Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 11

Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMIX song list (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Since when is a KEY ASPECT of the game indiscriminate information? Similar articles for Guitar Hero games got nominated for deletion in August 2007, yet they made it through unharmed with a Keep result. This just proves that song list information is NOT indiscriminate. Sure, I may be invoking WP:ALLORNOTHING a bit here, but make up your minds - your bias to Guitar Hero is just humiliating. Why can't ALL the DDR articles with huge songlists have them seperated out? They're HUGE! Consider this a DRV for any other DDR song list article too. ViperSnake151 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I find myself dissatisfied by an editorial deletion closure. The debate swings very clearly to 'upmerge' these into parental articles, with even the core deleter (Pi)indicating that parts of the content should be retained. Whether this is editorially practical is not really for the closing admin to determine, especially when the point is not discussed in the debate - it is surely at least worth trying, with the efforts eventually returning to AfD if they prove to be unsatisfactory. However, the sheer size and number of these lists does suggest that information is merely being indiscriminately amassed without filtering. I think the outcome of an attempt at merging should have been given a chance given the support for it in the debate, and the fact that neeeding lots of editing is not a reason for deletion (rather standing the closure rationale on its head). So I am minded to overturn and immediately redirect to a central location pending actual merging (to avoid inactivity despite professed good intentions). However, I imagine that a properly filtered article could be constructed from scratch taking advice of the discrimination requirements on such a list. Splash - tk 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Sound close based on sound discussion. Martinp (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the close. If you want copies of the article to merge, just contact me. --Haemo (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and add WP:ITSHUGE!!!! to WP:ATA. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Already tried that At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15 I closed a prior deletion review as userfied to experiment on merging the lot. That went nowhere, and in August 2007 the user who was trying to userfy gave up on it. If the last deletion review nominator accomplished nothing in the way of a merge with six months to try ... GRBerry 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Yeah. That was me that tried to merge them. I wasn't able to do anything with the lists (one reason is because they were horribly incomplete and not as well done as they looked). As for outright restoring them, WP:WAX is a poor argument...particularly when you don't mention which articles supposedly got kept when these were deleted a year ago. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Casella Waste Systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This has nothing to do with me being the original nom and everything to do with a non-admin close when no sources had been found to prove the company was anything but a local org with no evidence of passing WP:CORP. Vague assertions of 'there must be sources' were made but none were found (because I don't think are any) apart from press releases and earnings statements. I left a message for the person who closed it and s/he's been online since but has not responded. I think this should be re-listed for sources and or deleted if sources cannot be found. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Given the spareseness of the debate after a relisting and no additional support for deletion, it was reasonable to close the debate as defaulting to keep. Multiply relisting is not particularly helpful and no in general fair. I don't think that an unexamined Google News Search is adequate basis to justify a keeper, nor for the following editor to rely on it without apparent further thought. Examining them a bit does indeed appear to reveal that they are all mere fiscal results or related to a single minor controversy about waste in a local municipality. However, I'm concerned that a company covering 34 states is likely to be de facto notable. Open to persuasion on whether to overturn to delete or not. Splash - tk 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. Discussion was not extensive and this is a stub at best, but the company is NASDAQ listed and Hoover's tells me annual revenues are in excess of $500MM, confirming the notability alluded to but not documented in the AFD. I have edited the article to include the ticker symbol, remove the notability tag, add a stub tag, and fix the most egregious spelling mistakes. Let's hope someone does more with it in time....Martinp (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

...with a supplementary Humph. While the article should have been sourced and notability asserted (and been less of a badly written stub to boot), a simple Google search generates as the 1st hit the company website and notes the NASDAQ stock symbol. Being listed on NASDAQ should provide immediate glimmerings that the company might be notable - maybe not a proof, but a suspicion at least. Clicking through on the company website lets you with one click see a map of locations, where one can see the company is not local. Finally, two more clicks lead to [1] which helpfully lists what external analysts regularly release reports on the company - helpful independent sources even if not everyone has access to them. With all due respect to the good faith efforts of everyone involved in the deletion discussion, couldn't someone had done this check? Couldn't the deletion nominator/DRV nominator have done at least this level of check before concluding that the company was probably nonnotable? Harangue mode off... Martinp (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment when I did the nomination I was looking for reliable independent sources, I don't know that analysts reports indicate notability which could be my error. I never did find the NASDAQ symbol, I'll blame that on snow blindness of the day, I have no excuse. I don't think there was any bad faith, I just felt a re-list was in order when no secondary sources were found, that may have been my error or a mis understanding of WP:CORP I admit, I'm learning TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close; though there is certainly a worrying lack of secondary sources. However, our role is not to substitute our judgement for that of the AfD participants but to determine whether the AfD was properly closed. In this case there was no good basis for closing as delete. BlueValour (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment, I was arguing more for a re-list since the sources had not been proved and I have real issues with articles being kept on fuzzy assertions rather than actual sources. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Raven-Symoné (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article was originally deleted, due to lack reliable sources, But now it has confirmed that Raven-Symoné will in fact an release an album on April 29. This article was recently recreated under the name, Raven Symoné (album). I am asking the deleted article be recreated and the infomation from recently recreated article be merged into it. AfD, Source: http://ravensymonepresents.com/ravensymone/index.htmlQuasyBoy 13:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge 'em, assuming there's anything in the old one that isn't in the new one. I kinda' doubt it, though, given the length. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved new content to proper name and restored all old history. --NrDg 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this oughta' be closed, then. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Original delete decision was very close and also ill-informed. Specifically several votes for delete claimed they had never heard the term and it was a 'neologism', which only proves that they don't live in Canada. The phrase was used in the trailer of a prime time TV show, so everyone should have heard it by now (it is actually well-known and old). We have snow bunny and beach bunny. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the closer of the AfD, I live in Canada. Per WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." I stand by the closing. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

