Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 21

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

Relist at AfD. This may seem strange, but as the nominator (of the second AfD), over time I've come to feel that an encyclopedic article about disappointment could actually be written and that I should never have nominated it. It's a genuine emotion that everyone has experienced and more than a dictionary definition could be written, I'm almost certain. Also it looks out of place with the existence of articles on other emotions - this one's surely just as valid? h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment you don't seem to have described any problem with the deletion process, so this seems along the lines of "didn't like the outcome" something WP:DRV isn't for. (Even if you were the original nom). As with all deletions if an article can be written which substantially addresses the concerns of the deletion (i.e. one which isn't a dicdef) you don't need to bring it here, just go ahead an write it. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with 81.104 above. I see no problem with the deletion process, but agree that an encyclopedic article could be written that is more than a dictionary definition. I see no prejudice against sourced recreation in that AFD. As an emotion or condition disappointment is a topic of interest in psychology, and if somebody wants to go through the literature and write a sourced article that'd be wonderful. Would sure be fun to see that at WP:DYK. I'd urge the topic not to be recreated until the sources are dug up and something of reasonable quality written. It's not salted, right? --JayHenry (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Deletion process was properly followed. As such, endorse deletion without prejudice to an encyclopedia article being created. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment While the deletion rationale seems sound, I've started a new article which hopefully addresses those concerns. I won't be able to work on it further for another few hours, but I think there's probably considerably more I will be able to add before I'm through. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

looks good so far. DGG (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was worried I wouldn't find enough. Then I worried I'd stepped in way over my head. :D In any event, I believe I've done what I can for it. HisSpaceResearch, I do agree that it's an important article, especially now that it's eaten a few hours of my life. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good recreation The recreation, as incomplete as it is, is significantly better than the old. The one reference in the old one was Blessed are those who expect nothing:Lowering expectations as a wayof avoiding disappointment Wilco W. van Dijka,*, Marcel Zeelenbergb, Joop van der Pligt (2001). GRBerry 16:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse recreation and absolutely no need for another AfD. BlueValour (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

does not fit criteria for speedy deletion

• The purpose of this entry is to show that research has shown that many problems are caused by poor or missing production information. Effective communication of high quality production information between designers and constructors is essential for the satisfactory realisation of construction projects. The evidence shows that improvements in the quality of production information reduce the incidence of site quality problems and lead to significant savings in the cost of construction work. I think this entry's notability is therefore justified, insofar as Avanti was a project supported by the UK Government (via DTI) whose aim was to demonstrate how the costs in construction could be reduced by addressing the production information from the very first moment in an accurate and meticulous manner.
  I have also rewritten it in a non-advertisement style, from a neutral point of view.
  There are plenty of links to other sources and articles.
  I saw the entry quickly deleted twice, but I still think that its notability is clear and should not be questioned. The entry is relevant for the above reasons.
  Many projects in the construction industry become a nightmare because at the very early stages, specifications are made in a wrong way. And little faults at the beginning end up being a chaos at the end. Avanti proved this through case studies. If a project shows the relevance of specifying clearly in a construction project, it seems to me that the project is notable and should therefore have an entry in Wikipedia. There is no possible advertising: the project is over and finished.
  I would be grateful if you could consider my explanations and restore the entry.
  Thanking you in advance,
  Machiavelli2008

• This was the entry as it was written in the second instance only to be deleted shortly later:

Avanti was a project for an approach to collaborative working in order to enable construction project partners to work together effectively. The project was promoted, among others, by the UK Department of Trade and Industry. Avanti focused on early access to all project information by all partners, on early involvement of the supply chain, and on sharing of information, drawings and schedules, in an agreed and consistent manner. The Avanti approach was supported by handbooks, toolkits and on-site mentoring and relied heavily on the advice and materials provided by CPIC.

Avanti mobilised existing enabling technologies in order to improve business performance by increasing quality of information and predictability of outcomes and by reducing risk and waste. The core of the Avanti approach to a project's whole life cycle was based on team working and access to a common information model.

In July 2006, the Avanti DTI Project documentation and brand ownership was transferred to Constructing Excellence. Since the handover, Constructing Excellence endeavoured to promote the savings demonstrated on live projects. Further work was also carried out to make Avanti part of the update of BS 1192. The BS 5555 committee coded the methods.

See also

• CPIC

External links

• Avanti
• Constructing Excellence

Category: Architecture Category: Civil engineering Category: Construction

________________________________

Machiavelli2008 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been speedied 3X, once as G11, once as A7 and most recently for no specific reason at all. At present it does not meet speedy, so it should be restored. It really does need at least one reference from a secondary source however. DGG (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This reads like a pamphlet from the European Union, it's full of corporate jargon and weasel words and asserts no notability. John Reaves 15:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, it isn't a good article, but that's not the standard. It's not spammy enough for G11. The standard at speedy is not, that if it's a poor article, we delete it.DGG (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not spammy but it's not encyclopedic and isn't notable outside of it's own standards. John Reaves 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear DGG and John

Thank you for your comments on the deletion review page about Avanti Construction. Can I then understand, in view of your comments, that I can restore the article? If so, please could you unprotect the page? Thank you very much indeed for your response.

