Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 26

Pat's_Calculator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a serious article about a popular cartoon on the University of Wisconsin campus, meets all Wikipedia Guidelines, and should not be deleted. Burbenog 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it didn't come close to meeting Wikipedia's policies. Please read WP:N and WP:V, for starters. Endorse deletion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the speedy in tihs case was fully justified. If anyone outside the university writes about it a eliable non-blog source, then perhaps it might be appropriate to have an article.DGG (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion It is heartening to see that more people are seeing the wisdom of acknowledging that A7's examples should not considered an exclusive list of A7 targets (cartoons, print and visual media are not given as examples on the list at A7, but this article's subject has no assertion of importance, significance, notability or however one wants phrase it and is properly an A7). Carlossuarez46 06:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's web content, which is most certainly covered by A7. I checked before chiming in. Your misunderstanding of the CSD is not relevant. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • According to the deleted article that was created later, but you point out another tidbit: one can go beyond the content of the article itself to find out that it may meet a speedy criteria then delete it. Good idea. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • You mean I did research to see if the article was simply poorly written and could be rewritten to satisfy Wikipedia's policies? Say it ain't so! Perhaps I should be sent to ArbCom for being an editor AND an administrator. Your mischaracterizations of both policy and what I say are becoming tiring. I won't respond any further; if you wish to discuss on my talk page, please feel free. We're disturbing an unrelated DRV. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, no assertion of notability and no evidence that any outside sources write about this cartoon. Kusma (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Deletion was completely valid. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

• Closed as the article deleted the second time had an adequate justification of notability, as agreed below--though it might not at the time have been sufficient to pass AfD. (Now much improved over the original.) The first speedy however was justified, and was not abusive. The second was not abusive either, just not considered carefully before leaving. Restored in the absence of the original admin. DGG (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Abusive speedy delete for a sourced article that made clear claims of notability. There was and is no valid reason to delete an article about one of the world's largest travel information and computer reservation system providers, deleted as part of a clear abuse of process by User:JzG, an admin who has repeatedly demonstrated wanton disrespect and disregard for consensus and Wikipedia policy. As it currently stands, this is a perfectly valid article that should exist and should never have been deleted. Alansohn 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I note the ANI thread where Guy explained the deletion. GRBerry 21:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The ANI thread referenced may excuse JzG's first deletion of the article, on the 7th. The article was created, properly sourced and notability demonstrated, yet was abusively deleted in clear violation of Wikipedia policy on the 18th by User:JzG. There is no excuse for this one. Alansohn 21:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - For another computer reservations system issue, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Galileo_CRS. -- Jreferee T/C 21:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment:: This is more of Alansohn's continuing Bad Faith personal attack crusade against Guy. Corvus cornix 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No. This is a direct comment specific to an abusive deletion of an article. Does anyone care to defend the speedy deletion, or is this just a personal attack? Alansohn 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: the article was undeleted by DGG (talk · contribs), with the notice "restored as explained by me at DRV." I can't find the explanation anywhere on DRV though. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a bit of an explanation at User talk:GRBerry#Travelport. I encouraged him to actually explain here while closing this. GRBerry 01:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Hey. Alansohn. This isn't an admin RfC, and it's certainly not the complaints department. Leave your grudge against Guy at home and make your case about the deletion; right now the attacks on Guy are undermining you. Both of the cited references in the article are pretty trivial, and appear to mention Travelport passingly in the context of Orbitz etc... but I don't think the article meets A7, and AfD might be more appropriate.MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Although the article is very poorly sourced for a topic that generates over 2000 Google News Archive results, it does have a clear assertion of notability suggesting that WP:CORP is easily attained. Guy certainly doesn't like spam, but ownership of a top reservations website seems to nix A7 criteria. The DRV nom is basically a personal attack, though, and is not constructive.--Dhartung | Talk 11:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - at present, I'm not satisfied that there is sourced claim of notability in the article, however, I'm sure one can be found so best off taking this to AfD. Original speedy by Guy was certainly correct - the artilce made no claims whatsoever so I would suggest Alansohn stops this harassment immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I've added a few claims of notability into the article with some refs - although the article is still poor, it's better than it was and passes WP:CORP. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Marwan al-Shehhi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

