Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 27: Difference between revisions
→Lizz Robbins: Endorse |
IronGargoyle (talk | contribs) →Lizz Robbins: closing discussion, result was deletion endorsed |
||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
====[[:Lizz Robbins]]==== |
====[[:Lizz Robbins]] (closed)==== |
||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
|||
* '''[[:Lizz Robbins]]''' – Deletion endorsed. – [[User:IronGargoyle|IronGargoyle]] 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
{{afdsock}} |
{{afdsock}} |
||
:{{la|Lizz Robbins}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Lizz Robbins|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Lizz Robbins}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizz Robbins|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
:{{la|Lizz Robbins}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Lizz Robbins|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Lizz Robbins}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizz Robbins|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
||
Line 101: | Line 109: | ||
*'''Endorse deletion''' - no procedural issues with the AfD. Eventually, someone will create an article on her written in a [[WP:N|neutral]] and [[WP:V|verifiable]] manner. In the meantime, I suggest those with a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] avoid the subject for now. -- [[User:Kesh|Kesh]] 23:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion''' - no procedural issues with the AfD. Eventually, someone will create an article on her written in a [[WP:N|neutral]] and [[WP:V|verifiable]] manner. In the meantime, I suggest those with a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] avoid the subject for now. -- [[User:Kesh|Kesh]] 23:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
====[[:Music City Legend Drum and Bugle Corps ]] (closed)==== |
====[[:Music City Legend Drum and Bugle Corps ]] (closed)==== |
Revision as of 00:18, 2 December 2007
- Yankee go home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
As frustrated as I am about a page I created being deleted without anyone popping a note on my talk page, and at that after someone had removed the prod for it, and with very little discussion, I decided I could take it. Except that page, being transwikied, will almost certainly not appear in its current form on wiktionary: see wikt:Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. Not only that, but the text itself will never actually be placed on the page to which it has been redirected, as the deletion discussion was saying it should. The phrase is one of the most notable ones of the 20th century (as can be seen from the sources given at wikt:Transwiki:Yankee go home, which were just a few among thousands that I found, and in that fact that someone else created a page on the English term in the Turkish language: tr:Yankee go home). If Wikipedia has decided that some terms are worth their own articles (e.g., truthiness, which isn't half as notable in that it's only a fad for the past couple years), then the standard should be applied across the board and equally. As such, this discussion did not have enough participation (only 3 participants, not including nominator, 2 of whom fell under WP:JUSTAVOTE), especially given that a prod was removed, and the deletion proposer didn't even notify me, the creator. As such, we should overturn the redirect. User:Part Deux (on extended Wikibreak) 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure (keep as redirect, though I do not have a firm opinion on which target is better). I see no process problems with the discussion. Deletion discussions do not have a quorum requirement and it is explicitly not a requirement to notify the page's creator. (In a wiki, you can't really say who the creator is anyway.) The AFD tag was on the page for the required 5 days. There was ample time for anyone watchlisting the page to see the tag and comment.
