Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 16

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

No reason for deletion...page was deleted back in feburary, but now it's there but blank...would like original page restored —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diegelmannsj (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

• Expired PROD, unreferenced, valid dleetion under WP:CSD#A7 and probably WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete prodded version. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

editor did not notify author or post for discussion and fails to confirm or deny conflicts with the artice. I would request a discussion on this similar to the one now on Eliot Bernstein and whereby due to the nature of the issues, all editors discussing such article or commenting have been requested in wikipoliteness to affirm that they have no conflict with these matters Iviewit 22:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion under speedy deletion criterion G11, spam. Conflict of interest also applies. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion As JzG said, you yourself have a conflict, given the username. And blatant advertising requires neither notification of the article creator (though it is recommended) or a full-blown Articles for Deletion listing. And I do not believe that, if I fail to state I have a conflict of interest, it should be taken as implying that I do. I haven't ever explicitly stated that if a homosexual ran for president, I would vote for them. Does that mean I wouldn't? Of course not. But let's not get into that now. My point is, the deletion was entirely within the rules. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• There is no advertising, there are factual statements about a company, please see the notes at Eliot Bernstein in that discussion about similar. It appears in Veinor's statement that he will not confirm or deny conflict with the matters and so it must be presumed that he is despite his claims about gay people voting. If you were asked if you were homosexual and you did not state your preference, most would consider you queer. Here though I have asked for statements of no conflict by editors for valid reasons before they contribute and so far not one has, if you have nothing to hide, why bring in gay bashing to cover it. I would suggest that until the article is removed or edited by non-conflicted editors (don't care if they are gay or not and did not ask that question) that we should put the article back and remove all conflicted statements. If not, I think we should elevate this to the next wikilevel for review by affirmed non conflicted parties, that hopefully do not care about someone's sexuality while voting. How weird. There are third party news articles relating to the inventions, the inventors and the companies, I am more than happy to make viable edits.--Iviewit 06:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• For those not familiar with conflict issue, the reason we do not have someone else writing is that due to the recent car bombing of my family's minivan and threats on my life, I would not ask anyone to risk their life for me doing so. In fact Sashin Garg published an article on the Iviewit companies and was instantly threatened, so much so, he removed his article in fear and I respect that. Others faced similar threats. I think after seeing the car bomb that blew up three cars alongside it in boynton beach fl. many editors are timid, maybe Colbert would have the guts.
  The companies are very important as they hold patent pending/suspending technologies (suspended while ongoing federal, state and international investigations continue). Yet that does not change the significance of the inventions and the companies, as they have changed the digital imaging and video worlds. This is very significant information. This is verified by several leading papers who had journalists write about the company and the inventions which were cited.--Iviewit 06:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close this discussion. (I deleted Iviewit.) The Eliot Bernstein article covers the same ground and should really have been entitled Iviewit. It is receiving lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliot Bernstein. A separate dicussion here merely confuses matters. -- RHaworth 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• I was trying to recover some of that data to comment on. Eliot Bernstein is an inventor, Iviewit is a company. I am sure there is an entry for the founder of Wikipedia and one for Wikipedia as with Bill Gates and Microsoft.--Iviewit 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Apples and oranges. I don't think you can equate Iviewit to Microsoft. And besides, inclusion of other pages is not a valid reason to include another one. And I strongly resent your comment that I engaged in 'gay bashing'; I can't see any way to interpret my comment above as such. I was using that as an example, and I wonder why you seem to be so quick to assume that I am homophobic. And I declare that I have no conflict of interest in Iviewit; I'd never even heard of it before I saw this discussion. Are you happy? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes that is my point, Iviewit is an apple and Eliot Bernstein is an orange, they are separate items, as Bill Gates is to Microsoft. Some, including leading engineers from Real 3D have opinied that the technologies were worth hundreds of millions to trillions and as we can see, the OS takes a back seat to multimedia applications. In fact, without Iviewit technologies invented by Bernstein and others, in Media Player, there would be no Media Player that could compete with other OS's. May come to fruition and then I debate if Gates has a saleable product, just an example. Same goes for removing the scaling from chips such as Intel who was the first strategic partner with Iviewit through Real 3d, Inc. (composed 70% Lockheed, 20% Silicon Graphics and Intel 10%). Intel later acquired 100% of Real 3d along with the Iviewit technologies, which soon was proliferated among every product they had. You put up comments that were slighted with gay voting comments in example, in a world of gay bashing it appears you could have choosen thousands of other examples to not be mistook as gay bashing to make the point, I thought it biased your comments and biased the discussion. Sorry if I mistook your comments, I did not reply in mean spirit, I just made light of your comments and retorted with a similar example to your comment. I also found it ridiculous that instead of affirming or denying conflict, which is just polite and maintains integrity of these edits and Wikipedia, that you instead tried to justify it with that gay diatribe. I thank you for your conflict statement, albeit late and now welcome further comments from you, good bad or ugly.
      Finally the reason Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein should stand apart is they are two very separate issues. One is a company with many shareholders and investors who have interests in patent pending/suspending technology and Eliot Bernstein is a shareholder of that company. That company has interests separate and apart from Eliot Bernstein. Eliot Bernstein on the other hand is a notable inventor with documented evidence of the inventions and patent pendings in technologies that have changed your world in countless ways. I am not to hung up on that at the moment and I certainly wait for all participants in these discussions, including those that deleted the article in the first place, to follow similar conflict disclosure to move on to a fair and unbiased review. If you do not understand the concern for conflict checks, please visit the Iviewit Senate Bill sent to Senator Dianne Feinstein which asks for the President, George W. Bush, to sign conflict waiver prior to signing such proposed legislation or read the information forwarded to John Dingell, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to the House Judiciary Committee whereby you will see that without conflict checks, these matters have already turned into a cluster*&**% due to high level officials caught violating offices in conflict. There is no difference here at Wikipedia, as those trying to prevent the truth of the inventions and Iviewit could easily be in this forum trying to block, without revealing conflict. Sorry for any offence you may feel but again my family's lives are on the line and this is critical. I again am more than happy to work with editors, like yourself who have disclosed and put forth positive suggestions to change the article to meet wikicriteria.--67.126.202.125 01:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment You claim that you are 'more than happy to work with editors', yet you continue to fail to assume bad faith both with the conflicts of interest and by calling me homophobic when I made claims that were nothing of the sort. Here on Wikipedia, we tend to assume that people do not have a conflict of interest unless there is evidence otherwise. And you misunderstand my 'apples and oranges' comment above: I was referring to the fact that Iviewit is an apple, and Microsoft is an orange. One has a revenue that is measured in the tens of billions of dollars, the other... I doubt it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion. If your company meets the generally accepted inclusion criteria at WP:CORP (claims which I have been unable to substantiate either from the deleted versions or from the comments above), you and your company are best served if you let someone else write the article. Autobiographies (even when they are about companies) are problematic for many reasons. Rossami (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained it could be a deadly undertaking Rossami. Are you willing to undertake the writing yourself? Since COI is not a reason for deletion in whole, especially in circumstances as these, yet I agree wholeheartedly with COI problems were circumstances do not permit, and if circumstances that could cause harm to your children for your part did not exist perhaps someone else would write it. In fact, editors initially worked to make Eliot Bernstein an autobio from the initial Iviewit article, even here there seemed to be some efforts to edit the article but some of the edits caused concerned. Not that they could not have been overcome, such as reinserting valid source documents from reliable sources that mistankingly were removed as press releases.

