Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 2

Threequel (film term) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was redirected by The JPS with no prior discussion about it (he started one at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Films after the fact). He redirected it to [1] but removed everything I had written [2]. At the very least shouldn't he have contacted me via my talk page and explained why he believed my article should be removed before taking any action? (I'm not an anonymous or infrequent contributor, as a check of my history would have shown him, and I think I deserve the right to defend my work's merits before it disappears. I apologize if I'm wrong in thinking that way.) "Threequel" has become a common term in movie-making parlance, and I see no reason why an article about it can't exist. If we have one for sequel and prequel, why not one for threequel? Thank you. ConoscoTutto 23:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If there was no deletion, this is the incorrect forum. Please start a discussion on the Talk pages of the respective articles, and follow the steps in dispute resolution (WP:DR, not WP:DRV). --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Restore article - the term does seem to have found its way into common usage, supporting the independent notability of the subject. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It is becoming more and more apparent that the second article is needed to disambiguate between the meditative practices and the organizational side of Sahaja Yoga - this is manifesting through both the format (the article is long and untidy) as well as content (content has been removed on grounds that it doesn't pertain to the organization but to the meditative practice.) Sfacets 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note - This is a review of the October 14, 2006 AfD in view of significant new information that has come to light since the deletion. (DRV Purpose #2). It was suggest on the article talk page that the requestor bring the matter here, to DRV, to seek consensus on recreating the Sahaja Yoga International article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What's New? [3] Sfacets 13:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That link predates the merger of the material from the deleted article. This diff is more representative of the changes that have ben made to the article since last fall: [4]. The contested inclusion of the chakra tables and charts, and the addition of a "criticism" section, are the most obvious changes. Again, not much new about the organization to merit overturning the AfD. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. How have things chaged since the article was deleted and its contents merged? I haven't seen any substantial changes that require a split. Have new sources about Sahaja Yoga International become available? If so, nobody has added them to the article. All in all, it appears that there's no reason to alter the deletion decision. Note that the article was moved to Sfacets's user space at his request: User:Sfacets/Sahaja Yoga International. No improvements have been made to it since that time. It's only a couple of short sections and a lot of external links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It is difficult to review the "significant new information" from the above "What's new" link. It would help a lot if you would create a draft article in your user space to see what it is you are proposing to be allowed as the recreated article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC) -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - The new information appears to be footnotes to the organization's website and other sources publshed by that organization. See this link. Notability requires Sahaja Yoga International to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, here Sahaja Yoga International. Footnoting the text to the organization's website and other sources publshed by that organization does not comply with the "independent" requirement of Notability. Please post a note on my talk page if you do have independent referenced material for the proposed recreation. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The link I supplied above does not predate the merger... but even so, notice all that lovely green colour? That is new content! The issue here is not about new content n the Organization being created, but that the article is getting too long because of all the new content aded (mostly about the meditation). Sfacets 23:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Information normally is spun out of an article. A rule of thumb gives an idea as to when an article may be too long. Sahaja Yoga is only at 30,479 bytes. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose (Endorse original deletion/current redirect) per Jreferee. The new information offered is relatively insubstantial, and insufficient to merit forking. Xoloz 12:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This article (KiloWatts, electronic musician) was deleted with no mention of it in the deletion review, it just disappeared. In fact, I can't find any record it anywhere. Isn't a proposed deletion supposed to end up in the Articles For Deletion log? And aren't they supposed to undergo a vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.4.15 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KiloWatts --W.marsh 17:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you - that was from last year. Since then a new page under the Electronic Musicians WikiProject had been created and modified by numerous editors. It was up for about 3 months until yesterday, when it suddenly disappeared with no trace. Would like to find the recently deleted article in order to review its notability. 76.99.4.15 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please direct further discussion to my talk page - not here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Red State Update (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am interested in seeing the content of this article and I have a willingness to state the article's importance and improve the article. Billebrooks 05:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now seen the article and I can vouch for its content. The first paragraph does state importance (the CNN debates), but a lot more can be done. Jeanne Moos referenced the show recently in her Larry Craig segment [[5]]. Billebrooks 06:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As the deleting admin, I have undeleted the article after further review. How does one close one of these discussions? android79 15:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll endorse this deletion as a valid A7 (web content without assertion of notability). The "assertion" provided above is enough of a stretch that I can't blame the deleting admin for not reading it as such. No sources besides. Heather 15:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Not endorse the deletion I consider that to assert something was discussed on a national news show is an assertion of importance. As the article is now undeleted, i suppose the next step would be to list it for AfD if one thought it non-notable. DGG (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• List at AFD The absence of real world sources is troubling the the version currently available has sufficient merit that this needs a discussion rather than nuking. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)