Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 7

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

The site was deleted because it was felt that it was spam. This occurred when I was linking it to other sites which I felt were relevant like pregnancy. This seemed to disturb some. In any case I am happy not to link my site to any other wikipedia sites. I feel my page had a lot of content on the history of maternity clothing which would add to wikipedia as a whole. I think users should edit a page before deleting pages so rapidly which obviously angers users who spent a lot of time researching a particular topic Danmasri (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, it seems that after your post a new sourced article has been started, with help from the deleting admin, so how about all joining forces there? The deleted article contained some commercial links, but also some content (although not sourced). If that hasn't been copied and pasted, I wouldn't mind restoring the full history giving thus credit for covering this gap. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Agreed, it would make good sense to join forces, using content from the deleted article (but properly sourced) to produce, hopefully, a better one. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I believe that the article on NCTSA should not be deleted because it is certainly a notable State TSA chapter. One of the most influential state chapters in the country. For those of you who don't know, TSA is the Technology Student Association and is a Middle and High School technology and leadership organization. With over 70 chapters and many members. To call NCTSA an un-notable TSA chapter is calling a state un-notable. 18:00, 7 April 2008 (ESTD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.204.244 (talk • contribs)

• Overturn and list at AfD. The article in question was actually North Carolina Technology Student Association and was deleted as an expired prod. Now that someone's contesting that, I believe restoring the article and taking it to AfD is the usual procedure. I have to say, however, that deletion via AfD seems very likely, given WP:ORG: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources." Deor (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

If you actually take the time to read the article, you will see that while this is high school sports team, it is one of the most influential teams in the entire metro session. I believe winning over 10 championship tittles quite a feat, and is definitely wikipedia worthy. 162.83.183.35 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (as a deleter of several versions of the article). High school sports teams aren't generally notable, even very successful ones. No indication that they've been covered in reliable sources other than the local sports pages. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, small-town team, not notable outside local area. GlassCobra 21:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (not for the same reasons as Glass Cobra, it is a private high shcool team, and that school is not in a small town). What was there was not an encyclopedia article, and gave no indication that it is possible to write an encyclopedia article on the subject. If it gets coverage outside the sports section and regional editions of the local paper then there might be a case for an article. But it should be written strictly in accordance with this guidance when and if someone believes they have found independent and reliable sources. GRBerry 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per NawlinWiki and GRBerry's reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Secret History of Christianity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

was deleted as copyright violation. I am the author the copyright to the book is mine. Please restore the page Mrmajinka (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• fmt fix, no opinion TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Are you willing to thus release the material under the WP:GFDL? This includes allowing others to use the material for any purpose, including commercial purposes. That is what you are doing if you place your work up on the project. You would then need to provide proof that you do indeed own the copyright, and are thus able to license the work under the GFDL. And that does not touch on likely WP:COI and WP:OR issues that could still get your material removed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• The deleted article in question is actually at The Secret History of Christianity. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If it's your book, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia to promote it -- see WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Also, you've given no indication that the book is notable (see WP:N). According to Amazon, the book won't even be published until April 17, so it's kind of hard to say that it's already notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion copyvio or not, the author of a book pasting official material about the book smacks of advertising. At any rate, the important question ultimately is whether the book is notable or not. According to the only media I could find on the book, it sounds like this might be a self-published book. Since that's the only media coverage anyway, and it's hardly a serious review, we'd just need more sources to be able to justify an article on this subject. --Rividian (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion - blatantly failed every test. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

My article should be created. Monsta is a real person and telling from my user name that is who I am. Why can't I create an article about myself. i am of important significance I'm an American rapper who has records in the Guinness Book of World records. I am of plenty significance. I deserve an article about myself.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Monsta (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 

• Fixed formatting. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, as speedy deleter. Aside from the obvious WP:COI problems, "Monsta" has posted a biography that includes numerous made-up, unsourced claims (such as the "records in the Guinness Book of World Records" comment above; the article also claims that "Monsta" had a platinum album at age 12 and won an MTV Award for "best solo artist" (there's no such award). Funny how this famous "Monsta" doesn't show up on Google. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, as speedy deleter. nonsense/vandalism/coi/nn bio etc Jimfbleak (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - per the whole laundry list of reasons Jimfbleak offers. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as yet another speedy deleter. Fails even a cursory Google check, non-notable and nonsense. Acroterion _(talk) 11:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)