Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18

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

NOTABLE Sandra Silvers is owns and appears on one of the longest running, if not THE longest running amateur bondage website (Continuous operation since 2000). She is the #3 ranked google result for "love bondage", trailing only behind the industry leader. She has a very large fan club on yahoo groups numbering nearly 7000. She is well-known and respercted in the adult fetish industry/community. Wikiargent (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

M._Nicole_van_Dam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

NOTABLE WikiNikiNiki (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC) This is really sad - there are thousands of collectors of M. Nicole van Dam art, the artist is international, and the page just gets deleted without the deleter ever askingany follow-up questions - I am really disgusted with the whole process - this is starting to feel like an old boys club and discriminatory! All the reasons were set forth on the talk page - this is so subjective! It is starting to seem that if you like someone or you know them their posts get on, and a newbee can't make a good faith factual contribution. Also, and the system is hard to use, even this process. Room for competition guys! If this article stays deleted you've lost your credibility with me, and my sincere hope is someday this needlessly harsh, seemingly clicish, behavior is corrected. The reviewer was user John, don't know what that means, and at least one other man not familiar with the artist participated in deletion of that page, and one of his comments was quite offensive. Is that the behavior for an encyclopedia? Do you think that encouraqges new users? SHouldn't you require that only those knowing art can delete art related entries? WikiNikiNiki (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid A7 and was probably also deletable under G11; the article was pretty much a fluff piece and an ad for the subject's website. Not to mention possible WP:COI (note the username of the nominator). --Coredesat 22:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have no access to the deleted page so I can't comment on the speedy but a Google search is gloomy. No news hits and the web hits here are all sales links. BlueValour (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn unless copyvio. Asserted notability and therefore not valid A7 "paint[ed] a mural on...the Smithsonian Institute Observatory at Harvard ", "articles in well-known and collector publications", very spammy but fixable,so not G11. One paragraph is copied from [1]; if the rest is, of course don't overturn.DGG (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Regardless of the (dubious) assertion of notability, endorse speedy-deletion as spam (G11). This was patently written by a paid promoter who needs to read our policy on conflict of interest before contributing further. I'm not finding anything remotely salvageable in the deleted history. Rossami (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. Eusebeus (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse G11 deletion "M. Nicole van Dam's artwork is internationally licensed and available on wide array of products, all clearly identified with the M. Nicole van Dam trademark, including on collectible jars, glass plates, tile ceramic murals (as available through http://www.xxx.net/xxx.htm ), rubber stamps, scarves, puzzles, greeting cards, calendars, prints, and many other items". Spam Spammy McSpam Spam. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Page_is_needed Chris963 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC) -->

• Overturn Speedy Deletion and Relist at AfD. Yes, it was 4 months ago and I'd be surprised if it hasn't been brought up before. Article was kept at AfD (albeit for procedural reasons) and speedy deleted User:Radiant! as an A7 4 days later. Probably should be relisted just because there were some concerns, but there is no reason to ever speedy delete an article that was kept at AfD. Especially not only 4 days after the fact. --Smashville^BONK! 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore - procedurally wrong. A page that has been kept at AfD should not not be speedied. Concerns should be addressed at a further AfD if an editor so wishes. BlueValour (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion the crtieria for speedy deletion are clear that an article that has survived a deletion discussion may not be speedy deleted (except for copyright reasons). Davewild (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn i note that Chris did ask Radiant before coming here, but also that Radiant has a message about being partially unavailable. This seems clear enough though to go ahead immediatelyDGG (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
• Any sources, at all? Any commitment to tone down the blatantly promotional tone of the article? "Article is needed" for what? As part of its marketing strategy, or as an entry in the Wikipedia Cornucopia of Promotional Articles About Software? Chris963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) does look more than a bit like Stephen2417 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 15:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you are welcome to argue these points at an AfD. This is not AfD round 2. Round 1 didn't delete it. . DGG (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

