Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 24: Difference between revisions
→Spreadtrum Communications: restored |
→Host.net: It was a copyvio of <nowiki>http://www.host.net/index.cfm?id=27</nowiki>, just like the version previously deleted. Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore? Endorse, and if... |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
*'''Relist''', especially since the article changed substantially from when the "delete" opinions were made. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Relist''', especially since the article changed substantially from when the "delete" opinions were made. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and relist''' to allow a more in-depth discussion now that the issues have been clearly identified. It is helpful that this action now has the support of the closing admin. [[User:Smile a While|Smile a While]] ([[User talk:Smile a While|talk]]) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn and relist''' to allow a more in-depth discussion now that the issues have been clearly identified. It is helpful that this action now has the support of the closing admin. [[User:Smile a While|Smile a While]] ([[User talk:Smile a While|talk]]) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
*It was a copyvio of <nowiki>http://www.host.net/index.cfm?id=27</nowiki>, just like the version previously deleted. Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore? Endorse, and if someone feels motivated to start an encyclopedia article from scratch, instead of a press release, they should go right ahead. —[[User talk:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:Amalgam Digital]]==== |
====[[:Amalgam Digital]]==== |
Revision as of 23:25, 24 June 2008
- Host.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
The following article clearly had a consensus of Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host.net with 9 out of 10 opinions. In addition, secondary and third party sources from creditable – reliable and verifiable sources were provided to establish Notability. I believe the closing administrator allowed personal standards and/or criteria to influence their judgment when closing the Afd as delete. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. ShoesssS Talk 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn At least two of those who contributed to the AFD believed that there were sufficient sources available to meet the WP:CORP notability guideline. I cannot see any consensus against this opinion in the AFD. The nominator seems to have used their belief that the sources were insufficient above that of those who contributed to the AFD. No matter how many of the keep opinions that did not comment on notability you ignore, there is still definitely no consensus for deletion. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- A tricky one, most of the Google news hits linked to by Shoessss do not refer to Host.net, those that do link to this company seem to be press releases mostly. Still, to delete when there was a clear keep opinion, albeit most of the keeps weren't based on policy or guidelines, is dodgy. I'd favour an Overturn & relist at AfD then those editors that believe there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can supply them. RMHED (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn - I can certainly appreciate the closer's rationale that the keep arguments were, at best, weak - however, even if you discount the keep !votes en masse there is but a single !vote for deletion which can hardly be deemed a reflection of community consensus. Shereth 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist (edit conflict) per RHMED. Most Google (and Google News) hits do not refer to Host.net, but nine keep !votes can't be ignored. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- As the closing admin, I think that a relisting might indeed be the best way to proceed. I understand the opinions expressed here that, even though the "keep" opinions were weak, the two "delete" opinions (including the nomination) were not very plentiful. A relisting might produce a clearer consensus. Sandstein 22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Relist, especially since the article changed substantially from when the "delete" opinions were made. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist to allow a more in-depth discussion now that the issues have been clearly identified. It is helpful that this action now has the support of the closing admin. Smile a While (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was a copyvio of http://www.host.net/index.cfm?id=27, just like the version previously deleted. Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore? Endorse, and if someone feels motivated to start an encyclopedia article from scratch, instead of a press release, they should go right ahead. —Cryptic 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Amalgam Digital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Lack of Citations... I understand the reason for speedy deletion, and that was for lack of citations. i guess i did not truely understand that the citations needed posting immediately, for that i apologize. The Record label and the digital store exist and would appreciate another shot to create the page with the proper citations. Thanks. Amaldigi 19:28, June 24, 2008
- I hope the A7 wasn't for "lack of citations". A7 doesn't mention the need for citations anywhere. But since there's no cached version, I won't comment on it. If you'd like to work on recreating an article for the band, I suggest you first work on it in your userspace, though you might first want to create another account as the one you are using currently has a username which may violate our username policy. Then you work on it in a sandbox (at User:USER_NAME/Sandbox or User:USER_NAME/Amalgam Digital or something similar) and bring it back here when you believe it passes our notability guidelines for musicians and is properly sourced in reliable sources. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment maybe one of the seven speedies had to do with citations, but I doubt it. User has been blocked, I think SALT might be applicable pending this DRV. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, RHaworth already has SALTed it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- See that now, I didn't when I was looking at the logs. My bad TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, RHaworth already has SALTed it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep deleted I think the latest version should have been deleted under WP:CSD#G11 instead of WP:CSD#A7. I see one incarnation was deleted under PROD, but it wouldn't have survived AFD. GRBerry 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment from deleting admin. The "citations" in question refer to the fact that the new baseline standard for notability is coverage in multiple reliable sources. So, if you can't reference articles where the subject has gotten coverage, that leads to non-notability (not to mention non-verifiability). That said, I could just have easily deleted it under G11 as A7 - I picked the latter because, even if the language were made less promotional, the article would still fail notability, because there's no evidence of coverage of the label. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Geoffrey Hugo Lampe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
academic eminence User:clive sweeting
- Rewrite Here is the full text of the article, as edited by you only: "Geoffrey Hugo Lampe, Ely Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, edited the Patristic Greek Lexicon." GRBerry 16:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn Restore and rewrite-- to say someone is professor of Divinityy at Cambridge Univ. is an unmistakable assertion of significance. its not much of a stub, but its time we stopped deleting articles for being a stub. It does not have to show significance to pass speedy, just say something that indicates it. If sufficient importance doubted, that's why we have PROD and AfD. If not enough is said that's why we have {expand} and {uncited}. DGG (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- We could restore it, but it seems like a waste of time for a nearly-two-year-old speedy. It'd be quicker for you in the long run if you just recreate the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Allow recreation - As indicated by DGG this didn't meet the A7 criteria. However, an immediate restoration could easily result in a rapid AFD causing unnecessary extra work. I am with the pragmatic approach of lifebaka that the simplest approach is to rewrite it with rather more content and a source. Smile a While (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Partners in torah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
I am confused as to why this page was deleted given that it is an organization parallel to many others within the same field of Jewish Outreach Organizations e.g. Aish HaTorah, Ohr Somayach and more. I had emulated their editorial style and used sources no different than these pages.
The same is true of the page Jewpiter, which was also deleted. Claudbaker
- No offence to Orangemike here, but I'm going to have to say overturn because I'm pretty sure that didn't actually make A7. The cached version states that the program "currently has more than 13,000 participants", which makes me want to do a Gsearch to check for notability. A PROD or possibly an AfD would've been more appropriate. It very well may fail an AfD, but it at least deserves the chance. Also, you probably should've taken it up with the deleting admin before bringing it here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support myself. The requesting editor did not raise this deletion with me or the nominator before bringing it here; but I'm not gonna make any procedural whines about it. In a planet of 6.6 billion, 13,000 participants is not an assertion of notability in my book. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn 13,000 for a religion based organisartion is an assertion of significance. In fact, it might be for anything else also--the standard is not "world-wide significance". DGG (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Overturn probably just barely asserts enough significance to escape speedy deletion. RMHED (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- List at AfD, the assertion of notability is there although I highly doubt the claim will stick when subjected to community discussion. Shereth 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Userfy for improvement. Per WP:ORG, "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." May is permissive, so I endorse the deletion as appropriate and within the guidelines. I think the best approach is to allow the concerned editors to improve the article in userspace; it can be moved to main article space once notability is clearly asserted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn and list - this was a tight call but I think that there is just enough here to escape an A7. This is a division of Torah Umesorah, a notable organisation. Consequently, if it is determined that there is insufficient notability for a stand-alone page then the solution would be a merge into Torah Umesorah - National Society for Hebrew Day Schools. Smile a While (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Spreadtrum Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Unusual procedure of deleting,no warning or adding speedel tag,and didn't examine the deleting policy carefully Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- First, I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and assume that the cached version was what's deleted since there's only one deletion. The cached version doesn't make A1 because it's pretty easy to tell what the article will be talking about, a fabless semiconductor company. However, there's nothing in there which says why the company is important or significant, and failing to assert that is another criterion for speedy deletion. So, while I don't agree with the CSD used for deletion, I believe the content should stay deleted. Feel free to write a lengthier version which does assert the company's importance, however. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Its IPO on the NASDAQ do signify the notability even for a layman reader.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Which isn't on the cached version. If it was on the deleted version, it was added after the cached version was taken, and the reason I can't see is I lack access to Special:Undelete. If this is indeed the case, feel free to disregard my !vote. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- See this thread. My thinking was more or less close to Lifebaka's in that I saw it straight off as an A7, then, seeing the nom's A1, for me the single sentence was not enough to give the business context so I let the nom's category stand. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn. WP:CSD#A1 doesn't apply because the stub uniquely identified its subject. WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply, in my opinion, because the stub referenced the NASDAQ stock symbol for the article, which is a claim of importance by being a company with a publicly traded stock. GRBerry 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Only noting here, I don't find a NASDAQ stock symbol in itself to be an assertion of importance, since it can be more or less purchased. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- You can find plenty of Category:Companies listed on NASDAQ,so whether to delete most of them is justified by your criteria?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd hope that most of these would also also have some notability beyond just being listed on Nasdaq. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, Gwen's right. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- You can find plenty of Category:Companies listed on NASDAQ,so whether to delete most of them is justified by your criteria?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Only noting here, I don't find a NASDAQ stock symbol in itself to be an assertion of importance, since it can be more or less purchased. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Uphold deletion (which would not rule out the later creation -- by Ksyrie or anybody else -- of a longer article about this company, an article that asserted notability and presented sources to back this up). -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn Actually, I think NASDAQ is an indicator of significance: "NASDAQ lists approximately 3,200 securities, of which 335 are non-U.S. companies from 35 countries representing all industry sectors. To qualify for listing on the exchange, a company must be registered with the SEC, have at least three market makers (financial firms that act as brokers or dealers for specific securities), and meet minimum requirements for assets, capital, public shares, and shareholders." from the WP article. Now, obviously SEC registration is a minimal requirement, but the other conditions are indicators of importance & enough to pass speedy in all cases. As for AfD, there are 3 levels, Global Select, Global, and Capital market. Global Select, which requires essentially $100 Million revenue (or $3 Million profit) for initial listing is I think certainly enough to pass AfD. The next category, Global, requires $15 million stockholders equity & $1 million income for initial listing (or a variety of approximate equivalents) and I would argue that is significant enough for AfD also. The third, Capital Market, requires only $5 million equity. or similar so I can see that some people might want to require other factors, like market share, for AfD.. See [1]. DGG (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn. There was sufficient context to identify it as a NASDAQ-listed company, and being listed on NASDAQ is an assertion of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn. It seems as though it has now been established that the company is notable, although there really wasn't any assertion of notability in the stub. Still, perhaps AfD would have been better for it then, but given that we now know it's listed on NASDAQ, the deletion should be overturned and the article expanded and sourced. ʝuѕтɛn 22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn as certainly not an A1. The version in the cache, which has no indication that this is a NASDAQ-listed company (as a non-admin I have no access to the deleted version), would have qualified as an A7 but now that it has been shown to be NASDAQ-listed a straight overturn is in order. Smile a While (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- As the deleting admin I'm happy to restore this following consensus that a NASDAQ listing in itself confers notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Reaction to Tim Russert's death (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
admin closed debate stating that the consensus was 'merge' which has stirred up a new debate on the article's talk page. Some additional admin and other opinions on this closing result and the process used would be appreciated. Rtphokie (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment about this process admin closed debate stating that the consensus was merge which they clarified here. There is NOTHING for this DRV to rule on - A merger discussion is ongoing on the talkpage, the outcome of this administration process will have no basis to influence or inform that editorial process. If at the talkpage, the consensus is that the article should be merged, it will be merged - regardless of what decisions are made here. --Killerofcruft (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- Paul Brunelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
This article was marked for speedy deletion for non-notability immediately after I posted it and then deleted shortly afterwards without regard to my comments on the talk page.
I actually thought I was doing a service by translating this article from the French Wikipedia. Why is the article notable enough for inclusion on the French Wikipedia, but not the English? Are we provincial? Is the article notable for French readers, but not for English readers? I think education is global. Anyone wanting to study any global topic anywhere in the world should be able to do so without regard to his or her native reading language.
I also checked the notability guidelines before posting. How can this artist not be notable? He pioneered a whole sub-genre of music and considered its founding father. His music has been recorded by major record labels, has had extensive radio airplay, and he has had his own daily radio program. His discography runs from 1944 to 1962 and includes 49 singles and 14 LPs. Billboard.com also has 7 listings of re-releases in the 2000's.
