Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 9

300-page iPhone bill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closed as delete against both the number and substance of comments. Delete reason given was WP:NOT#NEWS even though only 3 of 35 comments supported delete on this basis, and 2 others refuted it directly. Balance of delete comments were predominately based on novel interpretations of WP:N against that guideline's reliance on objective evidence not subjective judgments, and were widely refuted on that basis. This appears to be a case of the closing admin casting a super-vote overriding the community consensus expressed in the discussion.

• Overturn as Keep Keep comments were not only more in-depth, they were also more consistent with policy. Closing admin relied on an activist view of WP:NOT#NEWS, which states: "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article...." While there is no precise definition given, a reasonable interpretation is that a brief period of time is a small number of news cycles. As one commenter pointed out, Google News had coverage spanning 15 days, and the article and references were expanded to cover this time period during the AfD. This is an exceptionally long time compared to most news stories. Also, the cautious language of that policy should not be interpreted without due caution. It says that not everything in the newspaper belongs in an encyclopedia, not that everything in the newspaper does not belong. The number and substance of the references shows that this is not the type of fluff or filler news that WP:NOT#NEWS is addressing. A topic that received full-length articles with in-depth coverage primarily about the subject in multiple mainstream secondary sources around the world is clearly outside it's scope. The weight of coverage (not to mention the video itself) bears witness to its notability forever--notability is not temporary. Dhaluza 23:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Sufficient good secondary sources make it notable regardless of individual opinion. For an internet meme like this, coverage over several weeks is sufficient to avoid the novelty effect. DGG (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Many reliable newspaper articles were written about this topic. Many possible merge targets were given in the AfD but none of them were satisfactory. Also, I don't think the article Justine Ezarik as it is now [1] goes into enough detail about the phone bill - it doesn't talk about the impact it had on AT&T's billing policies. And nor should it - her article is about a person, not her phone bill. Graham87 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Exactly my point, though - if someone who is notable for not much else (i.e Justine Ezarik) does something that has some marginal notability, surely that information belongs in their article, rather than a separate one. To give an example, if a previously little-known sportsman broke a world record, would you create a separate article called "Breaking of world record by X?" No, you wouldn't, despite the fact that it would be immaculately sourced - you would put that information in the sportsman's article, as I suggest the couple of lines in Justine Ezarik would serve here. ELIMINATORJR 06:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Your example is not really relevant, because the world record would only relate directly to the person who broke it--you even put "by X" in the title. In this case, the subject relates to many others, as was pointed out in the merge points/counterpoints, and the person's name does not even appear in the title. It's not just about her, she just brought it to everyone's attention, so the article opens with this, then shows how she changed the world in a disproportionate way: i.e. recent college graduate posts a 1-minute viral video shot off the cuff in a coffee shop, and 9 days later one of the largest global corporations sends a mea culpa message to its customers--AFAIK, that's unprecedented. Dhaluza 08:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Excellent use of citations and proof of wide coverage. While it is possible that some of this article could be placed in various other articles, none would do it justice in terms of explaning just what went on. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Notable and a valid addition to Wikipedia.. I have no idea why this was deleted. DeusExMachina 04:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as closing admin Since the nominator of this DRV (also the author of the article) seems to be unable to assume good faith and accuses me of "casting a super-vote" despite me already having explained why I closed as delete, I'll explain again. As far as I could see, a good percentage of the votes were for Merge into either iPhone or Justine Ezarik. The Keep votes, however, were mainly either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSWELLSOURCED, as opposed to explaining exactly why it didn't violate WP:NOT#NEWS. (That's another problem, btw - is the article about the phone bill or the video about the phone bill?). So, I was going to close as Merge - but what into? Looking at it more closely, I believed that the trivial notability of the subject was served enough by mentions in other articles - it was already mentioned at Justine Ezarik, and as I said in the close, it could be mentioned in iPhone too if anyone wished to do so. So my closure was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 06:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply as author and nominator WP:AGF does not mean ignore all evidence, it only says don't assume malice, and I don't. I carefully set out the reason for the conclusion before drawing it, and though you may not agree, I don't think it is unreasonable given the facts. Whatever your intentions, your actions had that effect. I did discuss this point with you on your talk page so you were not blindsided