Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 July 31
2009 August 2 >

1 August 2009[edit]

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

This article was never even flagged for speedy deletion - it was deleted right out from under me while I was still making edits. The reason listed was "A7: non notable". I've been told by wikipedia admins in the past that non-notable is not sufficient grounds for an A7 removal (and that many overzealous people wrongly flag things for deletion that should not be - with newbies coming along and not realizing the policy) - and I looked it up myself to confirm it. I contested this with the wikipedia admin - quoting relevant policies - but he still demands notability, despite the fact that policy explicitly states that notability is not grounds for SPEEDY delete. I even asked for the admin to replace it with AfD if they like. The admin has archived the discussion without following up with me at this point, so I felt I needed to go here. I DID try and go out of my way to show importance in the article... Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. The article stated the band had released six albums, which is sufficient enough to assert notability and avoid an A7 deletion. Optionally list at AFD. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Not because of the immediate speedy without tagging (there is no requirement that an article be tagged before speedy deletion) but because of what Stifle says, the number of released albums creates too much of a presumption of significance for an A7 speedy. No prejudice against anyone starting an AfD if this is overturned, but I don't see that as a necessary outcome of this review. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per my essay on this issue.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - six albums is nice, but I could put out six albums using a home studio and a CD burner, and I wouldn't be notable. That, to me, is not an assertion of notability - an assertion of notability is multiple albums on a notable record label, coverage in the media, et al. There was no indication of any of that in the article. An AFD might have been appropriate, but in this case I don't see the problem with the deletion. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speedy deletion policy specifically says that notability does not need to be established - merely importance, which is less strict than notability. I'm not sure how this article fails to suggest importance. This is why wikipedia has many different deletion policies - different situations, which are not interchangable. The intent (as stated in the policies) is to allow multiple contributors to establish true wikipedia-worthy notability. Luminifer (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I just noticed this odd behavior on my watchlist : 08:17, 4 August 2009 Academic Challenger (talk | contribs) deleted "Pain Hertz" ‎ (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible) -- I guess someone else created a page for them, although I don't know of a way to get to whatever it was that they created. Anyway, I wanted to make sure people looked at _my_ version of this page before commenting, not the "patent nonsense" version. :) Luminifer (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overturn as invalid speedy. Likely belongs at AfD though. Hobit (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Lack of notability is an insufficient basis for A7 speedy deletion; community consensus must be determined for such a claim, and an opportunity for rescue allowed while discussion goes on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Article made clear and credible claims of notability, in direct conflict with the justifications required for WP:CSD#A7. If there are legitimate questions regarding notability once it has been restored, process dictates that the community be given the opportunity to assess notability at WP:AFD. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 6 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Clearly inappropriate closure. Closed after 3 days instead of the normal seven as keep even though 11 people voted delete, 8 people voted keep, with 2 of those being conflicted editors of the page and 1 acting as a pseudo meatpuppet. Closer's statements are factually inaccurate and show a lack of actually reading the page. Closer has a bad habit of closing pages 4 days before they are to be closed and should be desysopped. This should be a speedy unclose and restoration of the standard AfD, but people are edit warring when it was rightfully reopened. They should be blocked for edit warring and disruption as with the closer as there was no evidence that this was a mistake and the rationale shows that this was purposefully done. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist - An AfD as contentious as this (split pretty evenly) shouldn't be closed early. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    11 to 8 is not split evenly - 58% delete as is, 65% delete when the two editors from the page are removed, and 69% when the joint vote is counted properly. The 58% is appropriate delete consensus. The 65 and 69 percent are a strong delete consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist - Given that there was no need for an early closure, the AfD should normally (IMO) be reopened. However, new information has come to light about the subject since the AfD began, so the article should be relisted so that everyone can start fresh with the new information. NW (Talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite - it was known about the other articles from the very beginning. The second comment, by Viper, describes them. The article had other sources by the time others voted. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see; thank you for noting this. I agree with JC below though; there was no reason to close this debate early, and so I believe that the AfD should be reopened/relisted (really, either is fine to me). NW (Talk) 02:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from closing admin I believe my only mistake may have been closing the debate early--granted, there were more deletes than keeps, but my thinking was that the sourcing had been improved enough that the main problem expressed in the deletion rationale had been addressed. I had no stake whatsoever in this article--in fact, I only saw this when I moseyed over to AfD today. However, I have no objection to reopening the debate. Blueboy96 02:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a habit of closing pages like this too early. The Sam Blacketer close is another egregious example. Furthermore, your rationale is completely flawed. As pointed out, the other sources were added by the second comment, and were already dismissed as being unreliable, used to talk about original research that was off topic, or were merely stating a few sentences of facts and not enough to warrant a whole page. Furthermore, BLP applied regardless, and "sourcing" isn't good enough for BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Agree that there was no compelling reason for closing the discussion early, but I can understand the motives behind Blueboy's decision. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why bother? If one thing is evident from the comments so far, it is that this will only end in a no consensus close, no matter how badly it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Process for the sake of process will only add even more drama in this case. Resolute 04:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were closed 24 hours early, I'd agree with you, but three days is hardly enough time for consensus to form on such a contentious topic. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist - No reason this should have been closed earlier than the normal 7 day period. Note: When I got back to my computer this evening, I created a thread on ANI about the closure of this AfD, not knowing this deletion review had been created. My apologies, I was unaware. Killiondude (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article If I'm reading this right, wikipedia defended its alleged right to lift these images, which by doing so could harm the art gallery. Yet wikipedians go ballistic about "excessive" use of team logos, which can only help those teams by giving them free advertising. It is this schizoid approach to images that's the issue here, more than just this article - which needs to be kept rather than being hidden. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:42, 1 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_1&oldid=1141925703"