Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 31

Steve McKeown – Original deletion endorsed. If there is any new evidence, a user draft would help. – Tikiwont (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The correct AFD is here Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<Apparently he was not notable by the review team, but has released two published books available through many large retailers here in the UK> Chliodior11 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC) -->[reply]

Endorse, there is no way this debate could have been closed in any otherway. You were welcome to prepare a draft article in your userspace and submit it for review here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion, consensus was quite clear. Note to Chliodior11, you may want to read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) to get a feel for what makes a subject 'notable' as the word is used on Wikipedia. You will have to find coverage of the author to have the article accepted. As sugested above you can work on it at User:Chliodior11/Steve McKeown, when you think it's ready you can present it here. J04n(talk page) 20:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - deletion was the only possible debate outcome. See the above notes on creating a userspace draft - Peripitus (Talk) 05:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse With a 9-to-1 !vote in favour of deletion, the keep side would need some amazingly strong reasoning. Instead, the keep vote was hand-waiving with little substance. This couldn't have gone any other way. Bradjamesbrown is travelling (Talk to my master) 02:13, 4 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.

One Shot (JLS song) – Restored. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_25. – Adambro (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like to request for the lift on the ban on creating the page for the song "One Shot" by JLS, not to vandalize but to add information about it.

Note: There is a discussion on this deleted article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 25. J04n(talk page) 12:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sacred microdistillery – deletion endorsed, the nominator is encouraged to continue developing a userspace draft. – Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

previous 2 deletions about 6 months ago were on grounds of NOTABILITY, and there is a substantial new body of national media and press coverage since, which should pass the NOTABILITY hurdle by now. See the sandboxed wikipedia article on "Sacred microdistillery" for links, as well as the press page on the www.sacredspiritscompany.com website. The most recent deletion yesterday, was a speedy delete on the grounds that I have not yet asked for a deletion review, which seems a bit difficult to navigate for a first timer. I am asking that the page be reviewed for reinstatement on the grounds that NOTABILITY is now established. Please help if you have time. Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the least of the worries here. Almost certain conflict of interest, as easily shown in the edit history... Doc9871 (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worthwhile to consider that Wikipedia uses nofollow, so Google hits will not be affected by links on this site. Properly cited (with unbiased sources), the article should be able to stay. Otherwise, notability arguments aren't going to help your case, I'm afraid... Doc9871 (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Associated discussions etc. Originally created as Sacred Gin - 1st AFD 2nd AFD subsequently created as Sacred gin and Sacred Spirits Company --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers Doc9871. Are you suggesting rewriting with citations in sandbox mode, and then flagging for deletion review? Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good plan. J04n(talk page) 16:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; continue developing in user space. On review of the text against the prior version, there are two new sources: an online Financial News profile of the founder of the distillery (not the distillery itself) and the distillery's listing at localfoodadvisor.com. However, the text is, if anything, worse than the version that existed at the time of the AfD. Accordingly, I agree with the deletion under criterion G4. I'd suggest that Beefeaterdrinker work on the article (currently at User:Beefeaterdrinker/Sandbox), focusing on making sure the text is neutral and adding more independent sources about the distillery. Then he can ask the text to be reviewed again. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deleted the article most recently, so you can assume that I endorse my own action. I merely wish to quote the nominator from the second AfD process, who said "When he has written an article that clearly establishes the product's notability, he can seek a consensus for recreation at DRV per the usual procedure. (And let's try to avoid here the festival of sockpuppetry that the previous AfD became.)". I respected that comment which is why I deleted the article on the basis of it being a repost. I agree with User:C.Fred's comments above; he has expressed it more clearly than could I. (By the way, I note that I still haven't been officially informed about the existence of this process, despite its initiator having been told by two different admins in clear unambiguous language that it was required.) Accounting4Taste:talk 16:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; continue developing in user space per C.Fred. Sacred Microdistillery has not garnered enough coverage in reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability (companies). The sources in the article either quote exclusively from the founder with little background information or are passing mentions. When Sacred Microdistillery receives the necessary coverage in reliable sources, I encourage the nominator to add the sources to the userspace draft and then bring it back to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cunard (talk) 08:56, 8 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.