On reflection I realise that what I wrote above could have been taken the wrong way. When I wrote that the delete decision was ill-informed I meant that some of the people making 'delete' votes were ill informed (not knowing the phrase), not that the closer (User:Until(1 == 2)) was ill-informed. My apologies if you took it that way, Until. No criticism was intended. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I understood what you said as to be referring to the arguments for deletion and not referring to me. But I have never heard the term. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

References: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn — multiple reliable sources using, or discussing, the term can be demonstrated. In addition to the sources above, I can find the following:

  Puck Bunnies [microform]: A Study of Underlying Issues of Puck Bunny Culture in Junior Hockey, W MacEwen - 2004 - National Library of Canada.

  It's one of 5,000 new official words added to the recently released Second Edition of the Canadian Oxford dictionary.

  In sport and sex, the objective for male teams is conquest; Laura Robinson. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Dec 22, 2006. pg. A.19

  Female hockey fans more than puck bunnies; Leah and Joanne Reid. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Apr 23, 2003. pg. A.19

  Hockey women: hear us roar: Loyal fans give their all;;Valerie Fortney. Calgary Herald. Calgary, Alta.: Apr 28, 2004. pg. A.3

  Selling hockey culture; Greg Mcarthur. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Jul 3, 2004. pg. B.1.Fro

  Marketing misogyny; The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Jul 7, 2004. pg. A.16

• This is after just a cursory search. --Haemo (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Make it a soft redirect to wikitonary, like pimp slap. --evrik ^(talk)
• Seems to be enough to justify a new article, which need not come here first, since there is new information to add. DGG (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• If one wants to recreate the article in a manner that addresses the issues of the AfD they are welcome to. These sources were not presented in the AfD, nor were they in the article at the time of deletion so I think the closing was valid. I have no prejudice against recreation in line with our standards. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't think anyone's disagreeing with the close here; suffice to say that "there's an article to be written" and this was no demonstrated on at AfD — thus it's being demonstrated now. --Haemo (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering I(the closer) consent and agree to recreation if it corrects the issues that lead to its deletion, then this DRV is not needed if that is indeed what is intended. Just go ahead and re-create it, if you need the old content let me know. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the first instruction in submitting a DRV is "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look."

This DRV could have been avoided by simply presenting these new sources to me on my talk page. DRV is usually for when the deleting admin has already refused to reverse their decision. No worries though, peace. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again apologies to _(1 == 2)^Until, I should probably have done this through him first. I didn't think of it. Once again, no criticism of him is intended. He did entirely properly based on the AfD submissions. If he's happy to undelete it now, can we close this? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I have undeleted it with the reason given as "Undeleted to allow recreation in such a way as to deal with AfD issues". I assume this will be brought up to standards sooner rather than later, and will most likely re-delete the article if it is not within a week. This can be closed as far as I am concerned. Peace, and happy editing. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

TF Quasar International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article of mine was deleted giving the reason that it doesnt have any third party source seemed to be blatant advertising which promotes a company, product, group, service or person , i agree to the person who deleted it that being an inexperienced article creator my article might have violated in someway or the other but my point is that i should have given some time for the article to be fundamentally rewritten , but immediately with the notice for deletion was posted my article was deleted . my request to get the copy of the same so that i may rewrite it according to wikipedia standard . regardsPearllysun (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Send 'im the files, can't hurt a thing. Though, Pearlly, you might wanna' just take a whole bunch of time and write out the whole article before sending it through. That'd help avoid A3 empty speedies. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• I have sent the content to the email address registered with your Wikipedia account. I hope that helps. I'm sorry you feel rather set upon; the speedy deletion process can be rather harsh sometimes. Splash - tk 23:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:202.76.162.34 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article's deletion reason was "user page of nonexistent user". However, this is such a user, just an IP user. If Smashville or anyone else involved in the undeletion discussion of the talk page is seeing this: Don't mistake this for the talk page; this is the user page. Which was deleted because the deleting admin thought this was a nonexistent user. But this is actually an IP user. 124.176.160.139 (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. If this user wants a user page, he should create an account. User pages aren't reserved for anonymous IP's. GreenJoe 11:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Ask again after the block's over. —Cryptic 14:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Essentially all that was on there were denied unblock requests..."I don't want to create an account"... --Smashville^BONK! 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse We don't recognize the ownership of IPs, even if someone does own the IP. We treat them as temporary anonymous names that may be a different person from edit to edit. As such you cannot have your own IP userpage, it is not yours. Create a username if you like. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment It is mine...sort of. It is the IP of my school. And this address is practiacally fixed. It has been my school's IP address since I think late 2005. 124.176.160.139 (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it certainly does not need a userpage. A template on the Talk page indicating it's a shared school IP address will suffice. -- Kesh (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. I don't agree that IP users don't get a userpage...there's a couple of strong contributors out there that only edit under IP addresses and do have userpages. However, those users use a single dedicated IP, and nobody else uses it. They pretty much own their IP address. That's not the case here. This IP address is registered to a school. Therefore, it's not yours, and you really don't have the right to make a talk page there. Create an account, and I'm pretty sure the page can be restored to your account. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)