by this. Also, merge != delete: merge means the content belongs somewhere else (not in a black hole), but the specific suggestions were also widely refuted in the discussion, so it's not surprising you could not find a suitable merge target. The reason WP:ITSWELLSOURCED is a redlink is because there is no consensus for this either--the community does not care if you subjectively decide it's notability is trivial, it relies on objective evidence of what RS consider notable. For the question as to what the article is about, it was about the confluence of many related things, which is why they belonged together. Dhaluza 08:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You're missing my point. I was suggesting that a number of the Keep votes were saying "OK, it's well sourced, therefore it must be notable", which is putting the cart before the horse. Notable articles are generally well sourced, but not every well sourced article is notable. Existence of WP:RS sources does not automatically confer notability, which is what you're appearing to say (whilst, I have to point out, failing once again to assume good faith). And another point, an article about "a confluence of things"? Are we an encyclopedia, or a collection of trivia? ELIMINATORJR 09:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Your point is not consistent with community consensus, specifically WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That guideline clearly contradicts your assertion. The comments you dismissed were in fact citing this guideline. As far as AGF, I will only say that using this as a defense is also offensive. Dhaluza 00:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think I'm assuming bad faith when you use language such as "..the closing admin casting a super-vote overriding the community consensus.." or "the community does not care if you subjectively decide it's notability is trivial". As for the sources, we have been over this discussion many, many, times - usually in cases of WP:BLP1E about people whose are only notable for a single event, despite having a lot of coverage in reliable sources. Many of those people's articles are deleted, or more often merged. While this article is not about a person, the concept is similar. ELIMINATORJR 06:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
          • BLP is a necessary exception, normally only applicable when the subject does not deliberately seek attention, and courtesy deletions at the subject's request are highly controversial. Your cite of WP:BLP1E ends with, "Cover the event, not the person," which is exactly what this article did. You are turning this advice on its head as well. Dhaluza 10:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I was merely using BLP1E as an example that well-sourced articles aren't always notable, not saying that this article is subject to it. ELIMINATORJR 10:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
              • No, well sourced articles are by definition Notable on Wikipedia, well sourced meaning sufficient in number and depth, but they can still be deleted for reasons other than Notability. Dhaluza 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn WP:NOT#NEWS does not forbid articles about recent news topics, it merely asks that they be appropriately contextualised. The article discussed the effects the bill had on AT&T policy, personal security, the environment and it's role in the wider debate about the 700 Mhz wireless spectrum auction - indeed, this article provides far more context than many articles about less recent topics. Incidentally, the story is still getting new news stories about it almost a month after it was released.^{[2] [3]} Overall, I believe this article has established both notability and context, and is perfectly in accordance with all policies, including WP:NOT#NEWS, the rationale used for deletion. Laïka 06:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. How many articles do we need on this? We already have one, as noted above. Also, I don't count still being talked about by bloggers after nearly a month as being lasting cultural impact, and as for the section "other noted iPhone bills" - well, I have not the words. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - For now, the comments on the AfD that appeared to have more logic behind them were leaning towards merge, I certainly don't agree on the justification provided for the article's deletion but I can't support a entire article for something with such a trivial notability, so I support its deletion unless the recreation's purpouse it to merge the material into a related page, in this case iPhone. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I think if there is an unclear merge target, the article's history should be kept by default so all users can see the content and decide on a merge target. I'd lean towards a merge - and a merge target would become more clear as time passes and the historical significance of the video can be evaluated. Graham87 14:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Graham, I know merge may seem like a reasonable compromise, but each of the merge targets is problematic: 1) iPhone is the least appropriate since even Ezarik said it was not about the phone, 2) Justine Ezarik would be out of context and against WP:BLP1E as mentioned above, 3) AT&T Mobility is the most logical, since they are at the root, but it would also be difficult to contextualize there. Also I think the free use image is important, and the free use guideline says it should only be used in an article about the video. Dhaluza 10:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Surely any merge must be to Justine Ezarik, because to be honest her notability is purely based on this event. If this article survives, then I'd guess you'd have to merge her article into it because otherwise, as User:JzG states above, we'll effectively have two articles about the same thing. ELIMINATORJR 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - there was no clear consensus to delete. If anything there seemed to be consensus to merge this article, and as stated above by Graham, even if no clear merge target exists, pick one and let discussion on the talk page sort out any issues as to where it's been merged to. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn there simply was no consensus to remove this material. Merging is a possibility but should be an editorial decision left to the relevant talk page. Closing the debate as delete goes beyond the usual range of admin discretion. Pascal.Tesson 18:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse Deletion. WP:NOT#NEWS is policy & that larger consensus trumps the accumulation of overwrought navel-gazing ILIKEIT and ITSIMPORTANT votes. Eusebeus 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, sortof... do not merge to Ezarik, which should be deleted itself. At most, it should have a mention in iPhone, so, restore, merge to iPhone, redirect. Although, honestly, consensus clearly says keep, for better or worse. A merge would allow the content to remain, but not satisfy the community consensus. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Change of heart from closing admin. I've reviewed this, and agree with some of the points above. I would support either (a) a Merge into iPhone, retaining the content per the above editor, or (b) a Keep, only if Justine Ezarik is merged and redirected to this article, because as the nominator of the DRV rightly points out, Ezarik is not notable outside this event per WP:BLP1E; thus leading to the situation pointed out by User:JzG that this article and Ezarik's are effectively about the same thing. ELIMINATORJR 00:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The vast majority of delete arguments were rooted in subjective evaluations of importance (albeit expressed in terms of 'notability') and some seemed to be essentially variants of WP:IDONTCARE. Edison's argument for deletion was by far the strongest, but it was rebutted by Dhaluza. Whether we agree with the rebuttal is a different matter, but it was not the type of argument (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT) that could be simply discounted. There was no consensus to delete the article. Any discussion about a merge from this article or to this article is entirely outside the scope of the "delete" outcome and of this deletion review. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bob's Discount Furniture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It appears that some of the comments regarding lack of notability of the subject may be mistaken. The subject is often discussed in secondary sources (e.g. this article, some of these articles, and in this article from the NY Times). The first article example I cited mentions that the company had over $250 million in sales in 2004. From my point of view, the company appears to be widely-recognized within New England, if not all of the Northeastern U.S. I did not get a chance to vote in the debate, since I noticed the deletion a few days after debate had been closed, but I would have voted 'keep'. Based on notability issues discussed above and the close 5-3 vote, I feel that the deletion of the article deserves further consideration and debate. --GregRM 18:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Restore and relist in light of sources the majority of !voters weren't aware of. — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn or relist I note in the discussion that sources were actually produced near the end, and the only opiner thereafter was keep. So it isn't even clear to me that the original discussion had a delete consensus. Even more sourcing now is sufficient reason to bring the article back. GRBerry 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the sources do not provide significant coverage of the subject. The Boston Globe article lists "Bob" or Bob's Discount Furniture as tied with other furniture pitchmen for 15th on the top 10 (sic) most loathsome Bostonians as determined by 150 emails and 250 website posts - no significant coverage about what makes Bob loathsome execpt for the few words "grating furniture-store spokespersons". Does not establish either Bob's notability nor his company's. Next: Business New Haven covers Bob and his company in a real article, but the publication covers any business in New Haven, seach it's archives: so is every business notable in New Haven because there is someone who covers it, including East Melange Noodle Bar, the Ivy Noodle, or York Street Noodle House all getting good coverage at that publication - and probably every small to midsize town has similar rags covering its businesses - restaurants, laundramats, jewelry stores - so that makes them all notable? No way! As for the Hartford Courant link - I couldn't get that to open, but searching the site for Bob's Discount Furniture, only turned up one [4] that was about a local celebrity and his boyfriend's redecorating where in passing it's mentioned that the couch was bought at Bob's. Hardly significant coverage. In all, the community has spoken that this business is nn, these sources add nothing to show that WP:CORP has been fulfilled. Carlossuarez46 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I should point out that the references you are discussing were the references brought forth during the initial AfD voting period. You might wish to take a look at the links I cited in my comments above as well. In my opinion, these references offer more substantial justification of notability. For example, the NY Times article may address concerns brought forth by DGG, below, regarding local boosterism.--GregRM 01:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Carlossuarez46 and because of WP:BLP concerns. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse local advertising presence is not notability. coverage in local newspapers that amounts to local boosterism is not notability either. DGG (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Closer's Rational Of the two keep comments, one was commenting that you see their ads quite often, which I don't think is mentioned in WP:N. The other quotes three sources, one of which simply mentions that the chain's ads are on their list of most annoying in Boston[5], and one of which has been deleted[6] (I don't remember if it was there during the AFD). The third source[7] might qualify as valid (even though it's really about the chain's owner more so than the chain), but even that mentions the store being "56th-largest furniture chain in the U.S" which was not enough on it's own to counteract the delete arguments. Actually, looking up I see that Carlossuarez46 has covered that part already, sorry for the redundancy. CitiCat ^♫ 23:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Correction - there were three keep !votes, not two, and the one you didn't mention referenced a couple decent sources. Also, I don't think your summary does justice to this source, a ~5 page paper on Bob's Discount Furniture, their history, and their advertising strategies. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You are correct, there were three keep comments. The one I forgot to mention here lists two sources, which turn out to be press releases. The source you just mentioned is the one I covered above, just to let those following along know. CitiCat ^♫ 16:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I see no problem with the close. Human-interest or slow news day filler material in local papers is not substantial sourcing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion due to a number of comments already made. Comapany is known for annoying ads, which doesn't make it notable. Sasha Callahan 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I figured I would provide a couple more sources to better put the subject in perspective. Here is the Google Finance profile for the company: http://finance.google.com/finance?cid=830573. The Hoover's, Inc. profile for the company can be accessed at: http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/factsheet.xhtml?ID=120148 . Finally, for those who are not familiar with the original article and cannot access it due to lack of admin. rights, this is a cached version of Wikipedia article from Yahoo.--GregRM 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment After reading some of the above opinions endorsing deletion, I decided to take another look at the WP:CORP corporate notability guidelines. After looking at the page again, I am still not clear on how this company fails to meet the notability criteria. Many of the comments above endorsing deletion seem to suggest that the available references are inadequate due to the local nature of their coverage. Firstly, I disagree with the charactization of the coverage by available references (including non-trivial coverage by the Hartford Courant, the New York Times, and Google Finance) as local in nature. These sources are providing coverage of a company that currently has 30 locations in 7 states, and I would argue that the coverage is broader, at least "regional". Secondly, assuming for the sake of discussion that the press coverage is considered to be local, there is nothing in WP:CORP to suggest that such local coverage should be excluded from consideration. In fact, coverage of Hewlett-Packard in Palo Alto Weekly is cited as sufficient coverage for notability. (Note that the headquarters of HP are located in Palo Alto, CA.) I would appreciate any clarification of how this company fails to meet the notability guidelines in WP:CORP, as I am still confused about how notability criteria are not met.--GregRM 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  For get all that stuff. It's not that complicated. If there is enough reliable source material that is independent of Bob's Discount Furniture (see general notability guideline), draft a proposed article in your user space using that reliable source material. Let the reliable source material determine what goes in the article. Footnote each sentence. Then come back to DRV and ask that you be allowed to recreate the Bob's Discount Furniture using the proposed article in your user space. If you present a footnoted draft article at DRV, it is likely that there will be a consensus to allow the article to be recreated. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  If there is sufficient support for an adequately sourced article, I might be able to draft one with appropriate modifications within a few weeks. (On the other hand, if the article will be deleted as being non-notable regardless of how well it is sourced, I would prefer not to waste my time on it.) It would be helpful to have a copy of the previous article in my userspace, preferrably with complete edit history preserved (the article dates back to 2005, and, as I recall, a fair number of editors have been involved; the article has changed somewhat significantly over the course of time). Thanks.--GregRM 02:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Closer interpreted the debate correctly. Also, the article read like an advertisement. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eighth Doctor Publicity.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image deleted against consensus (1 delete, 3 keep). See this IfD discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 10:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• The closing admin properly applied site-wide consensus to delete this article. The closing admin is not obligated to turn off his brain when closing discussions; the claims about our policy need to be evaluated critically and a decision made. In this case, we have a promotional photograph (nonfree) on a biographical article; the nominator's reasoning on the IFD is compelling that this usage violates WP:NFCC#8.