See talk page for proposed TLA dab Ra2007 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Allow Recreation as a disambiguation page which appears to be what the last admin who deleted the page thought it should be. Davewild (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy allow recreation as a disambiguation page - obvious action; we don't need to dwell on this one. BlueValour (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Amazing! Louisiana Baptist "University" is on the dab list! Who could possibly have predicted that? Other than anybody familiar with Jason Gastrich? Guy (Help!) 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Category:Airlines of Myanmar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and others (restore|cache|CfD)

This discussion was closed early with a result of rename. In reading the discussion, while I supported the action, I believe that consensus at the point it was closed was clearly 'no consensus'. So it was closed out of process and with an incorrect decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and speedy relistComment As closer, I agree with what Vegaswikian has said above. I was confused by the use of every persons comment of the lead-words "I agree". It looked to me like there was overwhelming support for the proposal, and no opposition at all. Before I was aware of the CFD, I was reviewing Categories that had been marked as speedy deletable. Several of the categories associated with this CFD were tagged as CSD, and had no mention of the CFD in discussion. After I deleted alot of them this way, I then became aware of the CFD when I came across one that was tagged as undergoing CFD. That is when I looked at the CFD and incorrectly determined that it was supported unanimously. I further saw that all of the categories were empty, that is they only contained other nominated categories if anything, and no articles at all in them. (Since all of the categories had been emptied by another user who perhaps also misinterpreted what was said in the discussion). So I deleted all of the remaining empty categories as G6 - housekeeping. Since all of the categories under discussion were then deleted, I closed the discussion with the result summary of what had already in effect been done (the rename). However, since Vegaswikian entered this DELREV, I further studied the comments left, to see how I could have interpreted them differently. What seems to have happened was the first person said "I agree (but here is why we should not do it)", and then several persons said "I agree", but they did not mean they agree with the nom, they meant they agreed with the first person's comment as to why we should not do it. I actually read them in reverse order, from the bottom to the top, which made it all the more confusing for me, as I assumed the "I agrees" were relative to the nom, not another comment above. I think the lack of use of standard comment structure (eg. support, oppose, etc.), the fact that my monobook inserts a large green checkmark icon in front of text that starts with "I agree", and my lack of experience led to this error on my part. But how do we proceed from here? The categories were empty. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• The problem here is really about what the main article should be called. There is no consensus for Myanmar or Burma and in a sense supporters or either have a POV. Supporters of the pro-democracy movement call it "Burma", while supporters of the Government call it "Myanmar". In my opinion the article should be called "Myanmar" because that name is supported by the UN, the main independent source we should go by. The argument for the categories to follow the name of the main article is however a sound one. I therefore think we should leave things as they are at "Burma" until the country article name is resolved. If it is changed to "Myanmar" then we move the categories back. --Bduke (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This just addresses the issue of the debate, not the close. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn purely on procedural grounds. Open for less than 24 hours, and closed by a heavily-involved editor. I find it very alarming that an Admin should be so completely unaware of procedure - it would be no different if it were an AfD. His comments above hardly help! Also no link provided to the very recent debate on thwe same issue, which alone should have given him pause. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I object to "heavily involved". I had no awareness of Burma, Myanmar, or this CFD prior to finding the CFD template. I have never edited any article in any category and never participated in any discussion on any of the respective article or category talk pages. In fact, I have never edited anything even remotely related to this subject. I just did what I thought was the right thing (and what was clearly not the right thing), and clearly admitted that above. I do agree with the overturn proposal, which fairly well guarantees this will happen, so there's no need to slur me over it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I wan't implying you have views on the issue etc, but having deleted categories covered in the nom, as you describe above, clearly makes you involved in my view, & you should not have closed it at any event. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but the deletions of the categories which were marked for CFD were part of an attempt at closing the CFD, which seems illogical to prohibit an admin from doing. I really do not think that is what the deletion policy means when it says admins who have been involved in the discussions or editing the articles in question shall not close. In any event it was wrong to close the CFD as I have stated, but not because I was involved, just because the 5 days was not up and the concensus was not as I thought it was. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going by what you said above. Make your mind up, please: "Several of the categories associated with this CFD were tagged as CSD, and had no mention of the CFD in discussion. After I deleted alot of them this way, I then became aware of the CFD when I came across one that was tagged as undergoing CFD. That is when I looked at the CFD and incorrectly determined that it was supported unanimously." 23:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs)

