Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 17

Repeat Offender (Band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page should be undeleted as it was put up for speedy delete before i had finished it. I planned to finish it today with reliable references, uncopyrighted images and more details. If it is undeleted the standard of the page will change immdeiately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeatoffender4031 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 October 2007

• Comment. There's been some minor coverage in the Sunday Mail, nothing spectacular. Might or might not pass AFD but probably not a good A7 candidate. Chick Bowen 03:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as the speedily deleting admin: the page as it stood when deleted consisted of nothing more than the track listings for two EPs, one of which was noted as "self-released". There was nothing in there which claimed notability under WP:BAND. I have explained to Repeatoffender4031 the ways in which notability can be demonstrated. Of course, if such demonstration can be found, I have no objection to recreating so it can be added. Sam Blacketer 09:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• - Reply - They also comply with criterion 12. They appeared on Australian television programs Rock and Roll Cooking Show (30 Minutes or More) and Access All Areas TV (less than 30 Minutes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeatoffender4031 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As there is some doubt about it, undelete and post at AfD. That'll give the creator a few days to build the article and establish notability. Either that or let the creator start again if there isn't much to save. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Given the emerging consensus and the apparent ability to claim notability, I've restored the article. Sam Blacketer 14:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Church of the Militant Elvis Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Proposed for deletion as not having reliable sources. There are listings for the party, but that is the nature of a party in a general election. There may be a belief that a political party by default is notable because it gets a public listing, however there appears to be no Wiki guideline on this - and the current guidelines asks that coverage would actually speak to notability when examined. The sources are listings of parties involved or comments which focus on the party's very lack of notability: [1] "The noble Lord will know that I could not possibly resist pointing out that in his amendment he suggests that we should consult all political parties. We dug out the list of political parties that we have; there are 317 on the GB register, and I might hold a short quiz later to see how many noble Lords recognise them. I have no idea what these political parties are, but I love them. There is the British Unicorn Party, the Church of the Militant Elvis Party, the Grumpy Old Men Political Party, the Idle Toad Party, the Fancy Dress Party, and the Make Politicians History Party." In the discussion there were 6 deletes, 1 merge and 3 keeps. User:Jreferee closed the AfD with the comment that the statement by Wikidemo that "mentions in the Financial Times, Independent, BBC News, Associated Press.... easily establishes notability" was a persuasive argument. I feel that Jreferee didn't examine those sources and took Wikidemo's word that the sources established notability. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn WP:N requires significant coverage in WP:RS, merely mentioning something doesn't make it notable. Like all the official government-registered candidates in California's governor's election - most got mentions in some reliable sources if only to show "hey there's a teamster running", or "this candidate promises free booze", or "this candidate wants pretty girls/boys/goats to call him". C'mon, this is an encyclopedia not a citation resource with a listing of everything that's appeared in print anywhere for any reason. Carlossuarez46 19:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The references provided show no notability, there are no non-trivial mentions. Sure, you got mentioned on the BBC's website, but does that automatically make you notable? Not unless the story is about you, which it is not in any of the cases. The closing admin probably did not take a look at the sources. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Silk. Without non-trivial sources, a wikipedia article cannot exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Normally I would say relist or just do another afd, but this was--to put it simply--carelessly decided. I am one of those who think all genuine political parties probably notable, but this is not one of them. DGG (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, with the declaration that I commented in the AfD. This is just a one-man party. The reason this party attracted slightly more media coverage than average is due to deliberate attempts to fight 'interesting' elections: Mr Bishop turned up in the very high profile Tatton constituency in 1997, followed Martin Bell to Brentwood and Ongar in 2001, and in 2005 chose the Erewash seat being fought by Robert Kilroy-Silk. British election law requires that all parties are mentioned in media coverage of a particular constituency, so this party has to be mentioned. Sam Blacketer 23:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per all above, sources are trivial and do not count as significant coverage. Closing as keep wasn't the right decision, though I could see why he did so (sometimes editors will look at what the sources are rather than what's in them). --Coredesat 05:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: As the nominator I provided the links to the sources. The article itself doesn't have any. When a nominator for delete provides sources it would be a courtesy to at least glance at them! Withdrawn as a petty comment. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, huge outnumbering and clear consensus to delete. Good arguments can only go so far. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Mis-assessment of consensus at AfD. I don't see how the discussion at this AfD indicates a consensus to delete. I feel that the closing admin has substituted his own judgment for the actual consensus of the discussion (which I would characterize as no consensus, leaning towards keep, at worst). Chunky Rice 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think that finding the print sources you referred to in the AFD would be conclusive. You now have five more days - go look; a citation in combination with your saying "I've read it and the coverage is non-trivial" should suffice. GRBerry 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm none too happy about the way this was closed - there was no consesus, and it had only been running properly for 6 days. The afd should absolutely be overturned if Chunkyrice provides sources. Artw 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact overturn - the afd was a mess from start to finish. There may be some WP:N grounds for deletion, but that would be better dealt with by relisting it with a proper afd and not closing it early. Artw 18:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete I'd be absolutely shocked if reliable sources can't be found for this, as there's several magazines which cover CCGs in depth, such as InQuest, found at B&N, Borders, and other mainstream outlets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A quick Google shows that Inquest #78 included a promo card for this game, and in all likelihood also had coverage of it as well. Should be a good place to start when it comes to finding sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, around Oct. 2005, there was a two page article about communities supporting out of print games in which the Buffy CCG was prominently featured. If I had a stack of Scrye and InQuest magazines to leaf through, I'd add the specific references in a heartbeat, but I don't. But the inaccessability of sources known to exist is not grounds for deletion. But this isn't AfD part 2. My assertion here is that there was no consensus to delete in the discussion at AfD. -Chunky Rice 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and relist on AfD if necessary. Definitely no consensus over at AfD, it just looks like a lot of arguing with some delete/keep comments in between. If some sources can be found, then by all means overturn, otherwise I think this should be relisted. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and do not automatically relist, because there was consensus to keep. DGG (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and do not relist. I would go past the point of nonconsensus and go as far to say that the consensus of this one was a Keep. The only deletion arguments was essentially "Wikipedia is not a how to guide"...which was pretty well argued against by xDanielx. Also, the AfD existed for almost 24 hours without a tag being placed on the page. Smashville 23:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No reliable sources means no verifiability. If it is overturned, it should be overturned as no consensus, to allow relisting unless sources are rapidly found. Chick Bowen 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Chick Bowen. If it's notable, prove it with reliable sources - saying "they're out there" isn't enough, they must actually be provided and/or added to the article. No one did so in the AFD. If overturned, the article should be relisted at AFD. --Coredesat 05:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I agree that the general notability test was basically not met, but as someone who firmly considers WP:N a proxy test and not an inherent test, I think the rough consensus to keep the article anyway was perfectly reasonable. Some notable subjects just incidentally slip the media, and recreational-geared topics like CCGs generally get a disproportionately little amount of reliable coverage (no customer reviews, no coverage from academic journals, etc.; magazine coverage tends to be non-holistic). It's fine to allow consensus to trump guidelines as long as those in favor understand what the guidelines are and have reasonable grounds for supporting an exception. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as closer - since the debate was interpreted correctly. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy. Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by editors' consensus. The keep reasoning in that discussion address things other than whether the topic could meet Wikipedia's article standards, including the underlying policy of verifiability. The keep arguments were weak. No reliable sources means no verifiability. The delete reasoning was clear in that not enough reliable source material exists on the topic. -- Jreferee t/c 07:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the verifiability issues were addressed during the AfD by Chunky Rice's comment: "I know for a fact that this game was written up multiple times in Scrye and InQuest magazines" Those are both fairly major publications and considered reliable sources for our purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ignoring the debate due to a lack of sources (or "interpereting it correctly" as you put it) would be reasonable, except afd was listed improperly and rushed to a close. WP:N was raised late in the debate and reasonable attempts were in progress to source the article. I would urge you to take another look at what has gone on here, as I suspect you've just given a rote response. Artw 15:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I do find it interesting that in the above DRV, you went against consensus to delete because Wikidemo makes an assertion of sourcing, though no direct links or additions to the article were made and here you went agaisnt consensus to keep with similar assertions on the table. I find this to be inconsistent. Further, it is not and has never been policy that an article must have sources in the article for the purposes of notability. The mere fact that they exist is sufficient. Verifiability is not an issue for this article (it can be sourced to primary sources like the game itself and Score's website) and was not even raised in the AfD debate, so I don't understand why you're bringing it up here. Your job as admin is to assess consensus of the discussion, not to make your own determination of whether or not the article should be kept or deleted. -Chunky Rice 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. It was a virtual certainty that a TCG licensed from a popular franchise, which produced three sets, organized tournament play in both the US and Europe, prize support, and an active online community will have a reliable source somewhere. Finding these sources is, admittedly, nontrivial; gaming and science fiction industry periodicals from 2001 are not generally available online and rarely stocked in library or university collections. Nevertheless, promotional cards for the game were included in InQuest 78, InQuest 84, InQuest 88, Scrye 49, Scrye 53, Wizard 127, and the June 2002 issue of SCI FI Magazine and that a "play mat" was included with Scrye 48. Scrye 54 (Angel as the cover) included a deck list and strategy discussion. And, for today's "most random source" nominee, the youth section of the online edition of the English-language Malaysian tabloid/newspaper The Star included a discussion and review of the game here back in 2003. Smart money says that someone with hardcopies of the industry mags from the appropriate period will find a lot more out there... Serpent's Choice 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Seems clear-cut to me. Stifle (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I want to make a page about this guy, but it is protected. The people at the help desk said I should come here. Brian Peppers is a popular meme. There are other pages pages for memes (see internet phenomena so we should have one for this. If you have never heard of this guy, see http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp for a quick overview. Can someone unprotect or undelete this page so we can create a reasonable sourced artical about it?? Pilotbob 04:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)