Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 10

Reggie Rockstone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Talk page notes on his notability were ignored by the deleter. Many easily googable articles link to him; his recordings have been published in multiple countries and he has recvd the Kora Award. The previous long article on him was deleted for copyvio, which I pointed out. My rewritten stub on this notable artist is what was just deleted. Aaronbrick 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn this guy is notable. [1]. - Francis Tyers · 15:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

X-Chat Aqua (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Article was deleted under the premiss that is is 'Non-notable' when it is the #1 or #2 IRC client for OS X. The Deletion nom was also false, no consensus was reached, furthermore the page is a protected deletion page, which it should not be. Linnwood (☎) 18:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Partial vote. Protection is just plain wrong, from what I see. --Gwern (contribs) 18:30 10 February 2007 (GMT)

• Overturn. There was no consensus to salt the article. Furthermore, X-Chat exists and if this article were to be salted, it should redirect to that. Merits of the topic aside, salting this page was out of policy. --Keitei (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, should have been merged/redirected to X-Chat Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, Aqua is actually more used than X-Chat. - Annonnies still have opinions, and this isn't a vote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.106.140.79 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
• Looking back, this probably should have been redirected at least (to X-chat). If nothing else we should change to {{deleted}} to a redirect. But as for this DRV nom... 4 out of 5 people in the AfD wanted to delete... that's consensus to delete. Nom also is based on antiquated concepts of popularity, not WP:N / WP:SOFTWARE. --W.marsh 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• I set a redirect to X-Chat. No opinion on protection. ~ trialsanderrors 20:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per what they said above me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tricosagon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pentacontagon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tetracontagon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tricontagon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hectagon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

AfD ended "no consensus". I don't think there was a strong consensus to merge, as Pmanderson believes. I undid his/her redirects to polygon because, for one reason, there has been no actual merging done of mathematical formulae and images of shapes. The original AfD included two other shapes, but there are a total of 5 articles I'm disputing with him/her on, one of which incredibly is undergoing another discussion on the proper name of the shape, indicating that at least some people would prefer an individual article on it. I told Pmanderson I'd list the matter here for review and he/she agreed. Nardman1 14:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Doesn't seem to be anything to review, the article hasn't been deleted. Merge is not a deletion outcome as such and merges can occur without a deletion debate ever being heard, i.e. its an editiorial decision. Disputes as to that are then generally content disputes which you can take up through the normal dispute resolution options --pgk 15:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, which doesn't say to merge. This isn't a matter for DRV, since the debate was obviously not closed as merge. -Amarkov moo! 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• MergeRedirect; include materials from the articles in Polygon at will; I would be hesitant at including the names, since they are doubtful, badly formed, and rarely used. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem here appears that Nardman1 is taking the no consensus to delete (and most of the non-delete !votes were merge or redirect, as a mandate that the articles must stay as they are. This is not policy; and most of the opinions were against keeping this material as a separate article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

