Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 1

B. Scott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Very clearly a deadlocked debate that was mistakenly closed as "delete". Closing should be overturned and the article kept per "no consensus." The Transhumanist 22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you disregard the astroturfed "do not delete"s, all along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT, there was a very clear consensus to delete. Endorse. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Setting aside what looks like some of the worst behaviour on an AfD in recent memory, consensus was extremely clear to delete. Random and non-policy-based arguments such as (direct quote) "DO NOT DELETE -HES A VERY GREAT GUY!" can and should be ignored by the closing admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure the closer interpreted the debate correctly and discounted the people writing "do not delete" with arguments that had no basis in policy. Some of the keep arguments did not fall into this category, but they were not enough to establish a consensus to keep. Hut 8.5 12:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Nominator is mischaracterising the debate as no consensus. After discounting several single-purpose/new accounts who all suggested to keep, citing no policy, the closing admin went with the clear consensus: delete because no reliable third-party sources establish notability. MKoltnow 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per my independent closing analysis located on the AFD talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• endorse aside from the author and some SPAs, I was almost the only person supporting the article. i didn't convince any other regular editor. Looking back at the supporting references in the deleted article, the consensus may have been right--I supported the sources as acceptable but nonconventional -- but looking again, they seem almost all self-originated and not 3rd party. I apologize for my error. DGG (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Only two apparent legit "keep" !votes excluding SPAs/socks/author. Firm consensus established. Caknuck (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AFD flooded with SPA keep arguments. While not all of the keep arguments were from SPAs, there was still a solid consensus to delete among established users. Overturning this would mean that any group of SPAs would be free to derail any deletion discussion at any time. --Coredesat 13:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I was honestly stunned to see this deleted. Josh Tyrangiel is easily one of the most influential American journalists today, and one of the big names among music critics. He is frequently quoted here at Wikipedia. If being second in command at TIME magazine and the editor of TIME.com isn't sufficient notability, I don't know what is. Google his name if any doubt remains. And all of this and more was well-documented in the article, which was admittedly a stub, but most two-day-old articles are. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion - He's notable. He shouldn't have been speedied. By the way, he's cited on Wikipedia 57 times. Something's amiss with this speedy deletion. AfD should not have been bypassed. The Transhumanist 22:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn His position at TIME magazine, especially with reliable sources in article, is an indication of importance so he should certainly not have been an A7 speedy deletion candidate. Davewild (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, after viewing the deleted page, his notability is asserted. A7 did not apply here. Acalamari 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, clearly not an A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn nowhere near A7 territory, clearly asserted notability and had references. Hut 8.5 11:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agree It was my deletion and it looks misjudged. I offer no objection to it being restored. Victuallers (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

This debate was closed (non-admin) by Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) in a debate that was 50-50 split with only 4 participants as a "keep." His reasoning was not provided initially but here it is: (talk page). This is a very poor interpretation of a debate. The closer viewed the initial nomination as saying the article didn't claim notability. The closer read the comment by ElementFire as a "valid argument" that went way beyond what was actually said, when in fact ElementFire just said why the topic is interesting. The closer then agreed out of hand with one of the participants that Digitally Imported, an internet-only radio station, is significant enough to meet the "Put into rotation nationally by a major radio network" criterion from WP:MUSIC, despite that this point was debated and opinion was split 50-50 on that specific point. There obviously isn't much point seeking an overturn to "no consensus" - since there were only 4 participants, I feel the debate wasn't finished yet, so I seek relisting. Mangojuice^talk 14:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn non-admin closure. The AFD was not unanimous or nearly unanimous, it didn't meet the speedy keep criteria, it was not a snowball keep and it wasn't housekeeping, so the AFD should have been closed by an admin, in accordance with the essay Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Relisting is a very reasonable option, in view of the (lack of) discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Brett hickey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_hickey

Please allow editing for the page Brett Hickey

http://www.mojohd.com/mojoseries/wallstreetwarriors/warriors/view/brett

http://www.aegiscapitalgroup.com/team.php?teamID=1&v=s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oatmealstout (talk • contribs)