Veinor I left word that once you revealed no conflict your comments should stand. I did not accuse you of homophobic or any other such, as I do not know you. I did retort to your gay voting comments as example to be flawed and this was in the spirit of debating the statement, not your personal sexual preference. In response to the value of the inventions, I suggest you turn to the Wachovia Private Placement Memo which should give you a starting point although it left off many other markets but it would have been ridiculous. Imagine in fact, an internet that could not scale video, you would see all video like you did until these inventions, in small grainy post stamp boxes, abhorrable upon full screen viewing and worthless at less than 7 frames per second with audio mono and compressed beyond viewable. As I stated before, Gates gave away Media to Glazer initially because it sucked using MPEG technology and was in Gates words a non commodity. Glazer formed Real as he believed that while although the video sucked it had applications. Bill handed it to him, until along came Eliot Bernstein and a group of techies who dreamed a new way that allowed the previous impossible streaming of video that you suck up daily in bandwidth at full screen full frame rate. Bill did an about face, much after everyone and simply copied the iviewit process into his encoder, as Real had done. In fact, Hassan Miah (Intel / CAA Multimedia Lab)/XING/Real being the first to call the inventions the "Holy Grail". Take that wonderful zoom off your digital camera and remove it from Hubble and remove it from G Maps etc. for without the scaling images you would still pixelate. Solving for pixel distortion was yet another invention. Do some homework on this and review the site material at http://www.iviewit.tv , read some of the other financial institutions estimates etc. I think at this time by the last CEO of Iviewit, outstanding royalties on only a few markets due currently since 1999 is well over 50 billion in royalties due the true inventors and shareholders. Many inventors have to wait years to collect on their inventions (7-10) and so I would not doubt that those shares of Iviewit are as valuable as ground floor shares in Microsoft and so do many of the people who invested in Iviewit. Hey where is the guy on Wikipedia who solved for streaming low bandwidth video at full screen full frame rate and the one on the inventor of zoom and pan on a digital camera using scaled low res images free of pixel distortion on zoom? Ok I agree with most sound mind here to drop the rhetoric and get to an edit that works by fair and impartial people. So if you want to take a stab at writing the article, putting the reliable sources in and risking your neck, please take a stab and see what others think, in fact, we were on that course when you mistakingly I presume removed the newspaper articles that were articles written by credible papers. We were in the middle of working together to get this done and some were editing, I had no problems other than the removal of the sources. I think hurrying this process to close over personal issues makes this process less reliable.--Iviewit 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Commment Your comments near the end are about Eliot Bernstein, which is an entirely different page. And you seem to assume that nobody else would have created the zoom, or that nobody else has. And you definitely did call me homophobic: "if you have nothing to hide, why bring in gay bashing to cover it." As it stands, the article was deleted for being spam:

Working with a group of technologists, in the face of insurmountable odds of failure, Bernstein and his team did what thousands of engineers worldwide had given up on, claiming that it was mathematically impossible

The technologies were validated by Real 3D, Inc. a company composed of Intel, Lockheed Martin and Silicon Graphics (immediately after learning of the Iviewit inventions, Intel bought Real 3D, Inc. and heralded by leading experts worldwide as the "Holy Grail" inventions of the digital imaging and video world.

Without the video inventions, not only would Internet full screen full frame rate video be impossible but other forms of low bandwidth video such as video cell phones, low bandwidth full screen video conferencing, video i-pods and pda’s, would also have all not been feasible.

This reads more like a brochure than a neutral article. There are no sources for any of these, and the last one seems extremely unlikely. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Large pathetic galaxy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD 2|AfD 1)

This Afd was closed as no consensus by Seraphimblade. No keep opinions had been made and there was difference of opinion as to whether the article should be deleted outright or converted into a redirect. Seraphimblade suggested the discussion should continue on the talkpage [1], but this is clearly unsatisfactory as (a) few people visit the article and (b) a deletion concensus on a talkpage is of no effect. Given that this is the second no consensus AfD result for this article, it seems better than we ensure an actual decision is made at AfD. I propose that the AfD be reopened and relisted among today's nominations, so consensus can be reached. WjBscribe 18:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this is at DRV. The closing admin gave permission to relist. Speedy close and relist. And by all means explain in the AfD nom that the closing admin gave permission for the odd relisting. Pan Dan 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I read "If you disagree, though, please go ahead and relist-hopefully you're right, and a second one will achieve consensus," as refering to a further AfD, not a relisting of the present one (as further discussion with the closing admin seemed to indicate). However if there is no objection to the relist, I am obviously happy with the relist :-). WjBscribe 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean as to the ambiguity. Well, we can just ask Seraphimblade what he meant. But does it matter? If he did mean a 2nd (actually 3rd) AfD (as opposed to a relisting) I don't suppose you would object to that? Either a relisting of the 2nd AfD or a 3rd AfD would be procedurally OK given the permission of the closing admin. Pan Dan 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd prefer the relist because it's been hard to get comments in the AfD, and I would rather keep the present opinions as part of the eventual concensus than try to build one from scratch. I'd hope the relist is fairly uncontroversial given the lack of 'keep' opinions. WjBscribe 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close so it can be relisted per above. Arkyan 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close. I read the comment WjBscribe posted as the closing admin sayign that a relist would be all right, not as a request for a DRV. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn no consensus close and delete - there is a clear consensus in that debate that this is not a valid topic. At best, a redirect. There are no references in reliable sources for this term, which appears to have been made up in an observatory one day. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Note by closer: Nominee is the originally blocked user. Has been blocked again, and I doubt anyone will be releasing the block. So he can be counted as a banned user for now.block log This significantly impacts some of the earlier comments. I'm leaving the page redirected to Athletic trainer, which title is better can be at that talk page better than it can be here. Editors in good standing can also merge anything they consider suitable. GRBerry 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sports trainer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Requesting for this page (User:Bradles_01/Sports trainer) to be created as Sports trainer, the information is relevant and is meets wikipedia's standards and guidelines. Please Note: Sports Trainer has been deleted and has been blocked for creating a page in that name, if the deletion of this page was to be undone the content in User:Bradles_01/Sports trainer would need to be re-created as Sports Trainer. The reason for the deletion in the first place was because of an incorrectly placed picture which i have removed in the current reversion. (Bradleigh 05:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Note by closer: Nominee is the originally blocked user. Has been blocked again, and I doubt anyone will be releasing the block. So he can be counted as a banned user for now.block log GRBerry 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy unsalt, it was only protected to prevent a banned user from recreating it. I've changed the nomination to be for the page that needs to be unsalted, instead of the page you want moved there. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Um, Bradleigh was the one who created it. At least we no longer have the words "Sports Trainer" photoshopped onto the figures in the pictures, but this seems to me to be redundant with athletic trainer. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Athletic trainer, protect the redirect if it's a problem article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I oppose that. Wikipedia usage is that "sport(s)" is used as the general term, and athletics is only used to mean sports in purely U.S. contexts. Non-Americans are liable to take "athletic trainer" to refer solely to what Americans call track and field, but no-one can misunderstand "sports trainer". Honbicot 11:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge content with athletic trainer at sports trainer. Honbicot 11:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Unprotect redirect. The freezing of the page is improper, in any regard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD | AFD2))