As to the content of the page, it was a mere dictionary definition - meaning and usage of a word or phrase. It had 7 months to be expanded and could not. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The deletion discussion got this right. The nominator is correct that the layout of the definition will probably be changed when it is moved to Wiktionary. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. The nominator also notes that we have articles on other terms. The solution is to move them to Wiktionary as well, not to propagate the problem here. I see no grounds to reverse the AFD decision. Rossami (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC) - Endorse redirect close - There was no other way to interpret that AfD. AfD does not require notification to validate the process. Removal of the prod without improvement of the article is a reason to delete the article, not to void the AfD discussion. Also, one AfD participant is enough if the AfD is listed for five days. The text itself was unsourced so it wouldn't improve Wikipedia by placing that unsourced text on the page to which it had been redirected. -- Jreferee t/c 08:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn & relist failure to notify is already considered impoliteness by the policy, and its unfairness here with the editor on a wikibreak is clear. Unfair AfDs should be sent back and redone. Removal of the prod, with or without improvement is not a reason for deletion until brought to AfD and consensus obtained. It is not assumed the original prod was correct. It would be appropriate to hold a fuller debate--the inadequate discussion should have been continued, not closed. DGG (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Failure to notify is not, and has never been, a requirement, and to suggest that a unanimous AfD be overturned because the originator of the article was not notified is absurd. And then on top of it, the person who wants to be nominated was on wikibreak? So some crappy article (and I'm not saying this article was crappy) has to stick around forever just because the original editor is on wikibreak? That's not policy and hopefully will never be policy. Corvus cornixtalk 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure - Article looked alright, didn't really qualify for deletion in my book, and didn't see any process problems the closure. I even remember editing this page when it was created, thought it was in August though, not April! — Rudget contributions 20:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse keep and redirect closure Since the edit history was kept the redirect consensus only holds for the article as it stood during the AfD. Anyone can access the edit history and use it to replace the redirect with an improved article. Looking at the dicdef that was there I agree that the redirect was better, but that doesn't mean it's impossibe to write a viable article on the term. And nothing in the closure prevents that. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure seems appropriate and within admin discretion surely. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Relist. No arguments based on policy or guidelines were provided for keeping or deletion, so there was no basis on which this could be closed either way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I realize a lot of people are currently commenting on the fact that the review was done according to process. But what about the fact that this appears to be an extremely notable saying? As said above, this statement is known worldwide, and goes way beyond other Wikipedia favorites such as truthiness. I would be glad to create a true article, not just a dictionary definition of it, given the chance. A lot really could be said about this notable subject. It will be a real shame if the administrator simply closes this debate based on a head-count without allowing recreation of a very notable subject. 128.118.226.88 09:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Berry Chill (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Please undelete the Berry Chill page. It is extremely significant to one of the hottest food crazes to hit the US -- froyo. What began with Pinkberry, ended with an investigation of the products real yogurt status. It was, in fact, NOT real yogurt. While the yogurt wars wage on in the US's East and West coasts, the fad has yet to hit the windy city (Chicago). Berry Chill will be the city's first yogurt restaurant, and one of the category's first to receive the National Yogurt Association seal, which proves that the product contains enough live and active cultures to be called real yogurt.It belongs on Wikipedia, along with its competitors that will surely find their way to Chicago soon. Berrychill 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC) It has great significance Berrychill (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Lizz Robbins (closed)
| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | ||
I'm voting to overturn the deletion of the page, there was no justification why this page was deleted. It is agreed that the page could use reformatting due to the fact that the author was new to wikipedia. I would like the opportunity to re-do this page in the correct format. The person is notable because of relation to a National distributed product as well as a cult following per the notabililty (bio-persons) page of Wikipedia. It contained enough importance and even a little more compared to the other models in the same catergory "Hip Hop Models".Knicksfan4ever (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
| ||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Skyliners Drum and Bugle Corps (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Grenadiers Drum and Bugle Corps (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Crusaders Drum and Bugle Corps (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Atlanta CorpsVets (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- Slon in Sadež (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
The article suited all veriability criteria with the source being the article at the slovenian Wikipedia. --Cptukbo (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Except another Wikipedia article can't be a reliable source. At any rate, it was deleted for not asserting any importance... and really, it didn't. It just described what kind of music the band made, but didn't explain if it was at all popular, important, etc. --W.marsh 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Still, the duo got the allnational Viktor award for being promissing young musicians. Would that, a list of less important achievements and a short description of their importance be enough for the restauration of the article? --Cptukbo (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- My thoughts as the deleting admin are on my talk page which in part brought this here. I can't really find much on the "Victor award" as a notable source for this band. Khukri 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any official record about the 2004 Viktor-s (out of date; otherwise,here's the official Viktor site with the list of this year's awards), but I got the 2004 list at a forum (please, take my word for it being true). You can read: V kategoriji strokovnih viktorjev: Igor Bračič in Jure Karas (the Slon in Sadež duo) za obetavno medijsko osebnost.
