Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 29

< June 28	Deletion review archives: 2007 June	June 30 >

29 June 2007

Sweet Noise

Article clearly asserts notability. I tried to contest this prod, but Spartaz refused to undelete the article, stating that it was a7 - but it's not: it clearly asserts notability. A7 says nothing about sourcing anyway, though I can include some: Polish newspaper, independent South African site calling it a "top Polish band" (I can look for others, but I speak no Polish). The archived version of the page can be found here. 64.178.96.168 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 London car bombs

A deletion discussion was never permitted. Event happened today (29 Jan) and both of the AfD discussions were speedily closed today. First was closed with just two comments (lasted just 14 minutes since start to closure). Second with mere four comments (lasted just 13 minutes since start to closure). I feel this is a minor event that is worthy of a wikinews article but not a wikipedia article. ~~A merge would be a fine alternative to delete.~~

-- Cat ^chi? 20:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse closure if you want a merge why do you want an AFD? Just discuss on the article talk page. At any rate it's impossible to assess how important this will be in the long run at this point... if people want to generate a verifiable article here for now, that's fine. --W.marsh 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew merger suggestion. It isn't worth a merger. -- Cat ^chi? 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Overturn speedy - it's worth having a discussion, and falls under no categories of WP:CSK. The Evil Spartan 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg

I do not believe the closing admin followed policy in deleting this image. His closing comments indicated that he deleted the image based not on the consensus of the people who commented below, but on his own opinion that the image violated WP:NFCC #8. In the discussion below, 3 Wikipedians (Abu, Howcheng, and Ilse) stated that they believed the image to violate NFCC #8, while 8 Wikipedians (me, Pageant, nadav, Mecu, Angelo, Videmus Omnia, TCC, and Andrew c) stated that they believed the image passed NFCC #8. (In addition, Knulclunk voted to keep the image, but did not say why, and Iamunknown thought the image should be deleted, but gave no opinion of whether the image passed NFCC #8 or not, since his argument was based on other criteria.) I can't see any way to interpret 3 to 8 against as being consensus for deletion based on NFCC #8. In the instructions for administrators page, it says "Before deleting an image, make sure. . . No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." This was not followed. There were disagreements as to whether this image passed both NFCC #2 and NFCC #8, but I can't see how anyone could in good faith come to the conclusion that there was consensus to delete. I informed the closing admin of this, but he does not appear willing to revisit his decision. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the image because the arguments that the image didn't meet WP:FUC, particularly #8 and #2, were particularly compelling, and the arguments that it did not were not. WP:IFD's standard that Quadell is quoting are for typical editorial actions, not fair-use issues. Fair-use issues are, broadly: do not allow an image unless and until an image can just justified as fair-use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: If an image clearly violates policy, we can't keep it, even if a lot of people vote "Keep" just because they like it. In this case, however, the contention that the image violates NFCC#8 (that it doesn't "contribute significantly to an article") is a matter for the community to decide. A closing admin should follow consensus, not his own personal opinion on how important an image is. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a lot of people contend an image is useful, but that isn't a standard that meets WP:FUC #8, then the force of their numbers counts for nothing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fields (1970s band)

Should not have been deleted because it passes criterion 6 of WP:MUSIC due to Andy McCulloch's membership in the band. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and expand. Speedy was valid, as the article didn't mention the involvement of anyone notable. A decent article should be possible for this notable (but extremely short-lived) prog band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete/expand. Did you talk to the deleting admin on this? Seems likes that could have avoided a DRV. --W.marsh 20:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

