Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 7

The Fast and the Furious 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted per CSD G4 altough it didn't fall under that category, I created the article myself from scratch adressing the issues from previous AFDs. Any issues regarding notability or similiar of the new article isn't reason for speedy deletion. MrStalker ^(talk) 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: The version currently on the page is not the same I'm talking about. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, already recreated. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse and salt until filming is confirmed. We normally don't create articles on movies that are still in pre-production, as it's still violates WP:CRYSTAL, as alot can change in that time frame. Won't survive another AFD. Secret ^account 22:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

MrStalker's version was not, in fact, a pure G4; the film is in fact apparently in preliminary production. After careful consideration, I have restored it, in agreement with his reasoning, and move to close this review. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess not, it was deleted again two seconds ago. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a G4, but I just can't see it surviving AFD, I redeleted it depends on the DRV result. Secret ^account 22:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and send to AFD This article is diffrent from the one that used to be there, and can be suported with citations. Our job here is only to see if it was deleted correctly, and since it was not a pure recreation of deletd material, the best place to send it is to AFD after a week once the article is created and has had time to be fleshed out a little. (Note: I'm the admin who unprotected the page) The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with the above post. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I noticed that User:Madchester had not signed the closing statement for this AFD, so I checked to see if xe had been notified about this delrev and saw that xe was not. I left a note on User talk:Madchester mentioning that the closing was unsigned and that this delrev had been filed. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  Not the same deleting admin, this is a seperate issue. --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OIC, this is protesting the subsequent speedy deletion. My bad. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that's not the most recent AfD, and is not the deletion I'm protesting against. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as the film is not in production, and its existence is not appropriate per the notability guidelines for future films. Previous incarnations were based on people saying, "We'll make it, we'll make it," when it never reaches that stage (as it's not guaranteed to). This is more of the same expression of intent being exhibited here, and we don't need to go through yet another AFD to make this the case. Perhaps we need to just create a film series article for all these films and have a "Future" section, a la Spider-Man 4. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  Still, doesn't meet WP:CSD. That is an issue for an AfD. --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's already undergone the AFD, that's why it was speedied. I'm not sure why we're going in circles here. The article's incarnations have never said anything beyond, "We're going to make this film," which never a certainty in the film industry. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  No, it wasn't the same article. As far as I'm concerned, this article hasn't existed before, because I created it from scratch. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I understand that you wrote it in your own words, but if you review the logs, its previous incarnations have constantly been this expressed intent to make the film. The February 2008 information didn't cross the threshold into actual production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I found this tagged for speedy deletion as a recreation of AfD'd material -- I checked to ensure that that was the case, then deleted it. There was no mention of this process. Upon being informed of it, I restored the deleted page. I now endorse its re-deletion once this process is finished; the article specifically states that the film is not yet in production, which means it does not meet the relevant policy. Arguments that so-and-so says that the film is absolutely positively going to get made leave me quite unmoved, I'm afraid, since I am old enough to remember dozens of other situations where such-and-such a film is absolutely positively going to get made, and it was not. WP:NFF was created for a reason, and this falls under that reason. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I have to admit that after studying the notability guideline you've talked about, I have to agree. Still, IMO, that's an issue for an AfD-discussion. The reason I posted this DRV is because it was speedily deleted. I say overturn and send to AfD. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's already undergone the AFD, that's why it was speedied. I'm not sure why we're going in circles here." I believe what might be happening here is that User:MrStalker believes that the application of G4, "recreation of material that failed an AfD process", is incorrect and others, including me, believe that it is correct. My rationale for speedying the article most recently is that (a) it was tagged as G4, (b) I confirmed that an article with that title had failed an AfD process, and (c) I considered the new article to be "substantially the same" as the article that was deleted because the new article specifically stated that the film is not yet in production and thus the article does not meet WP:NFF. Certainly it was not a "recreation", but I believed it was "substantially the same". There may well be an error in my understanding of the relevant policy and I am open to hearing about it if that's the case. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I've created The Fast and the Furious film series using the standard film series setup because this "fourth film" information is very, very similar to Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV. This has become part of the future films department's process in merging to film series articles whenever possible. Therefore, there's no reason for this article to exist per WP:NFF, except as a redirect to The Fast and the Furious film series#Future, where information can be expanded like with the two examples I've given. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note to future voters and closing admins Please read the argument and vote as if this is DRV. Many of these votes are using notablity guidelines, which is an issue for AFD. The issue here is that the article, when recreated was not exactly like the ones deleted before, therefore, the deletion criteria is invalid. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• What is the definition of "exactly"? Like Accounting4Taste indicated, it was substantially the same. The argument using notability guidelines is that it has been unable to fit them in previous incarnations, and it continues to be unable to fit in this current incarnation. Thus, it's the recreation of deleted material and meets the deletion criteria. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• This Revision was the last one deleted. As, at least to me, is obvious, they are not very simmilar at all. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Same director, same writer, same cast members returning, same release date, not being in production -- these don't count? From what I can tell, the plot is derived from a script review from November 2007, which could easily be re-added to the current article and complete the symmetry. How specific do you mean -- in terms of writing, structure, referencing? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• THis one actually has some citations, which makes it diffrent. we are not here to decide if the citations are good, but to decide if it was deleted correctly, which, it may have been, but with the wrong CSD. The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's recreated after this discussion closes, I now intend to immediately submit it for another AfD process, which it will fail because it doesn't meet WP:NFF. Does that render this whole process somewhat academic? Accounting4Taste:talk 20:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources make it so that G4 doesnt apply here. None of the previous recreations of this article had sources. We are only disscuing the way/process through which it was deleted, not weather it was right or not. The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(exdent for convenience) I went and looked up G4, which says "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". I must agree that the addition of sources addresses -- not necessarily "meets", but "addresses", which is what the definition says -- the reasons for which the material was deleted, which is, very specifically, WP:NOT#CRYSTAL (the reason cited by the closing admin and some of the commenting editors in the AfD). The sources attempt to predict the future with some degree of rigour and for sensible reasons, but they are predicting the future -- Paul Walker could get hit by a bus between now and the start of production, rendering the article meaningless. (Needless to say, I hope that doesn't happen, for Mr. Walker's sake.) I have to confess that I didn't actually go through this chain of logic at the time, but merely considered the article in terms of WP:NFF. I hope to be excused for thinking that WP:NOT#CRYSTAL is the equivalent of WP:NFF, since both refer to future events which cannot accurately be predicted as a standard for inclusion/exclusion; my feeling is that NFF is something like a subset of CRYSTAL, just more specific, but I admit that I can't point to anything in policy pages that says so. At any rate, I think the situation definitely now falls under WP:SNOWBALL. I apologize if I've contributed to a situation which has wasted anyone's time. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It's most likely to fail AfD, so perhaps there is of no use. Personally, I'm so used to try to follow procedure that sometimes I forget about WP:IAR. In any case, I have redirected The Fast and the Furious 4 to The Fast and the Furious film series since it now has been merged there, and any further discussion on this matter is unnecessary. I apologize for taking up your time. --MrStalker ^(talk) 10:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Dan Besse is a current City Council member in the fourth largest city in North Carolina and a Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor of the state. The other contenders are listed on Wikipedia. Michaeloder (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn, list in AFD, while I doubt it would survive an AFD, it obviously not an A7, claiming obvious notabilty as a canditate for lieutenant governor. Secret ^account 22:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I nominated it for speedy since WP:BIO says, in part "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" and I couldn't find any other grounds in the article. As for the other contenders, WP:OTHERCRAP can be applied. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, consequently. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles fail WP:BIO all the time, but not meeting WP:BIO isn't much of a reason for a CSD, unless it obviously doesn't claim notabilty, rather prod or AFD. Secret ^account 22:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I guess I'm not entirely clear on the difference between notability and claiming notability. But it seems a bit silly to restore here and then delete it again at AfD, as you predict! btw, Michael Oder is also the name of the webmaster for a political organisation in NC that has endorsed our Mr Besse. I wonder if it's the same person? --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think that is an important difference, the standard for A7 isn't claiming notability, it's "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability...". So if they indicated why thet were important or significant A7 doesn't work, the fact that at AFD they may fail notability isn't too important, that's for the AFD discussion to define. But even taking your quote ", does not guarantee notability" seems to contemplate that indeed some are. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For press coverage of Dan Besse see: The Herald-NC: http://www.theherald-nc.com/149/story/6985.html