If the lack of importance would remain the only problem of the article (notability was also questioned - here is their short description at a popular music site and three articles about them in the weekly politics magazine Mladina (here, first three)), then I would ask to get back the article so I could add information about their Viktor and their overall popularity. - --Cptukbo (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any official record about the 2004 Viktor-s (out of date; otherwise,here's the official Viktor site with the list of this year's awards), but I got the 2004 list at a forum (please, take my word for it being true). You can read: V kategoriji strokovnih viktorjev: Igor Bračič in Jure Karas (the Slon in Sadež duo) za obetavno medijsko osebnost.
- Endorse speedy deletion - CSD A7 No reasonable assertion of importance/significance applies. -- Jreferee t/c 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just mentioned that if the article would be restored, I would add the information about their Viktor award and about their importance for the Slovenian musical scene. Let me repete that the article was made following a red link at the List of Slovenian musicians and that other pages from that list (Pudding fields, Racija) have even less information about their importance. I would like to know why those pages are better than this one.
- --Cptukbo (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at those, an editor if so inclined, wouldn't have alot of problems having them deleted via AfD either. Khukri 08:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Still, my question didn't get an answer. If I
*add information about their Viktor award, the ranks of their songs on the charts and describe their importance for the Slovenian musical scene, perhaps describe their popularity and
*add the forementioned sources, perhaps cutting down on the information that could be considered original research,
then, can I get the article back? One good explanation for a "No" and I'm off. --Cptukbo (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)- It's hard to give you an answer without WP:BEANS coming into play. You need to overcome the reason for deletion to recreate the article. It is not a matter of Slon in Sadež being important enough for an English Wikipedia article, there needs to be enough reliable source material that is independent of Slon in Sadež to create a Wikipedia article. If you recreated the Slon in Sadež article without referencing reliable source material, the article likely would be deleted at WP:AfD five days from the recreation. You can always create a draft article in your user space and get an admin to move it to Wikipedia space if it uses enough reliable source material. -- Jreferee t/c 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- So if we agree that the band is important enough for its own article and if I use material from the forementioned sources (notable enough, I hope), giving a broader description of the band's activities and achievements, am I granted permission to recreate the artice? --Cptukbo (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- No. Bring the completed article back here for discussion before you recreate it. You can write a draft in your userspace.Spartaz Humbug! 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- So if we agree that the band is important enough for its own article and if I use material from the forementioned sources (notable enough, I hope), giving a broader description of the band's activities and achievements, am I granted permission to recreate the artice? --Cptukbo (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's hard to give you an answer without WP:BEANS coming into play. You need to overcome the reason for deletion to recreate the article. It is not a matter of Slon in Sadež being important enough for an English Wikipedia article, there needs to be enough reliable source material that is independent of Slon in Sadež to create a Wikipedia article. If you recreated the Slon in Sadež article without referencing reliable source material, the article likely would be deleted at WP:AfD five days from the recreation. You can always create a draft article in your user space and get an admin to move it to Wikipedia space if it uses enough reliable source material. -- Jreferee t/c 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Still, my question didn't get an answer. If I
- Looking at those, an editor if so inclined, wouldn't have alot of problems having them deleted via AfD either. Khukri 08:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion as proper A7, Startaz has a good recommendation although not strictly required as speedy deletions have no preclusive effect. However, repeated recreations that keep failing just make more work for everybody, so best to do this in user space. If this group is notable, there should be lots of press coverage of them in the lively Slovenian press. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn the Slovenian music scene seems a valid encyclopedic topic. Any red link from this list should not be speedily deleted. Sources can be added from discussion above. Catchpole (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
King George II Inn (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Contested Prod. Would like a chance to expand the article. --evrik (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Christopher Caldwell(programmer) (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Still working on it adding references, reasons it should be there. This article is used by other articles (Multiplayer, Net Daemons Associates) ChristopherCaldwell (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christopher Caldwell(programmer). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ChristopherCaldwell (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |