The Medic Droid – speedy restore as clearly accidental deletion but the article really needs some tlc – SpartazHumbug! 18:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The last version of the article was A7'ed and salted despite being Kept at AfD in late 2008. The group signed to Epic Records, released a full-length which hit the Billboard Heatseekers chart ([1]), and were featured in a massive front-page story in the Phoenix New Times ([2]), in addition to other coverage ([3], [4], [5], etc, etc). Would like to have this Unsalted so I can set about writing up a proper sourced article since the group meets WP:MUSIC; please Restore the last version of the article if it was worth having. Chubbles (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion- to quote the second paragraph of WP:SPEEDY: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements.". The page was AFD'd in November 2008, and closed as a Keep, and then speedy deleted in January 2009. And since it was deleted a7, and not g12, I'm guessing there was no copyvio. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I am talking on behalf of Lolene Everett. This page has been deleted due to too many creations, most of which were out of our hands. With research, i have also found that this page has been deleted in the past due to lack of evidence of Lolene as an recording artist etc. You will now find a lot more evidence on the net. I did indeed create the last page but i saved it without putting any of the references etc. in! The page was deleted by Sandstein. I did originally try to get the page unprotected as it says it is protected, but the folks over at the unprotection place sent me here. I have now created the page on my userspace so you may see how it will turn out. Please let the page be created as Lolene has her debut album coming out shortly. Thanks
lolenelolene (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The draft is cited entirely to a single theinsider article and to myspace. More sources, and particularly reliable ones, would be necessary. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? Used as many resources as available. A lot more than the J R Rotem page! Thanks
lolenelolene (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, any reliable sources? ((The draft is the nominator's user page if anyone else was confused where it was)). SpartazHumbug! 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, the insider is a well known and reliable source, and so is celebrity mound. All articles match one another in reliable content. All facts are correct, Lolene herself is happy with the content, i can give you her contact information if necessary? Her official myspace is as reliable as can be and so is Discogs.
Myspace is never a reliable source. Nor are blogs. Reliable sources are things like mainstream newspapers, academic journals, and books published by mainstream publishers. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Endorse deletion at this time. The draft cites roughly three sources, of which one is the subject's MySpace and the other two are the same text, The Insider is an acknowledged copy-paste from what appears to be a blog post on Celebrity Mound by an unidentified author. "Lolene is completing her anticipated debut album". Come back when it goes platinum, eh? Wikipedia is not here to build the buzz. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Blog-sourced (Insider is just recopying a posting from elsewhere), so no good verification of notability. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:20, 19 April 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 Secret Mitchell – Closure endorsed, though there is plurality support for the idea that "No Consensus" would have been the preferable close. The difference in this case is minor. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The result of this discussion was NOT keep, which the closing admin closed it as. I feel that the result was merge or no concensous. I feel this needs to be reviewed immediately. Dalejenkins | 00:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close A tough one. I do agree with the closing Admin. IMO DGG's reply is weighty and WP:NOTE is the issue. I can see why the close is being contested however as it's not really clear. Perhaps closing as No Consensous would of been diplomatic. SunCreator (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD isn't really the place to argue about merges and redirects and if there is secondary sourcing then deletion isn't going to be a valid outcome. SpartazHumbug! 06:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the article should be merged, then reviewing the AFD isn't really the right course of action. Try WP:MRFD =- Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Whether it should be merged or redirected is another matter. I note that an anon has already redirected it, claiming consensus. I'm not sure that's wrong, but there should be a discussion first. My argument for keeping did not go into that issue. DGG (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Strictly it's a no consensus, but that results in a keep anyway. The nominator, or anyone else for that matter can feel free to merge the article, or propose merging on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While this could well have been closed as "no consensus", I do not see anything out of process in closing it as keep in lieu of no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse non-delete outcome, but prefer no consensus. Dismissing these delete arguments outright may have support in policy (depending on interpretation, e.g. WP:ATD), but I think it is at the edge of the current norms of admin discretion. WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deletion is to be a last resort may be a relevant discussion. Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