Raleigh News and Observer: http://www.newsobserver.com/659/story/916910.html http://www.newsobserver.com/1565/story/908374.html http://www.newsobserver.com/659/story/850119.html http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/jimblack/story/538371.html http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/jimblack/story/493870.html

Winston-Salem Journal: http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149192961721

Charlotte Observer: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/local/story/379910.html

AP Story: http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354286448 http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/NEWSREC0101/70131027/-1/NEWSRECRSSARKIVE http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354284732

As Andrew Howse notes, I am the web master for a statewide Progressive group that has endorsed Dan Besse. I am also a personal friend of his, so I can't claim impartiality on the subject. Obviously, I wouldn't care as much about the topic if I didn't have some connection to it. I've also never made any claim to impartiality.

One note about the interpretation implementation of the notability policy in this case is that it would leave Walter Dalton as the sole person listed since he is a member of the State Senate while excluding the other candidates in the race. That seems a bit unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeloder (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and list There are assertions of importance so should not be speedy deleted. List at AFD so a full debate can be had on whether the sources establish notability or not. Davewild (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn/ list at AfD improper application of WP:CSD#A7; notability was asserted. Doubtful will pass AfD, but the criteria of speedy deletion policy are purposefully narrow and must not be stretched. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn delete plenty of evidence. Sestertium (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Send to AFD deleting admin overstepped the boundaries of A7. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Company still exists and is growing. 68.178.100.214 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

While it is a contested prod, i see no notabilty mentioned in this article for meeting WP:CORP. It's an A7 and there is no point in restoring just for redeleting Endorse Deletion Secret ^account 22:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion; classic A7. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Should be undeleted. Proof of notability below.

Proof of notability http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2006/07/03/smallb1.html?i=48911

Proof of notability http://www.startupjournal.com/ecommerce/ecommerce/20050531-hanrahan.html

Proof of notability http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001949623_amazonweb07.html

Proof of notability http://www.sdtimes.com/article/story-20040315-03.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.83.211 (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Undelete Article was deleted by prod which has now been contested so should be restored as a matter of course. The first link above provides at least an arguable case for notability. Can be listed at AFD if anyone feels it needs to be. Davewild (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Automatic overturn contested prod. No need for further discussion, IMHO. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

UNDELETE_REASON

Any reason why it should be undeleted, Endorse and likely close until a reasoning is provided. Secret ^account 22:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close due to lack of any rationale being provided for undeletion. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)