Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 19

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

Hello again! This band article was deleted three times as an A7 and then salted in November. The first two were certainly legit (since they were created before the band's debut even came out), and looking at the state of the page that was created the third time, I can't say I blame anyone for pulling the trigger. But the group is signed to Facedown Records, is currently criscrossing the US on tour as the main support for Dead to Fall, received some cushy reviews from a bunch of press sites (including a nice writeup in Decibel), and hit the Billboard Heatseekers chart with their September 2007 release. So, I've tossed together a rewrite that should substantiate the group's notability under WP:MUSIC bullets 1, 2, and 4. Can I please have this unsalted? Chubbles (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Unsalt and move to mainspace, seems to meet WP:MUSIC, certainly destroys CSD A7. --Stormie (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt, move to mainspace Enough notability established in the rewrite to allow the article to be recreated. Davewild (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:SS-R.T.Heydrich.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image is not PD in country of origin, just the US. Request undeletion locally as Commons will soon nuke it and addition of {{Do not move to Commons}} to prevent this from happening again. -Nard 16:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why is this at DRV? If commons deletes it, the WP copy will go too. However, I think we need only be concerned with US Copyright law, since that's where the servers are located. Following the laws for 200+ countries and an untold number of jurisdictions would be impossible, since they often conflict. If nothing else it's unnecessary. --W.marsh 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, nevermind. If and when this is deleted at Commons (not even going to bother arguing about that), then it can be undeleted here. If nothing else I'll undelete it. --W.marsh 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close as no DRV action called for. Either it can be handled as W.marsh helpfully suggested or the nominator could simply upload a fresh version with the same licence that is valid for Wikipedia. BlueValour (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Guess I could have just asked an admin to handle it. Withdrawn. -Nard 02:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

White House Museum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was marked for speedy deletion yesterday and after only two people had a chance to advocate to keep it up, it was deleted without debate. You have articles about real museums on this site, why not an online museum? I didn't start the article, and I'm not the owner of the website/museum. But I'm appealing this deletion please (Kcrattmp (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)).

After receiving a speedy deletion notice this editor posted a request to hold off for review, and began a talk page for discussion. It does not appear due process was provided. The White House Museum website has a blog area as only a very small area, and at a different URL. CApitol3 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• The article needs to assert importance to survive speedy deletion... but doesn't appear to have done so. Has it gotten media attention? Has an independent commentator called it the best resource of its kind? Has it won an award? These are the likely sorts of things that would be claims of importance here. --W.marsh 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the museum, the scope of its image database, the cultural and architectural signifigance of the White House all recommend its restoration.CApitol3 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion WP:CSD#A7 is the speedy deletion rule, and this is a valid deletion under the rule. This was an article about a website that is "not associated with the the website whitehouse.gov, the White House Historical Association, or any part of the United States government." It has no inherent notability itself just because the White House is notable and it has content about it, no more than my starting a personal website about MIT would make my website notable. Nor did the article assert any importance or significance for the website. Nor did the talk page posts assert that the website was notable. Notability comes from independent and reliable sources publishing substantial coverage about the subject of the article, which here would be substantial coverage about the website. Speedy deletion does not create prejudice against recreating in a way that at least asserts, or preferrably documents, that the subject merits coverage in an encyclopedia. WP:WEB documents the general standard for articles on web content. Wikipedia:Amnesia test is the best way to write the first draft of articles. GRBerry 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:CSD#A7. Certainly a valid speedy deletion. And, certainly, should the article be re-written with reliable sources that assert verifiable notability, it ought to be re-created. Pastordavid (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is it typical to delete before discussion?CApitol3 (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • When there is no assertion of why a website is important, yes, such articles are usually deleted without discussion. --W.marsh 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse: It's pretty clear that the article doesn't assert any notability for the website. It's probably a very nice website, and it probably does its job, but nothing sets it apart from the tens and tens of thousands of websites that do good work. Furthermore, the phrasing certainly seems... shifty. "Official website" of the unofficial and unaffiliated museum certainly sounds like an attempt to prey upon the gullible. Endorse deletion under A7, although I wish most new articles had even half as much content. Geogre (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Just re-create the article and talk about some of the site's notable content. (You'll still have a problem keeping it without some kind of references, but it should pass speedy). DGG (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As the deleting admin, I chose to speedy delete due to the fact that the article/museum has no notability. This is obviously not written in stone, and I am more than willing to restore the page if that is the decision of the review. Jmlk17 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, but of course a version could be created which does assert notability. --Stormie (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

It was suggested in yesterday's DRV that I write a new article on Wael Abbas to overturn the salting of an article on him. I've created an article on him in a sandbox at User:Andjam/Wael abbas, with half a dozen reliable sources cited. Andjam (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Move to mainspace, seems like a valid start, and asserts notability with sources. --Coredesat 05:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Move to mainspace, I concur, much better sourced than the great majority of new articles created every day. :-) --Stormie (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Mainspace but retitle it. It should be "Wael Abbas." Additionally, given how common "Abbas" is, isn't it best to refer to him by his first name? Good article, although a bit in-the-news. Geogre (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I didn't know for sure whether the lowercase "a" was a typo or something that should be lowercase like "bin" or "van". I'd like to make sure the article has in its edit history the previous deletions though. Andjam (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm no expert, but I believe we're looking at a call-name or by-name or pseudonym. It's not that it's a screen name, such as we find in the West, but rather that it is a sort of nickname that is the primary name for the person. The same "Abbas" is used by several Palestinian leaders, for example. As for "Wael," that may be something with variable transliteration, but the sources seem to agree on it, so that's as far as we need to investigate. Geogre (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Move to mainspace, good job, article clearly establishes notability with reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Move to mainspace, history merge and retitle - now ready for international release! Note to closing admin: please perform a history merge with the deleted version when moving across. BlueValour (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2|AFD3|AFD4)

Moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Barbara Schwarz