--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't endorsing restoration at all. John Reaves 09:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

However, DGG says "it should be restored". What is the procedure when an administrator agrees to restore and another administrator disagrees? --Machiavelli2008 (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review is a five day process. John Reaves 11:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, John. I will wait for the outcome of the review.--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• comment John, "not encyclopedic and isn't notable outside of it's own standards." are not among the grounds for speedy. They're reasons for AfD.DGG (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any point in prolonging the inevitable. Plus it may as well been an A7. John Reaves 21:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. There is enough here to avoid an A7. This was a significant cross-industry project that was funded as part of a government initiative. It has been reviewed here and here and showcased in a government document here amongst many other sources. BlueValour (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Agree that the article needs development to avoid AfD, but assertion of government promotion seems enough suggestion of importance to avoid A7. At least in its last incarnation, the article does not seem a G11 candidate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question to administrators. After five days in the deletion review and having read the above comments, what is then the final decision on this entry? Can I restore the content as it is written above? If any changes are needed, could any of the administrators kindly suggest them? Sincere thanks.

--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• In support of the notability of the entry. The Avanti logo appears in http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Shop/Publication-Detail/?pid=000000000030163398, which is the British Standard BS 1192:2007 Collaborative production of architectural, engineering and construction information. Code of practice.
  --Machiavelli2008 (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The deletion was disputed. Additionally, the speedy deletion criteria are not applicable in this case. -- Taku (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Performing a disputed deletion is by itself no procedural error. The reason given on the talk page was: "Since the article is about a historical figure, CSD A7 is not applicable." Unless the credited OpenHistory is considered as waiver to assert notability, this isn't the case. The article itself read: "Tokugawa Chikauji (? - probably 1407) was the father of Yasuchika and Sakai Tadahiro, among others." Moreover, it would have been helpful if the nom had discussed with the deleting admin first. Or simply recreated a better stub, if the person warrants it. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that comes across harsh, but not even this DRV nomination explained what the case is or what was meant by 'historical figure', presumably that he the is an important member of the Tokugawa clan.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok, now I understand that, procedurally, the deletion was correct and that A7 is indeed applicable for non-living people as well. I must, however, point out that that the article was created based on the entry in OpenHistory is probably sufficient for us to assume its notability. Additionally, while the article gave little context, if you are familiar with the topic, you would immediately know that the article on a person who is a member of a Japanese clan and that itself makes the person automatically notable as Wikipedians who contribute to the topics related to Japanese history always know.
  • This is not a problem with any particular admin. (That's why I didn't see any point contacting him.) He acted according to the procedure he knows as I understand. I guess, my point would then be it is the procedure that is a problem. This kind of deletion is just plainly counter-productive. I know he is notable, and it is just a matter of time when the article gets recreated. I don't understand why those admins are interested in dragging down those who actually want to create an encyclopedia. Maybe the notability isn't clear to laymen, but then they should just stay out of topics that they don't know and leave them to the specialists. -- Taku (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You know he is notable? Okay. Show us how. Or are you suggesting that the standard of notability should be expanded to include "what you know"? --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I assume most of us are here to built an encyclopedia and one thing administrators try to do is actually helping to prevent that things get dragged down. While I understand why you perceive the deletion as unproductive, it helps a lot if the specialists give us something to work with. If someone reverts my edit I try to improve it or explain myself better. One thing I don't understand here is why a specialist would choose to copy verbatim extremely short and unreferenced stubs from this OpenHistory which does look to me as layman indeed not very authoritative. Well it's free, but is a tertiary source itself and my understanding is that we reincorporate GNU text if we actually get real content. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• The article was deleted about an hour after the page was tagged with a {{hangon}}, when for 20 minutes after a statement was made to he author on the talk page - a statement which the author of the page hadn't responded to. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Hangon" isn't a free pass. The person who puts the hangon on the article needs to explain in the article's Talk page how the article passes notability. If that isn't done, and an hour seems to me a long time in that state, then speedy deletion is certainly appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Permit rewriting but endorse the speedy. the full contents of the article was not sufficient by my standards. Probably he is in fact important, and ideally the admin should have checked for sources himself. DGG (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the deletion as a valid A7 - the article did not assert notability, and A7 applies to all real people (which includes historical figures). This person may well be notable, and I have no objection to a rewrite. Hut 8.5 18:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a valid A7 - there is no indication of the historical significance of this person in the page. BlueValour (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse...in fact, I would call this a perfect example of an A7 deletion: the article did not indicate why the subject was notable (regardless of whether or not he actually was). With so many questionable ones, nice to see a good example. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Universidade da Luta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Does not fit criteria for speedy deletion.