KKE Architects, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The article concisely states the firm description and scope, with no self-promoting gratuity, and provides unbiased 3rd party references. The article provides a brief synopsis of “notable” existing and proposed buildings. The article also provides a non-promotional history timeline, which is informative and educational to an architectural firms progression. Please see my user page for additional info. Thanks! Jisher 08:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, references must not only be third-party, but must also be reliable and non-trivial. WP:N is not a "pick any one" criterion. First couple of sources (Architecture Week) are trivial directory-style listings (likely paid ones), third one trivially mentions the company (one sentence!), and the rest don't mention this company at all! A non-trivial source means the company is the focus of a full piece (not blurb or directory entry) in a reliable, editorially-controlled or scholarly peer-reviewed publication. (Note: If the company really did help significantly in building Mall of America, I would imagine better sourcing can be found. No prejudice to recreation if better sources are found and cited.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added an additional reference to KKE’s involvement in the Mall of America and updated the KKE Architects, Inc. page. As for the architectureweek reference, I simply provided this to indicate what this firm specializes in (as there are many various aspects to this profession). Architectureweek is a free online weekly newsletter with a free directory that is derived from the wiki “Archiplanet.org” website. I could refer the article to the KKE website for the same information, but I thought that would appear too self-promoting. And to address your comment that some of the sources only cite one instance of mention to the compnay, it is not uncommon for these design professional's to be briefly credited. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact the architects routinely rank as one of the least unhappy and lowest paid professionals. One reference does not indicate KKE, but Howard F. Thompson, whose firm/work was acquired by KKE. Also, I noticed someone deleted the pages content…I believe this should not have been done. As stated in wikipedia’s deletion review process “While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it…” Jisher 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question Did this come here straight from a speedy? there is no relevant history before the deletion review., and no AfD. . DGG 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In a way, yes. RHaworth recomended I place it here for review. Here is the brief history on my attempt at this article: The article was first posted on 2-2-07, and this was my first ever wiki attempt. That article was speedily deleted by Chairboy. I revamped the article and reposted it on 2-8-07, but it was then speedily deleted by RHaworth who indicated it was "reposted spam". The thing is, I believe he was quick on the gun and must have reviewed the first (2-2-07) artcile deleted by Chairboy, as he made mention of references only in the original 2-2-07 version. I tried to make him aware of this, but he insisted I move this to deletion review.Jisher 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• List on afd. Assuming that I understand the sequence, it seems an example of over-hasty and rather careless process. There's no point in trying to defend decisions made on such a basis--with the record as confused as that, the course is to have a proper AfD debate in the ordinary way. The ordinary way works fairly well. DGG 05:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

United States Presidential trivia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|AfD2 )

Concensus for merge/delete appears to have been reached in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Presidential trivia (second nomination) Jerry lavoie 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/United States Presidential trivia (second nomination) for full nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close, Merge is not a deletion vote. GFDL licensing requires we keep pages that we merge around for the history. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Would merge notable content and redirect to President of United States preserve history and still meet concensus arrived? Jerry lavoie 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It would, since that does preserve the page history. But it's an editorial decision that can be made on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 06:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close, merging is kinda a vote for keeping. Because after all the page has to kept around for at least a little while (and potentially much longer as said above due to GFDL licensing) to allow the page to be merged. If the admin had deleted the page other editors wouldn't be able to work on merging it. I believe no consensus was the right call. Mathmo ^Talk 06:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merging is not the same as !voting for keep. The !votes Delete/Merge and Merge/Redirect are common, people often ask for merging of only some of the material and removal of the rest, and closing admins will sometimes carry out immediate merges after closing if the action is straightforward and/or the admin feels up to it Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 08:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Carry out the merge Looking at the comments in the afd there appears to be an afd mandate for merging a selection of the information into multiple other specified articles - someone can go ahead and carry that out using the afd as backup. The closing admin is not obligated to do this, but those favouring this solution should just go ahead Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 08:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Just do it and if necessary protect the resulting redirect. No admin action necessary at this time, consensus to merge is not the job of deletion review because, well, there is no deletion to carry out or reverse. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• This has been done, could somebody please protect the redirect? United States Presidential trivia. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dear Hunter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|AfD2)

Nominating for DRV based on an extensive comment I got on my user talk page, which I am reposting here. My opinion is allow recreation. The remaining comments are not mine. Mangojuice^talk 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this has come up before, but I am going to try again to get the Article on The Dear Hunter back. I have looked at what the reasons were in the past and I guess I will state my case. 1.It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.1 This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries

absolutepunk.net, which is arguably the most credible emo/indie music website out right now has reviewed their latest releast Act 1:The Lake South, The River North and gave it a 88% out of 100%. The link to that article is here: http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=182061 also here is an excerpt from an interview which can also be found on absolutepunk.net with members of the very notable band Panic!At The Disco where the "brains" behind PATD (Spencer) mentions The Dear Hunter.