Gee, I don't see your confusion. What you copied above is exactly what I have been saying all along here. Perhaps you are mixing up all the abbreviations. I'll try to restate it without so many abbreviations: I was patrolling the category: "candidates for speedy deletion", and I was looking over the section for "categories". I saw several that were "...Myanmar..." upon opening each, I saw only the template marking it for speedy deletion, nothing on the talk page, no articles in the category, and a reasonable explanation on the template that the category was deprecated and depopulated. The history page showed no evidence of prior deletion attempts. So I deleted each such category, citing as reason: "CSD G6, housekeeping". I came back to the category: candidates for speedy deletion page several times over the two days and saw a few more pop up, because a bot (AWB) had been depopulating the categories and an editor was marking them for speedy deletion. I therefore similarly reviewed and deleted these with the same rationale. But then something bad happened... I came across one that was tagged with the banner announcing that the category was subject to a discussion at categories for discussion. That is when I went to the discussion page and saw a large number of such categories listed, (including several that I had already deleted). I looked over the discussion, and it appeared to me that it had unanimous support and I saw that a bold editor had stated he had initiated the depopulations. Realizing that the proposed outcome of the discussion had in fact already happenned (the renaming of the categories), I wrongly assumed it would be okay to end the discussion early. So I deleted the remainder of the categories and closed the discussion. None of what I said above qualifies me as being "involved" in the discussion or in editing the articles/ categories of the discussion. Therefore there was no procedural grounds for me to recuse myself from closing it. I do agree that my determination of concensus was wrong (that's explained up there), and that I was wrong to end the discussion early. But administrators who close discussions do have to delete thin gs, if that was the determined outcome, their deletion can not be considered "involvement" in the sense that you used it. The reason we do not allow "involved" adminsitrators to close things, is to ensure that their decisions are not perceived to be skewed by their demonstrated bias on the issue at hand. I hope nobody would accuse me of having any opinion whatsoever on the Burma/Myanmar issue; until the last few days I had never heard of either, and I couldn't care less what they call the place. I am certain that you could not find a more neutral administrator on this issue than me. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, the main issue remains the main article, Burma. If you think that the article should be moved, take up the issue there. As per the 'by country' categories, their name must reflect the name used in the main article, and the renaming of categories should be done immediately as the main article is moved. --Soman (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly believe that you are correct. It is generally accepted that the category and article should use the same name where possible. Having the category and article use the same name is good. We don't need to argue the correct name in two places and then use differencing results to constantly switch between two names. I guess the real question here is what harm would be done by leaving the rename stand? Yes, it was an incorrect close, but is the end result bad for the wiki? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Afd was no consensus to delete. I felt that there were strong grounds for deletion. Subsequent discussion about where to merge the article appeared to confirm this. For clarity, 2 changes have been made since the failed Afd - 1) removal of duplicated explanation of a correlation (which proved incorrect in any case), 2) removal of wikiquote box as there were no quotatons. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - the AfD was properly closed and this is not the place to sort out merge discussions. Relist if you wish but my suggestion is to be bold and merge/redirect to Currency pair. BlueValour (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but allow an early renomination now that new discussion and new evidence exists. In the renomination, be sure to link to the Talk page participants' conclusions. Rossami (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Insufficient vote for consensus: Ultimately, what's present at the article is a dictionary definition, which is a violation of the deletion guideline. If the term exists at Wiktionary, then there should be a speedy delete. If it does not exist, then it should be transwiki'd to Wiktionary and deleted. While it is possible that a complex article on the economics would be possible, it does not exist. Decisions should be based on what is, not what is possible. When the article was on AfD, it got a mix. While there was no consensus to delete, there was no consensus for anything. That's essentially a nil vote. I count 1-1-1 in the votes. That's not a staggering endorsement for any result. If we review the article ourselves (which is one of the things we do at DRV), I see a classic dictionary definition. Geogre (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm confused by your comment about votes/consensus. I thought that Afd is meant to be principle based, not vote based which is why I've requested a review. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is consensus based, unless there are overriding policy reasons to do otherwise. Deletion requires a consensus, without one, we default to keep. Unfortunately not enough people participated to form a consensus - the solution is to try again. Deletion review is for where either the consensus formed breaches policy, or the closing admin may have misread the consensus. Neither applies here.--Doc^g 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I advise the nominator to withdraw this DRV and initiate a second AfD, to generate a real consensus either way. He'll have my delete/merge vote if he does.--Doc^g 13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Quite. It's not that the term shouldn't be a redirect, for the curious, or that the information shouldn't have a home, but it seems to me that the fact of the concept and use of it is best done elsewhere, while the definition is simply not an encyclopedic matter. This is not a silly, cranky, odd thing, but it's also misplaced as a standalone. Geogre (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - OK, I have decided to be bold and have merged what is at best a stub into a logical home. BlueValour (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • He shoots, he scores!!! Ronnotel (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 4 —Random832 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Neoseeker is a major electronics website/forum The WEB clearly states that FORUMS can have their own article. Neoseeker is one of the 100 biggest forums in the world. It has 300,000 members, yet it was deleted due to not being notable or having enough sources. By that logic, GameFAQs should be deleted. It has 84 references. How many are from a Non GameFAQ or GameFAQ subdomain? About 10? Delete it too, as unreferenced. The point is, Neoseeker is an insanely notable site, with massive forums, and is well known for it's unbiased reviews in the PC world. It should have remained undeleted, so sources for some stuff could have been added Guticb (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• You were explicitly asked to demonstrate the existence of any such sources during the AFD discussion, and had 3 days in which to do so, during which time you revisited the discussion at least twice. You did not. You could have cited such sources when you talked to the closing administrator. You did not. You could have cited such sources here. You did not. You have given no reason to believe that the decision made by the closing administrator was not exactly in accordance with our content policies. Instead you have simply repeated the same "If article X then article Y." argument that failed during the AFD discussion, which can be seen with a little thought to be entirely fallacious, and which has no basis at all in our content policies. Uncle G (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation if someone can cite significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Stormie (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Arguments that the topic is notable don't supercede the lack of independent sources. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There appear to be many google news hits, but almost all are mentions of product reviews by Neoseeker rather than about Neoseeker. The closest I could find [2] [3] [4]. All of which are unfortunately subscription pieces. But if someone has access to look at the full articles we might be able to justify an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the first source is not subscription, just supply some details. In any case, the page is a list of resources which don't provide any notability. I can't speak for sources 2 and 3 though. BlueValour (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; close was proper. The place to discuss the merits of the article was during the AfD, which you did. DRV is not a "I didn't like the result, try again" forum. — Coren ^(talk) 18:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am not used to this aspect of Wikipedia, but I did find a number of sites or companies which did use Neoseeker as professional resources, if I understand correctly (apologies in advance for mistakes with markup!). As a tech site, Nvidia ([5], [6], SLI [7]), Super Talent [8], Intel (Gigabyte?) [9], QSound Labs [10], TechZine [11], NZXT Products [12], and NCIX [13]. A number of other sites also have Neoseeker reviews, such as Man!festo Games [14], HotHardware [15], Crucial [16], NT Compatible [17], Bnet [18], Collantes [19], Sapphire Tech (can be seen along the side, possibly a company?) [20], and PC Hardware [21]. Also, I believe I read something on notability somewhere previously about popularity. I do not trust Alexa ratings and so will not use them, but apparently, if you believe this article [22], the site gets 700,000 unique hits monthly, as well as having a number of subsites (including TweakFactor, GameGrep, a series of hardware/audio selling/buying sites and the Portal system) with closing on 350,000 members. Does this not indicate notability, or does a site require a third party article about the site itself before it is considered worthy of an article? In all honestly, I do believe the article itself as it was previously seen needed to be curtailed in size down to the bare facts. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.222.129 (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Permit recreation I think the above refs would be sufficient to let the article stay or proceed to another AfD, if integrated into the article.DGG (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ... if they actually were sources. Have you read them? I have looked at all of the ones linked to by 68.147.222.129. One is a press release and not an independent source. One isn't clear what web site it is actually talking about, since it doesn't give the domain name. Of the rest, not one of them contains even a single fact about the subject. One of them doesn't even mention the subject at all. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If I'm to understand correctly, the use of Neoseeker's awards alone (which is what I searched for when I found these links, not Neoseeker in general) on official company sites would imply that the site itself is a competent technical review site. After looking more into the site, it also appears to be run by the company Neo Era Media. I'm still confused as to why sheer popularity of the site is not a quantifiable reason for keeping an article of reduced size, although that may be in part to my lack of knowledge about the guidelines. I do apologize for the other links, I found a number of technical sites leading back to Neoseeker itself for information as well as the reviews (with small excerpts of said reviews) and decided that if it is spreading this far it must contain something worthwhile for a Wikipedia page to be maintained. If not, I apologize for barging in, I am not sure what you are looking for fact-wise and I went under the assumption that numerable published reviews by the aforementioned site made it note-worthy. You learn something every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.222.129 (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Popularity is not a criterion here. What we need are sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. What you have provided gives no reason to believe that the decision made by the closing administrator was not exactly in accordance with our content policies. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion, though I'm fine with it being recreated if it can meet the basic notability and verifiability requirements. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks Uncle G, will keep in mind in future instances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.222.129 (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was turned from a stub about a song by Flight of the Conchords (which I created) into a redirect after User:SilvaStorm left a note for Speedy deletion that said "Unnecessary page - nothing is said here that can't be said on the band's main page" and 25 minutes later, an Administrator User:Lid made the change. There is no reference to the song on the band's page but it is mentioned on several other pages that reference the band. I love the song and I think it deserves a page of its own, although this point can be debated. However, in this case, there was no debate. I was not notified before the change was made. When I suggested to User:Lid on his talk page that he revert his edit or change the redirect to a page that at least mentions the song I got no response. Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• It was an invalid speedy deletion nomination, the admin appears to have acknowledged this but redirected the article, which is a valid decision. The article was never deleted so a deletion review is not needed... if you disagree with the redirect, you can just revert it. --W.marsh 04:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• The reason I did not reply was not for reason of malevolence but for instead simply missing it entirely, I get a fair few comments a day these days and missed yours. The reason I redirected the article to the page of the group itself rather than an episode that mentions the song was due to my ignorance of the subject matter and felt people looking for the song itself would be looking for the group behind it, not the episode it was featured in. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As for the song itself having a page... the page as it existed did not fulfill WP:SONG and no evidence exists that the song itself is notable by itself. In my opinion if an article on the song is to exist it first needs to be shown it can meet the criteria rahter than a page linking to a youtube video of the song and a page of tis lyrics. Not all songs ever are notable. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Article determined to be a blatent (obvious) hoax. Speedy deletion criteria (WP:CSD) are strict, and prohibit hoaxes of any kind from being listed as "A1". Otherwise "If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum".

