Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 17

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

The stated case for speedy deletion was blatant advertising? In the article I discuss the history of the Audubon movement which started with John James Audubon a famous american painter in the 1800's that sprung a movement of conservation founded on bird protection. In the article I reference many separate Audubon related organizations, and talk about the network of over 500 independent Audubon Societies and groups. I also link directly to many of these independent group's pages that have already been established on Wiki. The problem with the Audubon movement is that people don't realize that there are many "Audubon's" out there. There isn't simply one single Audubon Society, but rather a movement made up of many Audubon Societies. I am completely baffled by the deletion. I've discussed this with the editor that deleted the article and he stated that it read like a press release or written poorly, but in the wiki policy on deletion it states: If a page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. The editor that deleted the page also stated that it read too much like an advertisement. I really don't understand that at all. Who is it suggested that I am advertising for? Zephyur (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Restore. I have looked at this article. It is clearly not advertising anything, although it has a bit of a POV promoting the Audubon societies. It should be improved, not removed from wikipedia. --Bduke (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think the disambiguation page for Audubon could use some help. I am not certain that there is in fact an Audubon movement as an organized movement that can be discussed in an encyclopedia article; are there any references and sources discussing it as an organized movement? The deleted article does not contain any. Absent such, we'll end up with a merge or deletion after AFD, because John James Audubon#Legacy should cover the matter. But, since I don't think the speedy deletion was appropriate; overturn and list. GRBerry 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• In fact, in retrospect, I think I made a mistake here. This is what happens when you're trigger-happy with the delete button and you're tired. If anybody wants to restore it that's fine with me. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• I would be more than happy to add references to support the document and the existence an Audubon Movement, but literally 5 minutes after the page was posted it vanished into the world of speedy deletion! I can't even see the article to improve upon it. Here is one of many references [1] to come. Also, I must admit I am completely new to Wiki and just learning the formatting/writing styles/requirements etc. This was in fact my first attempt at ever putting something on Wiki, and I must admit not a pleasant introduction to what I have heard is great online resource. But I do understand the need for protocols, standards etc. and also the need to error on the side of caution. Otherwise the wiki site would become filled with garbage, and so for that I am thankful that there is a team of well minded editors out there looking over stuff. Now can we get this page turned back on already! :) Zephyur (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've undeleted it; somebody else can go ahead and close. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Whoa, okay, nevermind, got deleted again. I'm not terribly interested in this debate personally; I'm still in favor of restoration, though. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Restored again, I'm assuming it was only re-deleted because Veinor didn't remove the CSD tag after restoring. The article is clearly not blatant advertising imho. --Stormie (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

This article was re-created in an attempt to address the issues of a previous AfD. The new incarnation was an appropriate article for a notable camp, and asserted its nobility in line with other local council camp articles. The article was well-sourced and well-written and (most importantly) was significantly different than the one that was deleted in the AfD -- it was deleted under G4 ("Recreation of deleted material"), however it was not the same as the material contested in the AfD. If one feels that the issue of notability is not adequately addressed in the new article(although I feel nobility was adequately asserted) that issue can be addressed with some discussion, but deleting the article speedily per G4 with absolutely no discussion or consensus (and then locking the page) was not the appropriate action. Minsi (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)