Emo Rangers meets notability guidelines. The article was deleted in 2005. Since then the television show has become apart of the MTV UK broadcast, and it is also showing on the MTV US website. http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/28092006/mighty_moshin_emo_rangers

It has also been mentioned in various media sources, such as Chart (magazine) magazines's online website, http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2005/05/2603.cfm

I request the article be undeleted. Teram10 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone can help me on this one, I'm almost positive this had a second AfD or a DRV that I can't find, I may have specifically been the person behind it. It absolutely meets our standards, so overturn, but sure we're missing something here between the 2005 AfD and the recent speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn now that I've found the second AfD, which closed as a unanimous keep in July 2006. A7 doesn't qualify for articles that survived an AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah it does. It's proposed deletion which shouldn't be used after an AfD. Picaroon 20:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, per A7, "If the assertion is likely to be controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Jeff. Anything that's gone through a unanimous keep AfD relatively recently isn't a valid speedy target. However, I suggest relist at AfD to clarify whether this still stands up to our guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn but relist. The unanimous decision to keep it during the last AfD did not have substantial discussion, and the fact that someone nominated this for speedy deletion would indicate that there needs to be more consensus on the topic than was generated either way. Arkyan 17:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn definitely. Neutral on the relist—the provided sources seem like a good enough start that I'm not sure one is required, but not so good that one is clearly unnecessary. Xtifr _tälk 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This shouldn't have been speedied. --Oakshade 01:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - As per BDJ. FCYTravis 22:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Renetto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|2nd AfD)

This Youtube celebrity's stub was created with full assertation of notability stating "His videos have attracted 1.19 million views, plus over 23,000 subscribers." This article was fully referenced by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Within one minute of the stub's creation, user:ScorpO speedy deleted it. The user stated on my talk page: "As much attention as renetto may gain on youtube I do not feel he is notable enough to have an article about him." [2] This article was in no way proper criteria for speedy deletion and the reason the user gave for the deletion was purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Oakshade 02:29, 16 March 2007 (Comment partially struck due to user's reponse. --Oakshade 06:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