With due respect to the deciding administrator, whom I contacted several days ago but did not receive a response despite his editing elsewhere on WP, I believe the process of deletion was wrong. The AFD sat for many days with admins deciding on most of the other ones but unable to decide on this one. Then the admin belittled the AFD calling it "groundless" which is not true as groundless AFD are speedly deleted and certainly would be one of the fastest ones to be deleted after the suggested 5 days, not left days untouched by other admin because of the difficulty in deciding. In terms of lack of merit, Marwan al-Shehhi should be deleted because he is non-notable and only was a faceless hijacker. We do not have articles on every solider that fought in a certain battle. There are no articles in the news about Marwan, only the incident and the ringleaders (Atta and Osama bin Laden). I can see Atta being notable for an article but not Marwan. Even less notable is Ahmed al-Ghamdi. There should be no question that he is redirected to the event article. WP:BLP1E gives us guidance; cover the event, not the person. Please do not shoot the messenger (me). I am FOR keeping articles on Atta and binLaden despite the killings on their hands. Also note that unlike the nominator, I am not in favor of deletion. Rather, I am in favor of merge and redirect which seems consistent with WP policy.Mrs.EasterBunny 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support keep Single events can make someone notable. This is a clear example of that--about as clear an example as we are likely to find., given that there is quite apparently enough material for a bio, the article should be kept on the merits. If there was nothing much known about him, then it might be reason for a redirect. DGG (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep closure. The closer correctly determined consensus on the AfD. Some people really do attain notability for a single event so there is no overriding policy reason to delete. A merge might be reasonable but that doesn't require AfD or DRV. Eluchil404 22:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with Eluchi1404 (A merge might be reasonable...doesn't require DRV), I wish to withdraw this deletion review. If those who responded here, your advice recommended about Lansing Bennett. That person has more bio than Marwan (see DGG's comments above) yet was deleted (redirected). Mrs.EasterBunny 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse since the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. A single event can generate enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic to develop an attributable article on the topic suc that the topic can meet general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee T/C 00:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. There is no procedural issue raised by the DRV request, only subjective interpretations of notability that are not grounded in policy. Alas, we live in a world where people who have "killings on their hands" are notable and indeed numerous, and as an encyclopedia we reflect that society. I don't like him is a poor rationale for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 11:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is procedural issues. Saying "groundless AFD" is an indication of inadequate consideration and railroading considering that many other adminis skipped over this more difficult AFD even after the suggested 5 days.

Furthermore, I don't involve WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I was contending insufficient notability that should cause redirect, not delete. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, closing admin correctly determined consensus. No one was arguing for deletion except the nominator, and almost everyone agreed that the article should be kept, citing relevant policies and guidelines. While the argument for deletion was valid, it didn't gain a consensus. Walton^One 12:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Error in the above comment. Only one was arguing for deletion. I was arguing for merge and redirect, not keep. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV withdrawn, see my comments above. Thank you for your time and ideas. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Platinum Brothers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The reasons given for deletion were not substantial. A quick check of any music CD site would have turned up references to The Platinum Brothers, not just a myspace page. Sites such as Charlie, Last Name Wilson CD reference them on the album by Charlie Wilson which has sold well over 300,000 copies. I am also trying to update this page because there is more info available on them. They are featured on two new albums, "Brave" by Sony Recording Artist Jennifer Lopez on October 9th and "Back Of My Lac" by Capitol Records Recoridng Artist J. Holiday on October 2nd. -- Superkat2 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• The AfD closure was correct, but it was over 7 months ago. You have rewritten a new version of the article, which is perfectly fine if reliable sources showing notability can be provided now. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Restore - since substantial new information presented for the article. The Platinum Brothers seem to be growing and likely to generate more reliable source material for the article. -- Jreferee t/c 00:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Predicting reliable sources in the future is not a good argument. It's like saying "this band is up and coming, so they deserve a Wikipedia page now." We don't predict the future about sources because lots of good bands fizzle out, as with anything.--Chaser - T 05:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment it seems to have been restored anyway. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 17:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (no prejudice) sources? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep restored The sources indicate the band is weakly notable now for its contributions to more notable projects. I still don't see how it meets WP:MUSIC, but the article's in much better shape for notability and other concerns than when it was deleted.--Chaser - T 05:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Please undelete this uncontested prod. Alphonze 04:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)