• The source is credible (also provides CLEAR pictures) and it is now a known fact amongst the MMA world (there are also several pictures and a video as proof) that Mauricio and Murilo Rua along with Andre Amade and Mauricio Veio have started this gym. If this article should not exist than you could also say Chute Boxe's wikipedia page doesn't deserve to exist either or for that matter any mixed martial arts training camp/gym. I was also was looking for and found the link from Sherdog.com explaining about the formation of the gym (Sherdog is as credible as you can get for MMA online information and is a WELL KNOWN) and was going to post it until this article got deleted for a SECOND time AFTER I put CREDIBLE sources and made sure the article looked professional. There is no reason this article shouldn't be allowed to exist and is a bit ridiculous that you think otherwise. I understand that the article is about living people but it is information that is already known and does not harm anybody let alone it is not controversial in any way shape or form. If the information was given through the form of public interview and meant for the ears of MMA fans than why shouldn't this article be on wikipedia? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia for knowledge of ALL TYPES. MMA information should be no different. Thank you for your time and I hope you reconsider. Also I do apologize for trying to recreate this article a second time but I thought if I recreated it with my source (I figured I would insert it later) it would be okay. I did not know it was against regulations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TapOut 013 (talk • contribs)

  Comment - I'm having a hard time presuming good faith with the last comment considering that the user above has again recreated the "article" (on the 24th, according to the page history). - jc37 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the article, it only has one reference, which doesn't really meet the requirements for multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, and to me doesn't really assert importance in the grand scheme of things. Endorse deletions; if at some point it receives enough coverage in multiple reliable sources, then it can be recreated. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn This is a school of martial arts, not a university. the first deletion was A7, which does not apply to schools. It could be questioned whether this was a true school in the intended sense, but the founders were noted champions, and that does assert importance. Deleted a second time as G4, but recreation applies only to article deleted under XfD. Tony, the standard for speedy is some indication of notability, not just lack of sourcing, nor is it "importance in the great scheme of things". Any plausible indication of importance is enough. 90% of the contents of encyclopedia is not important to the great scheme of things--yes, i know some people would go ahead and delete that 90%--but not by speedy. Nor is inadequately sourced a reason for speedy. (The article was a little on the spammy side, but not enough for G11, either, but I do not know how it would fare at AfD.) But being able to unquestionably pass AfD is not the standard for passing speedy.DGG (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I find no assertion of notability in the article. It's a month-old training gym run by a couple of MMA guys; calling it a "school" is a bit of a stretch, in my view. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, it's a gym, not a school of martial arts. Gyms are businesses. Businesses are subject to A7. --Coredesat 05:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted though as DGG points out it should have been an A7 since G4 doesn't apply. At present, I don't see the indication of importance but as the business develops it may well gather enough sources to justify a recreation. BlueValour (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• I would recommend that a userspace version of this page be created that has several sources, and then ask here again to allow recreation and list on AfD. The main problem for me is that only a single source is listed. VegaDark (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - And suggest that if this discussion results in "endorse", and the "article" gets re-created again, considering that by now the users should be quite aware of the concerns, that the re-creator be blocked. - jc37 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletions (all of them, including my latest one). Trivial article which promotes a business with no claim of notability. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

does not fit criteria for speedy deletion

• The person is noteworthy and the NY Times is not a proper source. She has been all over the national news media. Yes, the article is about a living person, but that does not mean it should not exist. The issue at least warranted a discussion about her noteworthiness prior to deletion. This article did not meet the cited criteria (A7) for speedy deletion. Failureofafriend (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• allow recreation/overturn I'm not convinced we should have a separate article on her but I see no reason to not allow the creation of an article and give it a normal AfD if necessary. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I'm with JoshuaZ; I'm not so sure I'd support keep in an AfD, but there's more than enough evidence of notability to at least discuss deletion using that process. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - Another example of WP being scrubbed for the health of political candidates. This woman is already all over the media, including the extremely prominent New York Times, and there are numerous sourced statements that can be made about her, some of which establish notability. This article was deleted too quickly, despite not violating BLP or getting any kind of fair chance...and redirected to another article which has no mention of the person in question. Mr. IP (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. As the deleting admin, this did not need to go to DRV. The old article I deleted was a one-paragraph stub. The content was basically limited to, paraphrasing, "She's a lobbyist who's alleged to have had a relationship with McCain." The new article is more amply referenced, and it provides critical commentary not only on her career but also on the situation between her and McCain. CSD clearly permit the recreation of a new, improved version of the article—and even from the first edit on the recreation, that's what this is. Had this version been in place when I looked at the article, I wouldn't have deleted it. —C.Fred (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)