• Don't get me wrong, I have subscribed to renetto's videos on youtube. As great a youtuber as he is he just isn't notable. ScorpO 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oakshade, can you post the relevant articles here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The stub content was supported by these two references:
    Tedeschi, Bob. "E-Commerce Report; New Hot Properties: YouTube Celebrities", The New York Times, February 26, 2007. 
    Carney, Brian M.. "Fact or Fiction?", The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2006. 
    The following was added under "Further reading"
    Williams, Felicia. "Renetto Expresses His Thoughts on Commercialization", The Daily Reel, November 9, 2006.  --Oakshade 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks. Overturn, notability established. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse G4 (via AfD)and A7 keep deleted Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • PS there were 2 valid AfD's both for delete the community has spoken Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The last deletion was almost 3 months ago and I think that was closed under dubious circumstances. The New York Times reference was from after that last AfD. The first AfD from July 2006 was before any of the refernces. --Oakshade 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist This could have been a speedy per CSD G4, but it has been a while since the last creation, so undelete and relist on AFD (for the 3rd time).—— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, AFD looks valid to me. Appears to be just the Intarwebz Hype of the Moment; 15 minutes of fame is not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 08:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The AfD specifically cited that there was no convincing argument that he met standards. That's certainly not the case anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, closer gave good reasoning, and nothing above challenges that. Articles listing YouTube "celebrities" are evidence for an article on a list of YouTube celebrities - which we appear to have! So that's alright then. Wikipedia is not and should never be a directory of YouTube cruft. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not an explanation that the article should have been speedy deleted. An article that asserts notability and being fully refernced by very reliable sources should have gone to AfD, not speedied. The "cruft" term is a specific example in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions under the WP:IDONTLIKEIT clause. --Oakshade 16:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per A7. Wikipedia is not the user directory for YouTube (or any other website, popular or unpopular). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A7 clearly states an article is a candidate for speedy deletion if it doesn't assert notablity. This article clearly did. An editors' opinion of YouTube celebrities is not criteria either. A7 states "If the assertion is likely to be controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." --Oakshade 17:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per CSD G4. Regarding A7, Oakshade believes that adding routine press references to a "youtube celebrity" will demonstrate or imply their significance or importance. I don't agree, and neither does the wording of CSD A7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The wording of CSD A7 actually states "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. The article stating that the subject attraced "1.19 million views, plus over 23,000 subscribers." is clearly an assertation of notability. --Oakshade 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It is? It's about half as many viewers as the average weekly episode of Les 100 plus grands fous rires, and marginally more than watch a typical episode of Witse (in Belgium; probably half as many if we count the rebroadcast to the Noordburen). Two million views is not a lot, and This Number is Big is not obviously a claim of notability or importance Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Even if your POV on what defines as asserting notability is in contention, per CSD A7 states it's not criteria for speedy and should go to AfD. Quote from CSD A7: "If the assertion is likely to be controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." --Oakshade 23:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That would possibly be true, except that this case was covered by G4 and AFD isn't needed: "A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted...provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted." Either you ignore the AFD, as you did in recreating this, in which case A7 is reasonable, or you don't, in which case G4 is reasonable. There's no logical way to rule out both G4 and A7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
          • G4 doesn't apply either. First of all, as Eagle101 said above, the last AfD was almost 3 months ago and the content is entirely different (not "substantially identical" per G4) and the New York Times reference in the recreated article is new. --Oakshade 00:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, how many times do we have to delete this d00d? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Considering we shouldn't have in the first place? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think we got the right result, but perhaps without correct process. Given the continued disagreement I can't oppose this going to AFD again, as new sources have apparently appeared since the last one. Send to AFD. --kingboyk 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist on AFD. Article did not satisfy G4 or A7. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. A7 is not supposed to be a personal judgment over whether an article asserts sufficient notability, but a narrow criterion for articles that assert no notability. In fact, many people feel he is notable enough not just to pass CSD but to have an article, which shows A7 was applied too broadly here. As for G4, I'll take Oakshade's word that the new entry is different from the old. That leaves the argument that he's already flunked two AfDs. But the second AfD was not an overwhelming rejection. One delete !voter, for example, noted that he "barely fails WP:BIO;" with the august New York Times added as a source, could he not think he now "barely passes" WP:BIO? It only closed as a delete through the closer coming up with rationales to discount almost all the keeps while counting almost all deletes. (Frankly, I think those who are endorsing the deletion know that if the article is not kept bottled up in DRV, the only way another AfD is going to close as a delete is with similarly "bold" counting, meaning that it would end up back here on DRV.) A new AfD with a new closer might well go the other way. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • For the record, I was only part of the 2nd AfD discussion. The first one was last July before I registered and before there was any non-YouTube media coverage on this subject. --Oakshade 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, multiple major media sources clearly constitute notability. If being written about in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal isn't enough, what is? Do we need a book before we can have an article about an internet celebrity? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closures and the re-deletions. The last AFD decision was within reasonable admin discretion. The closer clearly explained which opinions were discounted and why. The evidence presented since the last close confirm the existence but not the importance of this topic. None of the articles listed above are primarily about this person - they merely use him as an example and one of several interviewees. They are insufficient to convince me that there is a reasonable chance that the decision would be different if we send it to AFD yet again. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually the importance is asserted in the recreated article that was speedy deleted, along with the new New York Times reference supporting the assertation, not simply "confirming the existence" of this topic. These arguments are really AfD arguments, not evidence that this should have been speedy deleted. --Oakshade 08:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you're confusing the discussion. The controlling speedy-deletion criterion is not A7 (lack of assertion of notability) but G4 (repost of material which was deleted subsequent to a full deletion discussion). Assertion of notability has no bearing on G4 or on the AFD decision on which it was based. New evidence would have bearing - but as I said above, I don't see enough to reopen the debate. Rossami (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • There was new evidence -- The new article had references to the new york times and wall street journal that weren't in the last one. it was an invalid g4. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The original closure was correctly done, and the new sources are not enough to save the article in its present form. Neither reference is about the subject, but about the phenomena of YouTube celebrities and they happen to reference Renetto, one with some brief quotes from his creator. EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist In the deletion review for AFD2, I said that we should not overturn that AFD, as the article then had no sources, and instead wait until there was a sourced article that would stand a chance at AFD. The new stub was fully sourced to reliable, independent sources. I stand by my former opinion, a sourced article is substantially different from the one deleted via AFD2, and thus I believe that G4 does not apply to this one, and it should be given another run at AFD. GRBerry 23:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Trapped in the Drive-Thru (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The article on this song was speedy-deleted by an admin with the comment "article that makes no claim to significance of its (not yet existent) subject)". This song was listed by Rolling Stone magazine in the 100 best songs of 2006; additionally the subject of this article does exist, so the deleting admin was in error as to that. Ryanjunk 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, yet another invalid speedy. Songs aren't speedyable via A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment, so wait, if a band is speedied by A7, and they have say 10 song articles, do they have to go through AFD? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • keep deleted, and or list on AFD - It almost looks like an advertisement for the single... check out this unsourced tidbit. I'm excited to announce that on March 19, MySpace will world premiere an animated music video for "Trapped In The Drive-Thru." It's being done by Doug Bresler (of Doogtoons fame), and everything I've seen of it so far looks great… hope you guys like it! (italics in the article, no source). At the most, undelete and relist, but this is a borderline advertisement to me. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)'
• Overturn. Should not have been speedied. Here is the reference to the Rolling Stone "one of the 100 best songs of 2006" assertation --> [3] --Oakshade 03:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of this "article", which was 100% speculation and 100% unreferenced, as well as 100% free of any claim to notability. If you can't write a better article than this was in the time it takes you to read this !vote, I'd be very surprised indeed. There is, I think, pretty much nothing in there which would survive the rewrite into an encyclopaedic article. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as a non-admin I nominated this for DRV without seeing the deleted article; since it was speedied I didn't have much to go on, so I assumed based on the delete summary that it might at least be salvageable. It sounds like the article which existed was in fact crap, so rather than overturn the deletion the thing to do is just rewrite properly if it's a notable subject, which it appears it might be. Ryanjunk 13:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - in case anyone's unaware at this stage, this is a song by "Weird Al" Yankovic, not by some random guy without an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Notable single by a massively notable (Grammy-winning, multiple-platinum-selling) artist on a notable album. What's the problem here, exactly? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that the version of the article that was deleted was apparently horrible. I have re-written this article with references and cited its notability, so I Withdraw my request for undeletion due to having a much better rewrite. Ryanjunk 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The reason that this particular page should not be deleted is fairly simple. A proper definition was used, but the citation was forgotten. Also by having this undeleted you are letting the people involved remeber the memories that were made. It may seem like a childish thing but this where I and many others have made life long friends. Most of the people involved had this special sort of bond that can never be recreated. It was something that does seem adolecent but is far from it. The deeper bonds that were established is the true purpose of having a proper online documentation of it. I hope that you reconsider. If the page is not to be undeleted some reasons and possible suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
(Greenough 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