     Also, the nominator favored deletion, so the rough count would be 3-2. But the rough count is not the determining factor in any case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• (From deleting admin) Images of fictional characters in the article about the actor that portrayed them is against Wikipedia NFCC policy unless there is something significant in the article to warrant an image. In this case, the text was "On January 10, 1996, it was announced that Paul McGann would play the eighth incarnation of the Doctor in the Doctor Who television movie." and the caption of the image was "Paul McGann as the Eighth Doctor." There was nothing significant to warrant a non-free image. Use of the image violated WP:NFCC #8 and was deleted. -Nv8200p talk 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering half the article deals with his role as the Eighth Doctor (as it was his most significant role), I find this 'not significant' argument completely unsubstantiated. The image absolutely met NFCC#8. But that is beside the point; DRV is about process, not content. The reviewing admin should have closed it as 'no consensus' at the best. Only two people favoring deletion should not have been grounds for deletion. — Edokter • Talk • 14:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The image was still just used for decoration and identification of the fictional character he portrayed (which can be found at Eighth Doctor). These two functions do not meet NFCC #8 criteria and the text stands on its own without the image. -Nv8200p talk 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, IfD is not a vote (and head count matters even less there than at AfD, if anything). The image is not iconic or historical, nor does it seem to be accompanied by significant and sourced commentary on the image itself. Therefore replaceable and decorative. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - !voting isn't just for fun. IfD gave perfectly valid reasons for why image meets WP:NFCC#8; if closer disagreed with the consensus he should have contributed his opinion to it, instead of disregarding it. — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, you can't overturn policy with a vote on ifd. Corvus cornix 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good thing there wasn't a policy violation, then. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • So you don't consider Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria a policy? Corvus cornix 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I do, but the consensus was that it was not violated. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
        • What consensus? Corvus cornix 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - while arguments for both sides were presented, admins are empowered to evaluate the quality of the arguments, as well as quantity. The closure was, with this in mind, a reasonable one. --Haemo 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, IFD is not a headcount. >Radiant< 08:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Remarkable reasoning - I find it interesting that this comment applies equally to every AfD debate that is brought to DRV. Maybe you should just write a bot to cast these !votes for you? — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, it does apply equally to every XfD debate brought to DRV, or for that matter those not brought to DRV. XfD discussions are not a vote, and that applies to all of them. "Articles for deletion" was specifically changed from the name "Votes for Deletion" to emphasize that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm slightly confused as to your intent—it sounds like you disagree with me over something, but I'm perfectly in agreement with the statements you just made. Indeed, it is true that XfD debates are no longer just about voting, whether I agree with the procedural shift or not. The large majority of DRV discussions are started because an XfD was thought to be closed against consensus, without satisfactory reasons for doing so. My point is just that a !vote which offers no judgment on the appropriateness of a decision, but rather makes a generic comment which is true for all DRVs but isn't really a reason why a closure was appropriate, should not be given weight in a DRV discussion. It is akin to me writing a bot which casts a !vote on every DRV discussion saying "Overturn - information is good." — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

deleted ten times for copyvios and non-notability. Salted after two AfD's. However, the group now passes WP:MUSIC by having two albums on Flicker Records, a major label subsidiary; see Allmusic for the proof. (The second album just came out a few days ago.) I would like to have this article unsalted so I can rewrite it. Chubbles 04:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse all ten deletions, including mine, there may be substantial source material coming, but it's not here yet. We can't write an article in the absence of sourcing, although I've no objection to unsalting and recreating if and when there's actual substantial sourcing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  How does Allmusic's substantiation of two albums on a notable label not qualify as sourcing? Allmusic's got to be the most reliable source out there for 2000s-era rock discography. Chubbles 05:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about the lawyering of "TWO ALBUMS, we must unsalt immediately!" I believe that what Allmusic says is true, but it is not substantial. We need substantial sourcing which discusses the band, not a list of two albums. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  No problem. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Chubbles 05:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Alright, given those I'd go for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from closing admin The AMG link was never provided until now, so that means zero reliable sources were cited either in the article or the AfD discussion. WP:MUSIC mentions that multiple releases on a "a major label or one of the more important indie labels", but we're talking about a subsidiary of a subsidiary, and even Provident's Web site makes no mention of Flicker being a part of their group of labels. I felt that with a identifiable consensus to delete, a history of repeated deletions/salting and only a very tentative claim to notability, that deletion was the best option, but with no prejudice against recreation with firmly established claims to notability. Caknuck 05:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Here is a news site that explains Flicker's former relationship with EMI. I am adding this to the Flicker Records page as a source. The relationship with Provident is confirmed here. It's worth noting that Eleventyseven's album is featured on the front page of Provident's Website and that they have a profile on that site, so the link with Provident (a major industry promoter) should not be in doubt. Chubbles 06:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy allow recreation - In view of User:Chubbles/Eleventyseven. No sense in letting this drag out. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Allow recreation Endorse deletion and salting. There is not enought reliable source material to write an attributable article. The above deletion review request does not seem to show an understanding for the need of enought reliable source material. Given the numerous deletions, I think DRV would need to see a draft of the article before permitting the article to be recreated. I found a few sources. It's not enough for an article, but it is material that can be used towards creating one. See (1) Lexington Herald-Leader (July 22, 2006) Music - Eleventyseven: And the Land of Fake Believe | HH1/2. Section: Faith & Values; Page 3. (2) Read, Marvin. (March 24, 2007) The Pueblo Chieftain Christian rockers to perform today at Praise Assembly. (3) Broadcast News (September 4, 2007) CD releases for the week of Sept. 4. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Additional comments - Combined with Chubbles' five sources and the fact that Chubbles was not involved in editing any of the multi-deleted article versions, I think it is likely that an attributable article can be created. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Combined with the five sources I cited above, reliable sourcing should not even be close to problematic. Chubbles 06:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Then you should have no problem in preparing a draft article in your user space to present at DRV. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Can do; could someone please restore the history to my userspace? Chubbles 06:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Many christian news sources are reliable sources but less likely to be published on the Internet. Please feel free to use material from those sources as well. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Per above request, userfied last version of article to User:Chubbles/Eleventyseven. Caknuck 07:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  I was just doing that myself. I hope we didn't mess anything up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • • Heh, you used a backslash instead of a forward slash in the article name, so there was no edit conflict. I speedied your version for simplicity's sake. Caknuck 07:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment userfied article's been worked over; take a look. Chubbles 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Works for me. Restore Chubbles' version of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I still have doubts about notability, given that they appear to have only 1 album from a notable lable (WP:MUSIC requires 2), a planned national tour (WP:MUSIC requires a sourced actual national tour), and as for hitting #5 or "tops" at a single radio station's playlist - as that is what the source for charting is: the only Christian radio station in Springfield, MO - WP:MUSIC requires a real chart hit. Perhaps I have missed something in the re-draft but that's what seems to jump out from the text as I saw it. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  The two albums are: And the Land of Fake Believe (Flicker, 2006) and Galactic Conquest (Flicker, 2007), both full-lengths. The group hit #1 on Radio & Records' Christian Rock charts with the single "More than a Revolution", which is mentioned in one of the Jesus Freak Hideout reviews. Chubbles 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • With 2 albums from Flicker, meets WP:BAND - which is sufficient. I don't think that the R&R Christian Rock chart does much, however, if I read their website here being number 1 shows 263 airplays, and eleventyseven at #10 has an audience of 95,000 - if having such an audience were notable per se then nearly every televised sporting event would qualify, ready for September 9, 2007 Dallas Cowboys-New York Giants football game, which had an audience of 18+ million [13], and gazillions of other individual games? Carlossuarez46 01:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)