However CSD does cover "pure vandalism" (G3), which includes both "creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages" and also "Adding known inaccuracies" (Adding information in bad faith that you clearly know is false (see WP:HOAX).).

Also, WP:V, a core policy, states that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (WP:REDFLAG), but in this case not even ordinary sources of a reliable, independent, verifiable nature were presented.

The article has had scrutiny under AFD and despite the small response it's pretty clear the conclusion is valid. Good evidence from reliable sources to the contrary was not presented. Hence AFD endorsed and DRV speedy closed under WP:CSD#G3, WP:SNOW and WP:DUCK. RFCU on various editors might make sense too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

This was supposed to be restored, looks like a bot ate it.. garth (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) >

• Actually, an admin speedy deleted it for being a hoax (which is specifically listed in the guideline they cited as not being a reason to speedy delete something, but whatever). --W.marsh 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, Should be restored immediately then, also, it was listed on this page on the 12th and a deletion was overturned which in keeping with logic, that means it could not be a hoax. Maybe changes after it was restored could be a hoax, but then, shouldn't it be restored before the hoax took place? I mean to say, If it was restored, at that time it wasn't a hoax, perhaps though i still blame the bot. A bot probably did it. garth (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) >

I suppose I will list what the guidelines say just so people can get to it. i followed your link above. Yeah i see it. The admin messed up.

