Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 24

Administrator instructions

< January 23	Deletion review archives: 2009 January	January 25 >

24 January 2009[edit]

Roblox – no consensus to allow recreation. – Aervanath (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The previous article was deleted due to Verifilibilty, and I have found some sources. The draft can be found at [1]. I know it is just a stub, but I think adding it to the regular namespace will open it to more editors and really expand the article. Briguy9876 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation - per to source material now existing. --B (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is an admin going to add the draft after they remove the lock, or will I have to? --Briguy9876 (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably, if recreation is allowed, the closing admin would move your article there, then restore the old article so that any usable history there is available to incorporate. That's just a guess though - they may just unlock it and leave the move up to you, so you probably want to keep an eye on it. --B (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can-do. --Briguy9876 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation- Article's a bit stubby, but certainly seems adequately sourced and shows notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted After looking over the sources, it still seems that they don't meet WP:RS. They are all blog-style posts which are not reliable sources. The people who wrote them were any old Joe/Jane Doe and if an AfD were held now I'd say the game isn't notable enough to meet WP:N as the coverage hasn't been in reliable sources. Themfromspace (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's iffy, but [2] gives a short bio on the author, which says "Angele Sionna has been a professional journalist for over a decade." If it were a user-submitted review or something like that, we would dismiss it, but this looks like a bit more than a blog. --B (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That particular reference is pretty useless though, the information it's being used to back up would be fine referenced to a primary source (since it requires no interpretation which may fall foul of being original research). The issue from the AFD concerned notability also, that link doesn't cut the mustard there, it's largely direct quotes from the subject itself. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation notable according to WP:WEB, also mentioned in nytimes.--Otterathome (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*COUGH* needs to be non-trivial not a mention *COUGH* Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Except for the Examiner, all the sources are either unreliable or not independent; the NY times mention is literally trivial as it says a single kid played the game without actually saying anything about the game. There's no indication the game meets the WP:WEB guidelines in other ways. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted The sources presented do not go anywhere near providing enough coverage to write an article with, which is the crux of WP:N, without even taking WP:RS into consideration. The Examiner piece is 50% direct quote from the developers, a very basic description and a signpost to some resources, it is of very limited use. The New York Times piece is nothing to do with the game, it just happens to be the one the lad is playing at the time. Killerstartups is again a brief description of Roblox, a basic definition of what the topic is does not make an article. Refs #4 and #6 are just nuggets of info if that. That leaves Midweek, which is at least stabbing in the right direction. However it is a short article again focused on providing a basic outline of what Roblox is, not getting to the guts of it and giving it serious review. You can sometimes get away with sources like that if they're plentiful and approach the topic from different angles, but you can't hang an article on what's there. When the game has a few serious pieces (resembling this) there will be something to write about, but journalists will have to take the time to look at it properly. Someone another 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something I found: Someone made another article(With no sources) here: [3]. I just thought I will show you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Non-trivial coverage is basically non-existent. I've also speedied the new recreated version that Briguy9876 was so kind as to point out. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Districtfile – deletion endorsed. Courtesy copy userfied to User:Theibanker/Districtfile. – Aervanath (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

My input meets the criteria insofar as possible. Youmeo, Xt3, and many more are social networking websites with equal or less input. For this reason, I do not find it fair to exclude an entry for a social networking website that is real, that exists and that has been written about. I monitor social networking websites and am happy to defend my position. As an alumnus of the London School Of Economics (LSE) I and thousands of other alumni monitor the activities of other alumni (see: http://www.aflse.org/article.html?aid=904) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theibanker (talk • contribs)

Thank you.

Here is another decent piece of evidence and that shows the notability. http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_50/hoh/29511-1.html?type=printer_friendly

Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theibanker (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Valid A7 deletion; article did not assert notability; "claims to have international membership scope" is probably not enough. Sandstein 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could choose to userfy so this user can improve on the article to save it from A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you indicate why the site is important, famous or why it meets WP:WEB? -= Mgm|^(talk) 22:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. There is the general notability guideline, but the article doesn't meet it convincingly. One of the three sources is the website itself (not accessible to the regular public) and one looks like a press release and isn't too independent. We need more references or "further reading entries" to meet GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The criterion for speedy is not notability, or sourcing. it's anything that might possibly indicate notability, and the deleted article indicates it, and in my opinion the reference to LSE gives it a decent chance of passing afd as well. And if it doesn't pass there, it won't, but there's enough here for it to get a hearing. 05:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Can't see any assertion of notability. Some citations to reliable sources might change my mind. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Andries/Sathya Sai Baba – Not for DRV to discuss. Please get clarification from the arb com whether your amended topic ban allows you to keep a version of article to work on. Without their express permission we won't undelete this and if they do approve this, you don't need DRV to approve its restoration. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Andries/Sathya_Sai_Baba

topic ban by the arbcom was partially revoked: I now have the right to engage in talk page discussion again. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Alternative_motion I think this user space helps me to present source etc. Btw, I do not think that I was ever informed of this MFD and I only found out recently. Andries (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore, for now. The remedy, as amended, now only bans Andries from editing articles about this subject; this should probably be construed as including article-type content in user space. But I'll ask Newyorkbrad, the arbitrator who proposed the motion amending the ban at issue, to comment. Sandstein 18:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But now I can write Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/draft. Andries (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's the clarification being sought, the remedy as I read it still bans you from editing the article, the intent being to let you discuss. So creating/editing a copy of the article under a talk namespace would on it's face still appear to be subject to the ban. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dave Simons – already restored. Article in current form has references which were not present when article was speedy deleted. – Aervanath (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The entry for Dave Simons was deleted without consultation and also before the page could be fully finished. The reason given was that Dave is "is not inherently notable", an insult to a comic book artist, writer and creator who has been working in both that field and the animation world since the 1970s. The person deleting the page has also stated that only one source was used, this is wrong as sources were being added as the page was being expanded. I believe the page was deleted in haste and wish for it's re-instatement asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel best (talk • contribs)

While the state of the page when User:Gwen Gale speedy deleted it as WP:CSD#A7 needs to be checked by an administrator, can you provide the further sources here to aid this discussion? Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Dave_Simons. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as valid application of CSD:A7. I also would like to put on record that Daniel best's conduct at Gwen Gale's talk page was extremely poor. Despite that, some citations of reliable sources might change my mind. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose speedy deletion. Based on the Google cache of the article I found this article should not have been speedy deleted.

"Dave Simons is an American comic book writer and artist. Dave has worked in comics for over three decades now and is well known for his work on Conan, Ghost Rider, Howard the Duck, Dracula, Forgotten Realms and more recently Courage the Cowardly Dog. He has worked with some of the giants in the field such as John Buscema, Bob Budiansky and Gene Colan."

It may not be a great article, but the author was working on it shortly before deletion. Lack of sources is not grounds for speedy deletion of an article like this. No one could have understood this deletion from the speedy policy page. Inexperienced editors should be treated much better than this. Especially when they're recognized outside Wikipedia as knowledgeable. Beating people up with templates and uninformative policy citations does not improve Wikipedia. Besides, aren't speedies supposed to undeleted on reasonable request unless they include offensive content??????? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conduct of the person calling themselves 'Gwen Gale' needs to also be addressed. The entry was deleted without consultation nor without 'Gwen' actually reading the entry. I find that insulting, nor has 'Gwen' actually done anything concrete to address this other than offering up a series of random links with no aid on how to navigate them nor to correctly make the required entries (sorry, this stuff isn't the most user friendly). If 'Gwen' is upset then perhaps she might want to reconsider her 'speedy deletions' for no reason. As I have pointed out to her, if she believes that a man who has worked in several fields for over 30 years isn't notable, then you need to delete 90% of the other entries for comic book artists you have, and if my work isn't considered good enough to use then please do a search and remove it, ASAP, from any and all entries that source it, either ones I've placed up or others have.

As for sources - I have conducted extensive interviews with Dave and am his biographer. That means that I might actually know a bit more about the guy than someone coming in at random. In the publishing world original research is the cornerstone of all work - my work is based upon original research. As I understand it someone can now come in and paste the entry again, under their name, and it'd be accepted, but I cannot refer to my own research or work? That isn't right - it might be one of your rules, but that does not make it correct and proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel best (talk • contribs) 21:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and userfy. The creator should at least get a chance to fully finish and reference the article before a decision is made, "is not inherently notable" is something different than "is inherently not notable". Recommendation to the author: a lot of leeway is given to material in userspace. Write your articles there until they're ready to protect them from deletion while you're doing the work. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might someone at least userfy this in my stead? Had User:Daniel best been more civil from the outset, along with a bit more willing to understand what was going on, at the very least I'd have userfied the content, might have even restored it. However, the long string of personal attacks, mixed with an utter disdain for Wikipedia, makes me wonder what the user is doing here. Since I can't do much of anything under these attacks and threats, I recuse from anything having to do with this user or the topic. Anyone else can handle this, however they see fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though unfortunate that article was uploaded before it was prepared and User:Daniel best's lack of familiarity with Wikipedia standards (and somewhat aggressive reaction to good advice) caused its deletion, Dave Simons is indeed a notable comic book artist and should be represented in Wikipedia. I have reinstated the page as a referenced stub until a proper biography adhering to Wikipedia standards is prepared. User: Gwen Gale's patience and goodwill in this case is commendable. MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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