Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 20

13256278887989457651018865901401704640 (number) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm under the impression that where applicable, protected redirects are preferred to protected deleted pages. In this case, I see no reason why it couldn't just redirect to AACS encryption key controversy. I have left a note on the talk page of the protecting admin's salt page, but this note has gone unanswered for over three months. Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should have just contacted me on my talk page... I don't mind if the article is redirected to AACS encryption key controversy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

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

00:49, 11 April 2008 Michael Greiner (Talk | contribs) deleted "Onion Trump" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD A7), was an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. using TW) - this speedy deletion was incorrect as the band meets criteria 6 from WP:BAND viz "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." - in this case Richie Edwards making the band de facto assertedly notable. (Talk Exxolon (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - meeting a criterion of WP:BAND is certainly enough to avoid a speedy deletion. BlueValour (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  Suggestion - Could an admin undelete this page and fully protect it so that participants in this discussion can see what it was like before it was speedy deleted? —  scetoaux (T|C) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have userfied it to User:Scetoaux/Onion Trump Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - The band appears to have certified notability by the inclusion of Richie Edwards. Notability itself can be established at an AfD if someone else deems it necessary. But as it stands, the article does not qualify for speedy deletion. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral; the article doesn't claim they've released anything, that they had any notability at all, besides some possible side-notability by Richie Edwards. I see nothing that couldn't be validly merged to The Darkness or Richie Edwards. I guess it does technically meet one part of WP:BAND, and hence isn't a speedy candidate. --Prosfilaes (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral as well, for much the same reasons as above. A quick Gooble web search doesn't seem to indicate much notability by WP:N, which we'd want to verify that it does meet WP:BAND. I'd suggest working on the userfied version, it's most likely to get the article back up. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• List at AfD. Article doesn't quite qualify for speedy due to contested notability (it does fulfill a small part of WP:MUSIC guidelines, albeit not much.) I would favour redeleting it in any AfD discussion due to lack of sources and insufficient notability, but it does deserve its day in court, a proper consensus, and a chance to improve. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Not only should this not have been speedied, I don't think it warrants deletion at all. It should be taken to AfD so the community, not the admins, can decide whether or not it is notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list with respect to the admin who deleted it. There are most certainly a lot of articles like this that warrant a speedy, but this one was probably a bad call. aliasd·U·T 08:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

This was speedy deleted because it "doesn't indicate importance/significance".[1] But I think its notable. This website was created by someone notable, Jeff Gerstmann. Plus the launch of this site was covered by X-Play [2] any many other sources:[3][4][5][6] If you want to go Alexa raking, Giant Bomb has a higher ranking than other video game websites with Wikipedia articles. Like Gaming Target[7]. Also theres countless amount of media coverage regarding Jeff's firing and future plans.-- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure enough here for an overturn !vote, but I can tell you that an easier solution is probably to recreate an article on top of the redirect. Or you can reference the Giant Bomb section of the redirect target, since it's currently unsourced. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:05, 20 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 brought up in a previous AfD. The new incarnation of was an appropriate article covring a notable Scout camp, and asserted its nobility in line with other local council camp articles of equal or lesser notability. The article was well-sourced and well-written and (most importantly here) was significantly different than the one that was deleted in the AfD. The article 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 and cited) that issue can be addressed with some discussion (possibly even an AfD if one feels strongly about the topic); but deleting this new article speedily per G4 with absolutely no discussion, consensus or notification (and then locking the page) was not the appropriate action here -- it was not a recreation of deleted material, but rather was a genuine attempt to create a quality article covering a notable topic (albeit a topic that was previously deleted due to an old article that poorly constructed). -- Minsi (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I suggest that you stop trying the same thing over and over; DRV has already ruled on this. Camp Minsi should stay salted; your only real hope is making a seriously better article in userspace, and using it to argue for an article in mainspace. If that has a hope; I might have closed the AfD as "no consensus", but trying to repeatedly stick the article back without going to DRV first hasn't helped your case one bit. Nor has repeatedly posting to DRV with essentially the same argument.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• The reason I brought this up again was because there was no consensus (either way) from the last DRV; and because no on really addressed my main argument last time - they all talked about what they felt was a subjectivly weak assertion of notability and not the real issue of the deletion which was if this was a fair speedy delete under G4 (Recreation of deleted material)..... Well, could someone userfy the deleted article so I could attempt to make a "seriously better article" in my userspace? Minsi (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment; previous DRV's for this article:

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 11#Camp_Minsi
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 17#Camp_Minsi

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment; Article has been userfied to User:Minsi/Camp Minsi note that the previous article was previously userfied to User:Evrik/Camp Minsi, as well. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)