File:Ipod Touch 1st Generation.JPG – No action necessary. A new FFD may be opened at any time so long as the nominator makes clear how the circumstances differ from the previous, which, if it is true that there are other extant similar images not previously discussed, would appear to be the case. – Chick Bowen 05:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tbsdy has misinterpreted the strength of argument in this FfD (or, more accurately, he completely ignored it and strictly counted votes). Only a single use of the icons is necessary to understand them; the two generations are not so substantially different that one must see both sets of icons to understand them. As such, all images which have the icons violate NFCC.3a and .8 save for one. On the face of it, the blatant vote-counting and complete disregard of our NFCC justify overturning to the original closure. However, the previously undiscussed existence of two other images—namely this and this one—is material to the existence of these two images. The first one necessitates deletion and replacement of both of these images rather than only one, and the second one necessitates deletion and replacement of all three. So I recommend vacation of this FfD result and allowance of immediate relisting so that a decision can be reached which considers all relevant images and receives proper closure. ÷seresin 06:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't count votes. There is an equal split between those who wish to keep and those who wish to delete. When this occurs, I think that it would be accurate to say that there is no consensus to either delete or keep, and therefore by default we keep.

I don't mind having my decision reviewed or even overturned, this is perfectly reasonable. My only comment on this DRV is that the nominator seems to me a bit too close to the debate, which is evident in his slightly rude assertion that the basis of my closure was "blatant vote-counting". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to grind the point, but did you read your first paragraph? You clearly illustrate even here that you only looked at the numbers when you made your decision. How can your comments possibly suggest otherwise? ÷seresin 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at the numbers, but that was such a minor part of my decision that it almost didn't influence me. When I made my decision, I looked at the arguments from both sides - and both those who wanted to keep and those who wanted to delete had equally compelling arguments. Therefore, my decision was "no consensus", which caused the article to be kept. That is the convention on FFD - if you can't get consensus then the image is kept until another FFD nomination where consensus can be reached. If you can influence other editors as to your point of view on this, then you will probably have your way. Personally, I thought that the compromise was a good idea, however as the closer I'm not meant to be imposing my own ideas on the discussion but instead I am meant to be determining what the general consensus is of the deletion discussion. That said, there are a limited number of occassions where the issue is important enough where I might, as a closer, find that a debate would have consensus for a keep or delete if I add my own viewpoint, but those occassions are very, very rare. I believe that I've done this twice so far, had I done it on this debate then I'm sure that I would have made someone unhappy. C'est le vie! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm entirely mistaken, since Tbsdy closed that as no consensus, you can, in light of new images, just open up a new FfD about it. Taking no consensus closures to DRV, except in cases where they are blatantly wrong, usually will just end in us telling you to start another XfD. I suggest you go ahead and do this, Seresin, and save us all a week. Cheers. lifebaka++ 07:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. It has been my experience, though, that quick relistings without a DRV tend to become immediately derailed because of the recent debate. I did not want to have to bother with that, so I came here first so I had a DRV to point to. So I would like to wait until I have a close here. ÷seresin 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm no administrator, but I feel that this DRV is unjustified. This is the second case that Seresin has commented on recently from Tbsdy, and (coincidentally?) both are cases that Tbsdy overturned on Seresin. WP is not about editors trumping each other: it's about what is fit to be included. Tbsdy recently forced me to find the source of an image that Seresin wanted to delete outright, without any advice whatsoever. Of course, no advice is required from Seresin (or any admin) concerning the deletion of non-free images, and I understand that. There are a trillion inappropriate images on WP that need instant deletion - but this was never one of them. I laud Tbsdy for his participation in my case, and my "real-life" endeavors will hopefully see the absolutely irreplaceable image I uploaded stay on WP. Then, #3a & #8 be damned, because it will be free... Doc9871 (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist per the nominator's request. The existence of additional images (one is currently at FfD but the other one is deleted) may have an impact on the discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 8 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.

31 January 2010[edit]