If anyone wants to check the French Wikipedia article, I can save you a few steps in getting a translation by providing this translated link
Jkolak (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- It might've been easier to just ask the deleting admin to rethink his decision first, but now that we're here... I'm not sure what the previous version stated, but from what I can see the guy appears to pass WP:MUSIC. I'd suggest, rather than complaining here to have it restored (which will probably take about a week), you should just go ahead and recreate the article. This will probably be the fastest solution. You should also make sure that the article does say why he's important up front, so that it won't be speedied again. If you don't already, try using the "show preview" button before saving. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted this, since their were no independent verifiable references to support what was claimed. I have no objection to recreation, although as indicated above it needs to make clear why he's notable, preferably with references. jimfbleak (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just a note, but there's no provision in A7 for sources. The issue there is separate from that of notability. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't get back to you Jim. I couldn't get back to this right away and your ID is no longer tagged on the recreate/deletion page. Part of my delay was in a computer crash which has kept me offline for a while, and in which I lost my document. If someone could please undelete it, I would be glad to rewrite to better suit your suggestions.Jkolak (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Userfy to User:Jkolak/Paul Brunelle. Advice for Jkolak: Add sources in the first edit, or create it in userspace first then move it when your done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn - While unsourced, it asserted rather plenty of importance over a 40 year career to avoid a speedy deletion. Actually we have a process that allows for smoother accomodation of interwiki translations: WP:Translation. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn "He is considered the pioneer of country in Quebec and the main source of influence on the artist who would popularize the genre, Willie Lamothe." That is a clear claim of significance, which is all that is needed to escape A7 speedy deletion. Lack of sources is an issue for PROD or AFD, which allow time to demonstrate the existence of sources. GRBerry 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn The criterion is no assertion at all, or at least no good faith assertion, and this unmistakably passes. It might need to be improved a little to pass afd, but that's for afd, not here. Contrary to what Jim thinks, "There were no independent verifiable references to support what was claimed" is not one of the reasons for speedy. I notice from his talk page that he has used this reason elsewhere as well. DGG (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC
- Overturn - Asserted notability. Sources not yet placed in the article is not A7 speedy deletion criteria. --Oakshade (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Category:British occupations (edit | [[Talk:Category:British occupations|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|CfD)
I am concerned that the decision that no consensus to delete had been reached (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 8#Category:British Occupations) did not reflect the debate concerning this category. My interpretation of the deletion debate is there was a consensus to delete. This category was created by User:DonaldDuck as an attack category and originally included wildly inappropriate articles such as the BAOR and the Falkland War, I reverted many of those changes resulting in a category that was watered down compared with its original formula. In addition to creating the category, he has also been deleting a similar category from articles related to the Soviet Army; namely Soviet Occupations. Its clear that he is acting with a POV agenda and the creation of this category is part of that. Of its own right, it doesn't seem worthy of categorisation since it contains very few articles. Its vague and ill-defined, could I for instance legitimately add Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy? On several policy grounds its worthy of deletion, there was a consensus to do so even if you ignored at least one comment which was for a weak delete, there was several arguments why it should be deleted, there was no real argument for it to be kept - at best it should be renamed. I can accept, with qualifications, that if properly used it could become a legitimate category but not in its current form Justin talk 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse my closure. Here's what I put on Justin's talk page: "...consensus isn't about numbers, it's about arguments. Clearly this wasn't an easy one, which is why no other admin had closed it earlier and it was 10 days overdue. There seemed a genuine division of opinion on whether the category could ever be used properly, at whatever name was chosen, which is why I called it as no consensus. Narson was a "weak delete" saying that it had potential if used correctly: that's an argument about use, not existence, of the category, and I gave that delete call less weight. There were some calls for a rename, which counted in favour of retention of the category in some form, but no consensus that this was the way forward. Hence, overall, no consensus but with closing comments that I thought we'd be back here again in due course - because I'm sure someone will initiate a wider discussion at some point." BencherliteTalk 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- All other participants in the discussion now notified with the same message. BencherliteTalk 23:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Read through the CfD, and there isn't any sort of consensus there. It's pretty evenly split between delete !votes and keep/rename !votes (both of which do mean overall retention). I endorse the no consensus closure. I'd say that the solution here would be to properly use it instead of deleting it. Work at it for a month or so, and if it's no working go back to CfD. And please keep in mind that a no consensus close doesn't preclude future CfDs on the cat. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)