Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 15: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:38, 15 January 2008

< January 14	Deletion review archives: 2008 January	January 16 >

15 January 2008

Independent Schools Barbarians

A very significant new development in UK Rugby. Article was well written although needed work to make it encyclopedic, it also needed Wikifying. It was referenced. [1] Paste (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no access to the article so I am unable to assess compliance with A7. However, it is worth mentioning that unlike the US, where schools sports is a big deal, generally schools sports teams are not notable in the UK. However, junior rugby union is not well covered and this could certainly be incorporated in a new Junior rugby union in the United Kingdom page which would be a valuable addition to our coverage. BlueValour (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Delaney

Subject of article is involved with recent event that happened less than 48 hours ago. Article was in process of being improved (and vandalized) when AfD started. AfD had gone for about 14 hours when closed citing a "clear consensus". Disagree that there was a clear consensus and also feel the community process of decision making was cut short. ^{The following is disputed; see below}Closing admin also cited vandalism, which I agree was a problem but by apply semi-protect would have mitigated the majority of those concerns. Benjiboi 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cited vandalism as my reason to protect recreation, not delete it. Endorse my own close. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm notice you didn't engage the deleting admin in why they closed it to see if your problem could be addressed that way. Is that not still standard practise? Hiding T 22:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that the filer should have done this, please consider it moot at this stage. I'm not overturning the close myself, and Benjiboi appears to want it undeleted, and no middle ground exists for a compromise (that has been suggested to this point). Daniel (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to consider it moot, it's just it's the second time I've seen it happen in two days, and the last time it happened I was in discussion with the deleting admin. In this case I doubt there is an acceptable compromise. Basically you have to wonder if we need a new speedy based on fleeting news coverage. Hiding T 23:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion; this isn't one of those situations where the notability of a subject can be altered through the unearthing of a reference. We know every reason why he might be deemed worthy of an article; and we can say that those reasons do not trump our BLP policies (not to mention NOT#NEWS). BLACKKITE 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion: WP:BLP trumps consensus (and in this case agrees with consensus), I honestly don't know why this was brought to DRV, looks like an obvious case. Wizardman 23:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per others. I can see how an admin could justify a snow, there's only two keep arguments and one is from an anon. I don't think Wikipedia is too harmed in not having an article, all we'd be doing is regurgitating press that would otherwise top the search results. Hiding T 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Howard

The page seems to have been deleted six times (the last time in April 2007) because a nonnotable individual made the article about themselves. I wish to create a page by this name about the former New York Yankees secondbaseman ([2]). It is currently under protection with the reason "deprecating protected titles". NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the simplest way is to create the article in your user space and then ask any admin to remove the protection and move it across. BlueValour (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of recent automobile models by type

Request for clarification ignored, delete votes believed to be misguided

Endorse deletion. Closing was a valid interpretation of the consensus, and no procedural errors appear to have been made. What makes you think that the delete !votes might have been misguided? Please be reminded that DRV is not AFD round 2. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The delete votes mostly made reference to this information being duplicated elsewhere, as well as objecting to the term 'recent'. I looked in the places being mentioned and everywhere else I could think of and cannot find any duplication of the article content, so I requested clarification. Next thing, the article was deleted without any reply. I appreciate what DRv is for, I had not made a decision either way as I could not see on what basis the delete votes were being made. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Cobb

The comment in the deletion log claims that the article qualified for speedy deletion under CSD A7, "no indication of importance/significance". However, the indication of importance is right in the article fragment shown: Cobb is a published novelist who has contributed to an undisputedly significant series. Also, a quick search of Amazon.com shows that he (an author by that name, anyway) has been publishing books since at least as far back as 1997. --DocumentN (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted article contained only two sentences: "James H. Cobb is the author of The Arctic Event released in 2007. The book continues the Covert-One series of books based on the work of Robert Ludlum." There is not a single assertion of notability in that content. Maybe Cobb is notable enough for Wikipedia, I can't tell, but it doesn't become clear from this article. Endorse deletion. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - being an author alone is not an assertion of notability. NF24^{(radio me!)} 23:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Dance Revolution games

All deleted as "blatant advertising" by Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I'll readily agree that a number of these articles needed work. However, this work was needed because they were subpar, not because "advertising was in fact the sole purpose of the articles' existence". Most concerned topics which were pretty clearly notable, given the stature of the DDR franchise. At the very least, this deserves some sort of organized discussion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious overturn I'm inclined to invoke WP:DP for this. Articles that have been edited by multiple editors for four years don't fall under G11. G11 is for promotional material posted by someone with an economic interest in a Wikipedia entry. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn as there was real content; I'm not qualified to comment on the actual articles beyond that. Should have been undeleted and perhaps sent to AfD instead of making it necessary to bring these here. (But I think that even if there wasnt COI in writing an article, the effect can still be advertising and if there is no non-advertising core, appropriate for speedy. I've seen many such--sometimes fans write them.) DGG (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn The apparent assumption that these articles are advertising inserted by Konami into Wikipedia is just plain silly. The Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME article, for example, had existed for 4 years and had 300 edits, including a number of admins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - These don't even belong on AfD IMO. Clear-cut keeps for me, they are all notable in their own right. Definitely were not speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the above. --W.marsh 21:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - clearly an invalid application of CSD G11. NF24^{(radio me!)} 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 Request for clarification ignored, delete votes believed to be misguided
 *'''Endorse deletion'''. Closing was a valid interpretation of the consensus, and no procedural errors appear to have been made. What makes you think that the delete !votes might have been misguided? Please be reminded that DRV is not AFD round 2. [[Special:Contributions/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Aecis|Brievenbus]]</sup> 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
+:* The delete votes mostly made reference to this information being duplicated elsewhere, as well as objecting to the term 'recent'. I looked in the places being mentioned and everywhere else I could think of and cannot find any duplication of the article content, so I requested clarification. Next thing, the article was deleted without any reply. I appreciate what DRv is for, I had not made a decision either way as I could not see on what basis the delete votes were being made. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 23:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 ====[[:James H. Cobb]]====