made (I made one before under the title "The Only Exception (song)" but it was deleted and I was told to contest it's deletion here. In the articles deletion discussion page in January 2010, it stated that the reason the page was deleted was because there were no reliable sources, in February reliable sources confirmed that the song would be released as a single, among other things about the song, so seeing as though that was the main factor in the page being deleted I think that it should be allowed to be remade. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 03:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse:Original decision was correct. Proposer needs to read WP:NSONG, as that is the test that the article has to pass.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Having looked at the sandboxed article, it appears to have sufficient content to be larger than a stub, as well as sufficient coverage in reliable sources (Spin Magazine, Boston Globe, etc.) to merit inclusion per WP:NSONG. Tisane (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O Rly? Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article.... Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Given that this song has not been released yet, it would appear that the above cannot apply. No objection to recreating the article when the single gets into the Top Ten. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the song itself had significant coverage I'd say meeting WP:N would be enough. At a fairly quick glance the coverage is mostly about the album, with minimal significant coverage of the song itself. So I disagree about the general case, but agree in the specific. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fairy snuff. I can't deny that the next single by Elvis will be way notable enough well before it's released :) but in this case, I don't think it quite makes it. Crystal Clear should hang on to the userspace draft - if it charts significantly, there shouldn't be a problem.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a moot point, but if WP:N were met for a single, an article would be justified by policy... Hobit (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, if the single has become notable for reasons other than WP:NSONG, then an article would be justified. WP:NOTNEWS is a consideration - record companies always want to generate buzz before a single is released, and this promotion of itself does not indicate notability - but there are other ways to achieve notability. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This topic has been salted due to recreation about 10 times (not by Crystal Clear) since the AfD.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The debate was closed correctly. There is no indication that the song passes WP:NSONGS. It has not received independent coverage of the album. Cunard (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Cfcuk – Closure endorsed. The possibility of a redirect and history restoration would depend on whether consensus to include some material at the club's article can be developed, possibly starting out from a more general 'Support' section. Userfy on request. – Tikiwont (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
cfcuk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi

I am writing to request an undeletion for the page I entered about the English football fanzine cfcuk. It seem (I think) that I made the initial mistake of saying that the cfcuk fanzine was ‘notable’, not realising that ‘notability’ is an extremely important Wikipedia term.

The page consisted of a brief history about the cfcuk football fanzine and a review of whom it has interviewed, it’s ‘standing’ amongst the Chelsea support by way of personalities visiting the matchday stall from where it is sold (prior to and after Chelsea home matches) and also some information concerning the ‘special editions’ that have been published and also its relevance to both the club itself and the supporters.

Whilst I understand that I cannot ask why fanzines from other football clubs are allowed to stay within the Wikipedia website and the cfcuk one isn’t, I must say that I feel it is, nevertheless, somewhat unfair considering I feel that all the reasons that were cited for the deletion were answered with reasonable sources and explanations quoted each time.

I hope that, after reading this, you will reconsider your decision and reinstate the afore mentioned and now deleted cfcuk page.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You allowed just 12 minutes from asking the closing admin to reconsider the decision before listing here. What chance did he have of looking at your request in that amount of time?
Notwithstanding that, deletion review is a venue to indicate where the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not a chance for a de novo hearing, nor for a second bite at the cherry in the hope of getting a different opinion. WP:WAX is generally, and properly, not considered a strong argument, and the debate closed with strong support for deletion. Endorse closure. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The consensus at the AfD was clear that the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that the fanzine does not meet the general notability guidelines. The only apprent claims to notability presented in the AfD were 1. archival at the British Library - as noted, the British Library archive a copy of all publications, regardless of notability. This is not therefore an indicator of whether a publication is notable or not. 2. uniquely low cover price - this claim was not only a very weak (as noted) but it was also refuted. Could not have been closed any other way. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I only put the submission here because I thought that I had put it in the wrong place - not because I thought that the decision wasn't quick enough.

