Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 14

AccuCMS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page should not be deleted because it quite simply covers a notable topic with extensive references to published material in major international news outlets, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The subject matter as it was presented has been covered non-trivially by multiple independent reliable published works. QA5Qz (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. As written, the page was a G11. However, if "multiple independent reliable published works" can be cited, and its a big 'if', then there can be no objection to the recreation of a balanced page. BlueValour (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and temporary name protection. It appears that bad versions of the articles are continuously being created in a very short period of time (five deletions over the past two days), so at least a short protection of the name should be used. This will prevent, at least in the short term, the continued abuse of page recreation. With any luck the page author will get bored and go do something else. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion both as inappropriate use of the encyclopedia for advertising and/or as a probable copyright violation of the company's website. The nominator alleges that this company has been non-trivially covered by major news sources. Google News turns up nothing. A straight google search (excluding the company's own site and Wikipedia) returns a mere 12 hits, the best of which is merely a reprint of their press releases. I'm not even find a claim to notability sufficient to send this to AFD. I strongly recommend that the nominator read the Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest before again attempting to write this article. Rossami (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No assertion of notability has it. This seems to be approaching a coatrack article to pursue the former professional cyclist who is asserted to have helped advertise it; however there is no special significance in the advertising. No really non-trivial mentions in the general media, per Rossami. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse all deletions no version asserted notability; some more spammy than others, but fundamentally A7 (and yes, although some purists say computer programs aren't technically covered at A7 because they aren't mentioned there; I don't buy into that bureaucratic wikilawyering phooey and it's articles like this that's why). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Gyorgy Orth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Should be a redirect to György Orth. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to recreate. It was speedily deleted as per WP:CSD G5 as it was created by an abusive sockpuppet of the banned vandal, Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve Pederman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I created this page about the former athletic director at the University of Nebraska... unfortunately I somehow must have written "Pederman" instead of "Peterson", which is his real surname. He's a clearly notable guy as the former head of two multi-million-dollar departments and I don't think the page should have been speedily deleted (under A7, I believe)--though of course I understand why, as it wasn't under the right name for him! But it was a pretty decent stub that I wrote, so I'd like to have it restored if that's alright. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 10:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn delete another bad A7. Athletic director of notable schools is a claim of importance. --W.marsh 15:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge with Steve Peterson per nom. The current Steve Peterson article is a redirect to Steve Peterson (actor), so the merger should not be a problem. If the mistake was merely a typo of the page title, as the nom claims, then there should be no real problem with the article. However, I cannot see a cached version of the page, so if the deleting admin or nom has a copy of the content, I would like to see it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The deleted version just read:

Steve Pederman is the former athletic director for the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Nebraska.

I had to click on the link to find out what it means. Is there consensus, that a sports related "full-time administrator" is by itself a claim of importance? If it is recreated or restored at Steve Peterson (athletic director), an Afd might be appropriate.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Don't bother Just write a meaningful article at Steve Peterson (athletic director). ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Angry Video Game Nerd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This long-deleted article has been re-created here: The Angry Video Game Nerd (show) and that article is strong enough to earn a speedy keep at this AFD. A request to unprotect this page (and the associated pages that are also protected) was put in at Requests for Page Protection, but unless I'm mistaken, I think it needs to come here. So I am bringing it here. Based upon the current article and the AFD, I ask for an Overturn of the previous AFDs to allow the article to be moved to a better name (if that's where consensus ends up), or at least to allow redirects to the new article. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Overturn. The notability and verifiability that past opposers were seeking has been established in the passing months, with mainstream coverage from XM Radio's the Opie and Anthony show [1] on several dates, CNN [2], G4TV, and Spike TV [3]. SashaNein (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)