- Venture Capital Investment Competition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
It was nominated for speedy delete on the basis that the editor thought it was spam. I objected to the speedy delete because it is actually an organization, and many notable universities around the world participate in this. A few hours later, it was deleted. I believe if someone still felt it should be deleted, it should've gone to AFD to form a consensus. It did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I have spoken to closing editor [1] already, who disagrees with me, and said I can just take it to the deletion review if I wish. Dream Focus 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. This was actually deleted under WP:CSD#A7 rather than as spam. The claim that 50 top business schools participate in this competion is clearly a claim of importance or significance. I note that the deleting admin cited lack of sources as the reason for deletion [2] (putting the justification on Dreamfocus's user page rather than the user talk page), which is explicitly not a reason for speedy deletion. Notwithstanding any of that, sources can easily be found.[3][4] Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my haste to get my initial feelings about this known I didn't notice that this article is also about a subject to which WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply, being about a competition, not "a real person, an organization ... or web content". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The G11 speedy was declined, but the page was later deleted as A7. I'd like to see some refs for this, because it would be dysfunctional to overturn it only to delete again at AFD for lacking notability. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd like to see some refs then just look at the searches I linked above and take your pick. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google searches are not references. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What an absolute non-sequitur. Google searches are not references, but can be used to find references. You can't expect me to add any of them to the article, because there is no article to add them to. The place to discuss whether any particular sources are sufficient to provide notability is AfD, not DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn due to significant process problems. Stifle, I think that raising the bar beyond what speedies are for is the wrong thing to be doing here. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I found this page on the "unpatrolled" log, which is odd considering the number of contributors who seem to have looked at it. I don't have any axe to grind, as I wasn't familiar with the subject matter. When I looked at the article, I saw a speedy delete nomination, which, on looking at the article, I felt was justified. For me it's not only borderline advertising but it also looks like a commercial venture - see the website's message to potential sponsors: Your tax-deductible contribution helps support a great educational program and puts your firm in good company - and I don't see evidence of notability in the article. Maybe a $10,000 prize is indicative of some level of importance, but then Readers Digest offers people that kind of prize every day. I would have been quite prepared to discuss it, but I don't restore deleted articles just because other people demand that I do. I certainly did not cite lack of references as the reason for deletion; the reason for deletion is clear from the deletion log, but I pointed out to the complainant that he had been advised to include references by User:Astronaut, whom he was quoting as a backer of his comments. As for putting my response on the user page instead of the talk page - well, you'll have noticed that User:Dream Focus doesn't sign with four tildes, so I think that was an excusable error. Deb (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I worded my comment badly - I wasn't trying to imply that any blame attaches to you for putting the comment on the "wrong" page, but simply pointing out where it was in case other editors hadn't been able to find it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted under CSD A7
7. An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
- The administrator's reason given was: (Deletion log); 20:58 . . Deb "Venture Capital Investment Competition" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
- It listing all the notable universities its involved with, should've been a clear indication. Dream Focus 14:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Overturn I am not sure the competition is separately notable in the absence of 3rd party references, but this is a question for AfD. Completely invalid A7, since it is not one of the permissible categories, being neither an organization nor a group, but an event. And the deleting admins justification is in part that the website--the website not the article -- was partly promotional. We obviously need to tighten, not loosen, the requirements for speedy --and the attention paid to what admins do. Unlike the deleting nominator, I do restore deleted articles and send to AfD when a plausible case is made in good faith by an established editor (which is rare: most challenges are not plausible in the least). Perhaps we need a rule about that as well. DGG (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As you well know, and as I have said above, I am quite prepared to restore articles and have done so many times, when contributors have made a good case. This is not what happened. Deb (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at AFD per DGG. Looks like there is at least a minimum indication of importance. As he put above, notability is a different thing and can be addressed at AFD. MuZemike 17:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at AfD. Let's charitably assume the admin concerned suffered a momentary lapse of judgment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, in at least one respect - I believed that the "little R" mark indicated a registered company, but it seems it's just a trade mark. Deb (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It means a registered trademark. It's harder to own a registered trademark than a registered company, and registered trademarks are rarer.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