As I said when replying to the AfD debate, the cfcuk fanzine has been mentioned in plenty of other articles and publications. The cfcuk fanzine is well known amongst Chelsea supporters clubs around the world including the UK, Europe and the USA.

As was stated in the now deleted article, the fanzine has been 'endorsed' by several current and ex-Chelsea footballers and celebrities who support the side by way of their appearances within the fanzine in interviews and meeting Chelsea supporters at the cfcuk matchday stall.

I would still like to have a page about the fanzine considered for the Wikipedia website and would, if allowed, rewrite and re-present another article.

Other than that, would I be able to retrieve the now deleted article for my own use?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn (Merge and redirect to Chelsea F.C.) per ChrisTheDude at AfD, a good and valid !vote not considered by any of the "delete" !voters. As this novel !vote was the last, the closer should have considered it and commented on it explicitly, if it should be dismissed. The notability guidelines do not state that material judged to fail should be deleted, just that it shouldn't be an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cache version contains a reference and a link to the primary source, easily sparing it from mandatory deletion per WP:V, and there is no barrier to merging the content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the correction. I did not notice the book reference which provides the verifiability needed. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The closer accurately assessed the consensus in the discussion. However, undelete and redirect to Chelsea F.C. if a willing editor can find reliable sources to verify the content in the article. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus in the discussion was to delete but a merge is acceptable per WP:PRESERVE. I endorse JForget's close as an acceptable reading of the consensus but support an undelete and redirect to Chelsea F.C. so the content can be merged. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. No objections to a redirect. Tim Song (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete close, but allow userfication and/or creating a redirect. I don't agree that one merge recommendation based on WP:PRESERVE should trump all the deletes. If a consensus for merging is formed at Talk:Chelsea F.C., the Cfcuk page history can be restored in article space. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close the consensus was clearly to delete and that consensus was well within policy. However there is no reason not to permit userfication. (Indeed as one of the admins willing to userfy on request, I'll do it once this DRV closes if asked, unless the DRV develops a consensus to prohibit userfication in this case.) If the author can find additional evidence of notability, it can always be moved back to article space later. A merge (following an undelete and redir) would also be an acceptable outcome. DES (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flatscan, certainly no !vote trumps, but here it looks like none of the "delete"rs considered the merge option, possibly they were unaware of the suggested target. The closer should have at least made some comment. I would not point people to WP:PRESERVE, but to WP:BEFORE/4, which can be done without additional sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That none of the deletes mentioned a possible merge target is a fair point. As an example, I would endorse a merge close for 3 deletes versus 3 merges, if the deletes came first and failed to argue against merging. It's nice when closers include possible ways forward in their statements, but I did not expect that here. Since there was a consensus to delete, I would prefer that a consensus for the merger be developed before implementing it. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DES, consensus is clear in the AfD that the article should not exist as a stand alone article. Based on existing sources, it would be wrong to allow it back as a stand alone article, but reasonable to userfy for new sources, or to to undelete the history for a merge and redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SmokeyJoe, I think we are in violent agreement here. I said "endorse close" which means endorsing that the consensus was to delete. I never suggested allowing it to be recreated as a standalone article in the form deleted. In case i wasn't clear, i suggested that it could either be a) userfied for the creator to attempt to find citations to reliable sources that would establish notability. If, and only if, the creator finds such sources and adds them to a draft, the article could be moved back to mainspace. b) Alternatively, the article could be restored and promptly converted to a redirect, and any useful and verifiable content merged with the redirect serving to preserve attributions (along with a use of {{copied}}). Was it not clear from my comments that those were the options, and the only options, I was suggesting? DES (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't remember what the point of my post was, I think my head was fuzzy. I agree with Flatscan and and DES. I agree with Flatscan that a consensus at Talk:Chelsea F.C. could be sought before undeleting so as to merge, and Blueblagger (talk · contribs) would be well encouraged to do this, because no, this article should not be restored. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2010 (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/2010_February_21&oldid=1049067564"