• Which articles? I'm not seeing anything in the logs. --Coredesat 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion now that I've seen the deleted article. Looks to be a gathering of a few high school friends, which would make this a valid A7 (group). The article itself is almost a journal of the things that happened in these gatherings, such as things that "seemed like season 1 of the OC" and someone losing his pants. --Coredesat 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, endorse a valid A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• What are they? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm sorry, but if we allowed an article on everything important to someone, we'd have far too many articles on random subjects. And they'd be entirely unsourceable, so they'd have to be deleted anyway. -Amarkov moo! 04:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, which is precisely what this subject is. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion WP:NFT case, just a list of parties attended by some kid, with semi-nonsensical descriptions of each (sample: "This was New Years baby. It would have been pretty good until our friends dad kicked us out at 11:55. So we celebrated on the front lawn.") I think I lost a few IQ points just by looking at it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Rickey Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Notable contestant on American Idol who made it to the Top 8. [4] [5] BlueLotas 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse my deletion per valid AFD. The sources provided here don't really work, as all the USA Today article says is that he was voted off the show, and the second one just says he gained a few fans for celebrating making it to the top 8. Neither shows notability outside the show, which was the concern in the AFD. --Coredesat 04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The debate was conducted in full knowledge that he made it to the top 8, and that he has some fans. -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The Top 8 on a hugely popular show is notable. Smith hasn't done anything since, but he should at least have a stub. BlueLotas 04:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "All of the season 5 finalists have pages. All of the season 3 finalists have pages. And I believe all of the season 4 finalists have pages. According to the guidelines set forth by the WikiProject on the subject, finalists get pages. And yes, the pages stay even after elimination. The proof is here, here, here and here and here. Those are links to the "What links here" section of the templates for each season of Idol. This is the #1 show in the United States and it's highly rated elsewhere. Almost all of the contestants have had careers beyond Idol be it Broadway, CDs, fansites, etc. They are all notable if they've made the finals. I know that many people don't care for the show and many don't like that we have this many articles on the show, but I think it's necessary. And if we delete this one, then we need to delete 12 participant articles or make them all redirects...and then decided on a one-by-one basis who gets recreated after the show is on for awhile. At some point, it's easiest to keep things as they are. And the thing is, we don't know who will be successful and who won't be at this point. I mean the arguably 2 most successful acts from season 5 finished 6th (Kellie Pickler) and 4th (Chris Daughtry). I think it's just too early to ditch these. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)" BlueLotas 04:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That's essentially a restatement of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This contestant has no attributed notability outside the show. --Coredesat 05:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Easily verifiable, obviously notable. Notability is permanent, etc etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of all losing rteality show contestants unless they achieve notability independent of being on the show, which this one did not. We can have a list of contestants, that is enough. We really do not need hundreds of articles on "Joe Schmoe was a contestant in the hundred and forty-sixth series of American Nonentity, he was voted off after one week, nobody knows where he is now". WP:NOT a directory of reality show contestants or anything else. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Valid stubs of notable people are not directory entries. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem with this one is that it has a valid AFD behind it, where all participants (except the one that argued to keep solely because "deletionism is ruining Wikipedia") were well aware of Smith's Top 8 status. --Coredesat 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. If there is a question as to the notability of Idol finalists, it should be taken up at the WikiProject. Since consensus seems to be that all finalists are notable enough for articles, this article should stay. Ryanjunk 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yes, leave it to fans of the show to decide whether contestants are notable, why didn't I think of that. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 22:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, at least for now. Let's wait and see if a post-Idol career materialises. If coming in 8th on a game show is all there is to be said, that's not enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, the closing seems to have been perfectly reasonable. Deletion Review is not AfD round two. And no significant new information has been provided. No valid reason for undeletion has been provided. Wikiproject guidelines do not trump Wikipedia policies or guidelines; at best, they might carry a little more weight than essays. Xtifr _tälk 09:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment Otherstuff exists does not mean that there should be no stable criteria. If the other stuff is the consensus practice there should be a reason for not deciding likewise. (But I am not sure that this is the case here, so this is not a !vote.)DGG 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Coming in 8th on American Idol, one of the most popular shows in history, demonstrates "notability." This isn't like coming in 8th in a local county fair. --Oakshade 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse There was a valid AfD and no new information has been provided. --RaiderAspect 11:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I find no process problems with this discussion and no new evidence to justify revisiting the debate. Being on TV is not an automatic ticket into the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)