What band that is in the scene, whether you’re associated with the band or not, do you think deserves of the same amount of fame that you all have been given?

Ryan: Forgive Durden and the Nurses

John: As Tall As Lions

Spencer: The Dear Hunter

Brendon: Forgive Durden

This is a quote from Alternative Press, which is without a doubt the "premier" emo/indie magazine out right now. "I can't be entirely certain, but I'm almost positive that on days when my left brain takes a break, my right brain plays Huey Lewis- and the News. I've got a team looking into that. But on days when my left brain calls the shot, it's unquestionably all the Dear Hunter, all the time. Casey Crescenzo's post-Receiving End of Sirens project is so epic, orchestral, and intricate, it somehow seems like an entry in a music textbook."

Here is a link to a review done by Hybrid Magazine http://www.hybridmagazine.com/reviews/1206/thedearhunter.shtml A link to another band review by SmartPunk.com http://smartpunk.com/topfeatures/featuredband.html

Also, Straylight Run has shown support by putting "Red Hands" in the background of one of their tour updates, which can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8inExYbctQ

Not to mention, witnesses have seen the band Envy On The Coast raving about The Dear Hunter at this past CMJ festival in New York City.

4.Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources.

The Dear Hunter is touring with As Tall As Lions, a notable band in the indie/emo scene and following that will be going on tour with Saves the Day and Say Anything as well as Dan Andriano of Alkaline Trio fame. If you are unaware of these bands I would appreciate you look them up on wikipedia.org as they have their own articles. If you would like to verify that these tours are real you can see the dates/venues/bands on The Dear Hunters Myspace Page, where you can also see that their songs have combined for over 200,000 plays. http://www.myspace.com/tdh or you can look at the article on the main page of Saves The Day's website http://www.savestheday.com I hope those are reliable enough sources.

5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

Although currently there is only 1 actual release to The Dear Hunters credit, Act1: The Lake South, The River North the next part of The Dear Hunter story, Act 2, is currently in the works and will be released this year and there is also an unreleased EP, The Ms. Leading EP. As for the notability of Triple Crown Records, their current roster includes bands such as As Tall As Lions, Folly, Hit The Lights, and The Receiving End of Sirens. All of whom you can look up on wikipedia. Other prominent bands that were once on Triple Crown Records include Hot Rod Circuit, Orange Island, Northstar, and most notable Brand New. Triple Crown is also a subsidiary or Warner Music Group.

6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

Casey Crescenzo was formerly a member of The Receiving End of Sirens and released Between the Heart and the Synapse with them as well as toured with them for 2 years.

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

In the previous attempt to justify the article, one of the other admins claimed they had their "ear to the local music" referring to the Massachusets area. To say that and to then say you have never heard of The Receiving End of Sirens is absolutely rediculous. Although it is clear that I am biased, due to the fact that I am arguing for this article, The Receiving End of Sirens are without a doubt the biggest band to come out of the Mass/CT area in the past 5 years. The Dear Hunter, in turn, immediatly attracte all TREOS fans as well as alot of new fans. You can look at the form on the TREOS fan site Flee The Factory under The Dear Hunter section to see infact how important this band is to how many people: http://www.fleethefactory.com/forum/

Thank you for your time, I hope I have been able to show you that this is infact a worthy article, please take the time to read what I have written and review the links I have provided as top their validity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forgedcasualties (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

• Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation Preferably wait a while for the second album release or an actual national tour... at the moment, the strongest claim for the article seems to be that the band has a member who was forced out of another slightly more established one-album band which has gone on a national tour. Bwithh 21:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Attention - There has been a second nomination for AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dear Hunter (2nd nomination)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - It seems to me that the article in question does not meet the requirements for WP:BAND. Also, I have searched my school's database, and no articles in major periodicals regarding The Dear Hunter have been published at any time in the last century around the world.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, second AfD is valid and has weighed the arguments brought here. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)