Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 June 30
2009 July 2 >

1 July 2009[edit]

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

Around 20 new sources listed on this page, as well as articles/appearances for my startup Net News Daily in The Guardian Online, BBC News Online, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 5 Live, The Independent, The Scotsman, Original 106, Real Radio and Northsound 1. I also now write for TechCrunch/CrunchGear. I would count this as notable. Scott (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest you ask an editor without a WP:COI to create a userspace draft which can be brought to DRV. I think it very likely that the sources you have are sufficient to establish notability, but experience with DRV tells me the conflict of interest and the lack of a userspace draft may be significant obstacles.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by what I said in the last DRV. The AfD closure was appropriate, given the situation then. Now, more sources are present, and so I support allowing re-creation in principle. However, I think that we would be best served by re-creating as a redirect to the Net News Daily article (which I note was just re-created without any DRV) because the subject's notability is tied pretty much only to the site. ÷seresin 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources are pretty much standard trivial sources, they aren't about the person, they are about the "experiment", the WP:GNG requires "sources address the subject directly in detail", these don't. Just listing up any mention of a person is not useful for an encyclopedia article. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend a userspace draft. See WP:SUBPAGE. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, suggest non-COI user draft - per the reasons given above. Otto4711 (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:30, 7 July 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.
Bonnie Doon Shopping Centre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Was just deleted after AfD. The closing administrator closed it simply by saying "the result was delete" with no further explanation. But several participants said keep with some good reasons favoring keeping. There seemed to be reliable sources on the subject (though I am not familiar with it myself), and it was far from clear that the consensus was to delete. Sebwite (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Stifle for alerting me of this. AfD isn't a vote, and going by the strength of the arguments, there's a clear consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it would have helped if the closing had been a little more specific--I suggest to Julian he might have also been more explicit here about what parts of the argument he considered strong. I am basically endorsing the result: Small malls are almost never notable, and there really wasn't enough to indicate otherwise. I did not join the original discuss and say that at the AfD because I thought it would obviously be deleted.DGG (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as, as far as I can tell, people merely asserted reliable sources existed (or probably existed) but didn't actually point to any concrete examples. WP:V and WP:N demand more than just vague assertions. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are sources that can be found here and most easily accesible

here. These describe notable details, including the center's history and uses. Sebwite (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • But between those three books in your second link there are only four sentences combined about this topic... it's not really seeming like nontrivial coverage to me. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 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.

Youth United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_10 I, being a different individual seek to recreate the article of this organization with all the Wikipedia policies to be taken into consideration, so unprotection of the page Youth United is sought to create this page again as per Wikipedia policies. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC) -->[reply]

  • Comment the latest version seems to still be at User:Extolmonica/Youth United. It has no references beyond its own web site. Unless some 3rd party references can be found, there is no real possibility of having an article, and we should consider deleting the one in userspace also. DGG (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with DGG. The mainspace article does not need to be unprotected before you write an article in your sandbox. We need some evidence that a viable page will actually be written (otherwise all evidence is that only nonviable pages will be recreated). Once there is an article ready-to-go, it can then go to mainspace. That is, exactly same thing you heard at WP:RFPP. Please don't forum-shop. DMacks (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with DGG and DMacks. When a userspace draft with serious third-party references is added, it will be considered. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with above on Mainspace article But I don't think the userpage one should be deleted, they should be taught how to impove the article, and add real sources. --MahaPanta (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - WP:NOBLECAUSE and all that. Unless there's a raftload of new sources out there, the original decision still should stand, despite forumshopping by the initial poster, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed to the Admins First of all, the latest version of article is yet to be written. The article at User:Extolmonica/Youth United is written by some other individual and I don't take the liability for the same. I am obviously going to write in much different manner providing substantial third party sources. Please guide me as how to write the article in my user space. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created a test article Dear admins I have created a test article for Youth United at User:Maihunggoi/Sandbox. I would request the admins to please move this article to main space Youth United and Unprotect it for further modifications. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but that one's worse than the last one, with not even a pretense of an indication of notability. If this organization is notable, where are the links to substantial coverage of its activities in reliable sources? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what do you mean by reliable sources. Couldn't you see the sources mentioned, which were primarily the National newspapers in India? If you were looking for our articles in Time Magazine or so then I would request to to be a little rational in deciding over anything. Look over the websites of National Newspapers like Times of India, Hindustan Times, Indian Express and Tribune India and see what notability you are looking for now. I request all admins to be rational and flexible to deal with this case. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be OK now, with a little more work. I clarified some of the references, to show at least which ones were coming from Reliable 3rd party sources, but they still need proper expansion. Not all of them are significant mentions, but some of them are , especially [1], and they are from major Indian newspapers. If you finish formatting them correctly using the cite templates, they will be much more impressive, and reasonably so. I think it can go back to mainspace, and if anyone wants to list it for AfD, they can do so.DGG (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Extolmonica/Youth_United Looks viable for mainspace. Although I think almost all of it is useless unencyclopediac minutae (extensive self-governance info), there's a kernel of a notable group here now. DMacks (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The request Dear admins, thanks for finally showing some indications to uphold my article. I am ready to improve the article to any extend. The article User:Extolmonica/Youth_United was created by some other person and I don't seek upholding of this article necessarily. Nevertheless, the article User:Maihunggoi/Sandbox is created by me and I certainly seek the admins to consider this article for the main space. Whatever improvements is being sought, shall be done, and in this regard I would like to know more about cite templates as was suggested by DGG. This article was created after careful consideration of the last rejected/deleted articles. Despite severe confidentiality and internal issues I was able to quote various documents/certificates, especially [2] and [3], which is equivalent to Wikimedia's own [4]. These certificates are issued after very careful observation and inspection by the Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. (please refer [5] and [6]). The certificate of registration [7] is just an indication of mere existence, but certificates issued by Income Tax Department (mentioned in 2 and 3) exhibit implied notability themselves, as these certificates are only issued to very notable organizations. In the case of Wikimedia Foundation Inc, the certificate (mentioned in 4) was issued only after almost 2 years of its existence, only after verifying its notability and value to the society, and same is the case with Youth United. I hereby request the admins to take up this matter and consider the article User:Maihunggoi/Sandbox and NOT User:Extolmonica/Youth_United to be moved to mainspace as Youth United. Thanks to DMacks for considering User:Extolmonica/Youth_United as viable to be moved to mainspace, nevertheless after observing User:Maihunggoi/Sandbox, s/he may find the newer article to be more viable and apt for mainspace. Thanks and Regards. Maihunggogoi (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Wal-Mart (disambiguation) – Relist. Consensus in this DRV wasn't very clear, but I don't see anything wrong with having another AfD to decide if it should be kept or deleted. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I had created this page a while back, and it was speedy deleted. I did not know it was previously created and deleted, and I know little about the previous version. The page that I created, I feel, meets Wikipedia:Disambiguation guidelines, and therefore, should be included. In this and this list are at least several titles that have a substantially different meaning from the title "Wal-Mart" itself. Tatterfly (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse valid CSD G4 — There is Category:Wal-Mart which l covers everything that a dab would. Since all of these Wal-Mart pages are, in fact, related to Wal-Mart the business, there isn't actually any ambiguity in need of dab. This was all said in AfD#2. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore and relist — valid CSD G4 redeleting the page in line with a badly flawed AfD#2. A third AfD can better decide what to do about lists, cats, dabs, &c than DRV can. See my comment below. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, nothing unclear about the destination of the main Wal-Mart page or about the result of the AfD. All these pages belong in some way to the WalMart family and as such their links should be inlined into the content of the Wal-Mart page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's more to it than that, because of WP:CLN. The underlying point here is to think of ways to group Wal-Mart-related articles to help encyclopaedia users to find them.

    A category is not, by itself, adequate as a navigation aid. Oh, sure, experienced Wikipedians who can use categories proficiently don't struggle with it, but we're writing an encyclopaedia for an audience of the general public here.

    A navbox for moving between the articles, a disambiguation page, and/or a List of Wal-Mart articles (which is presently a redirect, for reasons I find very perplexing) are all options to consider.

    I think if we decide we can't have a Wal-Mart (disambiguation), we need to consider what provision we should have in its place.

    Personally I'm not inclined towards the navbox idea. Wal-Mart already has navboxes, and there are too many articles in the category to conveniently group in another navbox.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Very good points. The history of the list is worth looking at. It's certainly a valid CSD G4 given the conclusions of AfD#2, but it looks to me as if we should revisit the AfD since it did not consider constructive alternatives such as the obvious-to-me-now remedy of moving the page back to List of Wal-Mart articles. I'm considering changing my !vote to restore and relist; the reason for another AfD is so that the article isn't CSD G4 anymore. A third AfD, how lovely. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - after looking at some of the other pages starting with the title "Wal-Mart," I found several to be distinct enough from the Wal-Mart corporation itself that they would not belong solely in a List of Wal-Mart articles. The purpose of a disambiguation page is for navigation, and one who was looking more a more obscure meaning of "Walmart" (or similar) would visit a disambiguation page to find it, not "list of Wal-Mart articles." Sebwite (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article that was G4 deleted did not address the reasons AfD #2 deleted it. Namely the "partial title matches" section here—it was still a list comprising things that were not the same title, they merely included the word. Valid G4. ÷seresin 07:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it was, Seresin, but with this very good-faith case, we're trying to be a little more helpful than that. If we can't have this page, then what system shall we use to group these articles for the benefit of end-users?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most missing entries seem to be noted in the main article earlier, but if something's missing, add it. But most of the things in those categories absolutely do not belong in a disambiguation pages, whose purpose is to disambiguate things with very similar names, not list related topics. ÷seresin 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, and I'm not arguing for retaining this disambiguation page. As explained above, my position is that this content belongs in the List of Wal-Mart articles, the history of which article is highly relevant to this DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for all the above arguments, It does seem that one in particular, Walmarting (with the redirect Walmart (neologism)), is the similar enough to the common title "Wal-Mart" to be disambiguated, but it would not make sense to put it on a hatnote either. It also does not belong in the see also section, because a see also section is supposed to list articles that one who reads that article may also be interested in reading, and it is not relevant enough to the Wal-Mart corporation to list in a see also section. Other titles include Walmart First Tee Open at Pebble Beach, a tournament that uses the name "Wal-Mart" (derived from and sponsored by the company, but otherwise unrelated, and therefore inappropriate for a see also section), and Wal-Mart camel, formerly an article, but now merged with the title redirecting, and given that name only because of the location where it was found. There is no standard on Wikipedia to substitute disambiguation pages with pages titled List of _____ articles. That would be like replacing Honolulu (disambiguation) with List of Honolulu articles on the basis that everything listed there is somehow tied to the city of Honolulu, and therefore should not be disambiguated. Sebwite (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easy to come up with things we can't do, and reasons why we can't do them. It's a little more challenging to come up with things that Wikipedia policy does let us do to group articles with similar themes so users can find them. I'd like to invite you to think of something constructive.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:09, 3 July 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_July_1&oldid=1142540341"