Questionable material that is not vandalism. Earnest efforts are never vandalism, so to assume good faith, do not delete as vandalism unless reasonably certain

Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum.

Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. It is not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax. There have been cases in the past where something has been thought to have been a hoax by several editors, but has turned out to be true, and merely obscure. garth (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) >

• Overturn and Keep with instruction and additions of ref request tags.

Since I apparently can't add anything onto the talk page in question, references, etc, as i already had started too but now the references are gone, I clicked the AFD, and it appears it passed afd with DRV "Deletion Overturned" which is funny because then how could a hoax stand.... I think this really should be handled with [citing sources] or at the very least, since it passed deletion review and afd, the article as it was when it passed deletion review should return in tact. garth (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) >

• I looked into this when it was first speedied, because I had restored at the first DRV. While "hoaxes" are not speediable in themselves, very obvious hoaxes become speediable if there is no "remotely plausible" claim to notability (this was the original language of CSD A7 when it was adopted by referendum, and it is a good bit of wisdom today.) Thus, an article which read "John Doe was elected President of Earth in 1961" would be speediable as obviously a hoax. One must be very careful in applying this fine point of policy -- something that at first looks ridiculous to one person's eyes may turn out to be true. Still, if it becomes plain that an article is completely absurd, a speedy (under A7 or, if mal-doing is clear, G3) can be warranted.

• In this AfD, several editors exploded fallacious claims made about the subject, and an individual claiming to be the subject (supposedly a renowned writer) posted an ill-written rambling in defense of his notability. At that point, it became reasonable to conclude that this "article" is the brainstorm of determined child and/or troll. In the absence of real evidence that this fellow exists, I endorse the speedy deletion on the basis of the AfD's record. The claims to notability here are no longer "remotely plausible" in my view, and so, the article fails CSD A7. Xoloz (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. As the deleting administrator, I had no problem at all ignoring all the rules on this one. The claims made about the subject were blatant hoaxes, and the only user accounts pushing for the preservation of this ridiculous article seem to be sockpuppets of User:Castawayred, of which User:Kevin.Kinchen is a sockpuppet. These two sockpuppets have already been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and I highly recommend a checkuser to determine if User:67.183.169.112, a.k.a. "garth", is one as well. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was deleted as it was marked WP:PROD and states no links to independent sources. While I've never contributed to Wikipedia myself, I feel this article should be undeleted as its about a major part of an English University and there was more content than a stub. It's hard to find independent sources when it's mostly publicised, funded and run by the University students but I'm sure the members will do so if given the chance. Thank you 81.178.91.77 (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: What was the rationale on the prod? The cached version doesn't have it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - according to the deletion log "Non-notable small students' radio station, that asserts no notability through use of external links to independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:N.". BlueValour (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete and List - there is no way that the article would survive an AfD in its present form but I see no reason not to allow editors the chance to improve it to establish notability. BlueValour (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - see [[Wikipedia:DRV#Contesting_.27proposed_deletions.27]. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

As the article was speedied, and salted, and the main deleting admin is no longer contributing, I cannot really tell why the article was deleted. However, since the last time it was deleted, abbas has been the centre of international coverage. A youtube video he broadcast helped with a torture conviction, and his youtube account was subsequently blocked (and then unblocked). His yahoo mail account was also blocked. If possible, I'd also be interested to find out who nominated the article for speedy deletion and why. Andjam (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close as no DRV action is being requested. The deletion logs, with reasons, are here. Since the nominator states that matters have moved on the suggested action is for him to create a new, sourced article in his sandbox and then come back, here, with a request for recreation. BlueValour (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• The nominator should know that the article was speedy deleted because it was exceedingly short and lacking in any assertion of notability or reliable sources. Any experienced Wikipedian would have nominated it for deletion, and any admin would have deleted it. The nominator is welcome to write a new sourced article in his userspace, and then request its transfer to mainspace here at DRV. This request may be closed soon, but should be kept open a little while for the nominator to see. Xoloz (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• It may take me a week to write an article on him, but I'll do so. Andjam (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)