Process error. This category was deleted on 25 June following a deletion discussion in which only the nominator himself had commented. This was probably because few people knew about it, as there was no notice on the main article UMIST of the category, as suggested in Wikipedia guidelines for category deletions [1]. I was one of the main contributors to the deleted category, and I only found out about the proposed deletion a few hours after it had taken place. Previously suggestions regarding articles and categories related to UMIST or Manchester University have always attracted vigorous and knowledgable debate on the appropriate talk pages. I therefore request that the category deletion is reversed and relisted, with notification on the UMIST article page so that others can join the discussion. Although I'm asking for a relisting on the grounds of process, I would be equally happy with the categrory deletion simply being overturned, as I feel there is no prospect of reaching a consensus on this deletion. I myself strongly oppose the deletion of this category and there are solid reasons for retaining it. (The nominator has been kind enough to chat with me about those reasons on my user talk page - See [2] ) Dodo64 13:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19#University_of_Manchester. Chick Bowen 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist These were names of the 2 precursor institutions to U.Manchester, and there are major relationship problems between the UMIST & the merged university; this is presumably a desire to keep their alumni separate. On the principle, the guideline for notifying people about XfDs other than CfDs is rarely observed, & even resisted. I think it's essential that they be notified, These are obscure processes to most WP editors, as it usually doesn't pay to keep checking them just in case something relevant is on the list. On the fundamental issue of fairness, this needs a wider discussion. Invoking IAR for the sake of elementary fairness is one of the best places to use it. I would propose a policy change, but requiring notice at XfDs has in the past been rejected. DGG 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny_Sveinson

VFD_question Was poking through my watchlist to clean it out a bit, and remembered this article: Danny Sveinson, which was deleted back in 2005. I submit that the subject is notable, for reasons that I state in the original incarnation, but which were later removed in the version of the article presented in its VFD. Furthermore, it appears that the old version of this article was never examined for the purposes of the VFD. It's worth noting that I'm not really heavily invested in this article anymore, but I'm curious to find out if that version of the article would provide notability. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to copy it to your talk page, but it looks like I was beaten to it. By the looks of things this would have, shall we say, an uphill battle to pass an AfD to say the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think the several television appearances and especially the CBC would be enough? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Long

SENSIBLE_NEW_ARTICLE -->I am Adam Long from the Reduced Shakespeare Company, and I'd like to write a new article about myself. I know that it's not the done thing, but it looks like people have written a lot of rubbish under 'Adam Long' and I'd like to write a short piece detailing my work with Reduced Shakespeare and post-Reduced Shakespeare (Raindance award winning film, comedy for Lucasfilm, radio work for BBC Radio Four). Best, ajaxsemaphor Ajaxsemaphor 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted Whether with good intentions or otherwise, autobiographies aren't acceptable. Please see WP:COI for detals. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse salting for now. I'm technically the deleting admin, but only because I did a mass migration of Salted pages from old salting to Title Protection salting a few days ago, and thus I had to delete the old salt page. I did not delete/salt the article originally. That said, looking through the history, we have a page that has indeed had a lot of "rubbish" in the past. Student vanity pages, etc. But the idea of un-salting this just so that another potential vanity page can be written, with no idea of whether the new page will be of any worth, is not appealing. My suggestion is that the nominator withdraw this DRV request, and first build out their intended article in theri User space, maybe at User:Ajaxsemaphor/Adam Long for instance. Then, once they actually are able to show that the intended article meets the various project policies (WP:BIO, WP:RS, etc.) a new DRV could be submitted and the situation could actually be effectively evaluated. As it is, the proposed new article is just too big of a question mark in my mind to support the unsalting of the page title. - TexasAndroid 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the suggestion of salting. I'd be happy to work with Adam to compile a decent biography. My early research suggests that Adam is not only an early member of the Reduced Shakespeare Company which had a pretty heavy West End presence at one time, long a fixture at the Criterion Theatre in Piccadilly, but also The Barn, the screenplay of which he cowrote with fellow Reduced Shakespeare alumnus Jake Broder, won a Raindance award at British Independent Film Awards in 2004. More recently he contributed the script to "Star Wars: Shortened!", a Sky Movies-commissioned movie which does to George Lucas' magnum opus what the Reduced company earlier did to Shakespeare's oeuvre. --Tony Sidaway 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With Tony personally mentoring the page creation, I would consider unsalting to be acceptable under that circumstance. - TexasAndroid 13:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect and undelete if there's anything salvageable. WP:COI says If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. - well they won't write anything if it's salted. In addition, autobiography is discouraged but not outright forbidden and since Tony S is offering to help out we shouldn't have any worries at all. CIreland 14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to be salvaged. Of the three previously deleted versions, two were for different, totally NN Adam Longs, and the third, which was for the same Adam Long, read, in total: "Adam Long is a hilarious member of the Reduced Shakespeare company. He, along with his fellow members, has become a role model for many people out in the world who find Shakespeare dull." - TexasAndroid 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt, conditional on Tony S's mentoring of the page creation. (Changing my opinion) - TexasAndroid 14:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]