Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 17

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

An article of this name was speedily deleted yesterday. I did not get to see it and, as the topic seemed notable, I created another article of this name today, per WP:DRV which states, "It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted." My version was speedily deleted with reason A7. This seems inappropriate since I took some care to establish notability by stating that the subject is well-known and citing sources to support this. Please restore this article. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion. Colonel Warden's version appears notable w/ two good sources. Malinaccier (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I had a look at Colonel Warden's version of the article and it had appropriate references to support notability. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Had enough sources for a stub. Wasn't a good candidate for speedy, especially under A7. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I saw the older version that was speedied, and that was borderline on the assertion of notability, and completely unsourced. I was considering recreating it myself from the copious sources that are available and I trust Colonel Warden managed something that was far from the A7 range of things. In any case, if someone wants to contest the validity of a well-sourced article, the proper venue is AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 22:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per Celarnor and Dhartung. Colonel Warden's colloquy with RHaworth, deleting admin, suggests that the latter may not have appreciated fully the differences betwixt the version that was speedied (whilst at AfD) and the version created by CW and may not have recognized that CW's recreation was not necessarily contrary to the result of the AfD (or, more accurately, to the A7ing) and did not necessarily require the consent of Malinaccier, the (first) deleting admin (who, it should be noted, consents supra), and so I imagine that he might, having had occasion to reconsider, and in view of the course of this discussion, dispense with the issue forthwith and undelete. Joe 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn but must add a couple of independent references. If anyone thinks it needs AfD, then the AfD discussion must be allowed to run its full course. (Colonel W., you really do not deserve this after the ridiculous fuss you made on my talk page. What was your objection to talking to Malinaccier?) For an article which has been around for over three years closing the AfD discussion prematurely was quite unjustified. The site may be childish and trivial but that does not mean it cannot be notable. Googlefight has a reasonably respectable Alexa rank of 31,000 which is considerably better than Googlewhack which also has an article here. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why should Colonel Warden discuss undeletion with Malinaccier, who did not delete his version of the article, instead of yourself, who did? A7 is not to be used transitively. G4, perhaps, but there was no AFD on which to base a G4. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NFL on FOX commentator pairings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

As an admin, with most of my time dedicated to NFL-related articles, I believe A) the deletion discussion did not have enough activity to form a consensus and B) the reasons for the article's deletion nomination were not valid in terms of the article deletion criteria. Namely, the list was said to be unreferenced -- this only applies to notability issues, of which this article has none. I realize that citing other articles is usually not an acceptable defense, but in this case, lists like NFL on CBS commentator pairings, or more broadly, timeline-form lists and charts of announcers say, List of AFC Championship Game broadcasters), or a timeline chart of primetime programs through the years on NBC exist. I've never heard these lists classified as unencyclopedic. This is my belief as an admin. At the very least, I think a relist is in order. Pats1 ^T/C 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn/Relist low-participation AFD that just got it wrong. --Rividian (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Can we get a link to the AFD please? I seem to be missing it. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it was under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NFL on FOX announcer pairings. Pats1 ^T/C 18:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment (as deleting admin) - AFD had very little interest, but was unanimous to delete. No objection to a restoration. Neıl ☎ 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't understand how it can be asserted that the article has no notability issues. Has the topic of commentator pairings itself received coverage in reliable third-party sources? Regardless of whether or not the article is notable, it is not exempt from verifiability. This list, as well as NFL on CBS commentator pairings and List of NFL on NBC commentator pairings have been tagged as unreferenced for months (some since December 2006). No sources confirming the information in the lists have been provided other than unreliable internet message board posts. Are there any new sources available? Do the game broadcasts themselves count as the sources, and if so, are they exempt from having to be third-party sources? Khatru2 (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fundamentally, the list is notable. In terms of verifying all the information on the article, sure, there may be portions that require some more rigorous research than others. Still, by cobbling together various biographies of announcers and other sources, the list can be formed (not all lists can are verified by a source that replicates the list in whole - for example, to produce an accurate final roster for 1997 New England Patriots season, I researched a great deal with web.archive.org, found old NFL gamebooks, researched through newspaper archives, and scanned player biographies -- it's not textbook, but it's being bold for the sake of information...the same with the radio announcer chart for New England Patriots that I put together. That's just the nature of things -- the Spygate article, most of which I wrote, is very rigorously sourced simply because you can find a lot more material on Goodell's punishment than you can on the third string inside linebacker for the 1997 Patriots). I think the article passes the basic notability and verifiability tests, as a moderate level of research would produce a list with a fair balance of good info and gaps; the issue of referencing every nook and cranny wouldn't really factor into this deletion review discussion, though. Pats1 ^T/C 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article does not need to reference a single list that has already been compiled. However, this article didn't have any reliable sources at all for verification. If it were at least partially sourced, I could better understand. Can you produce some of these announcer biographies and other sources that include the commentator pairings to see if it is feasible to source the list? Khatru2 (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For example, Jim Nantz, Greg Gumbel, Dick Stockton, etc. Dr. Z of Sports Illustrated also does a review for each announcer pairing - like this one from 2002, or this one from 2007. Pats1 ^T/C 12:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Absent some references. Lacking references is a reason for deletion if they are not present and no-one can provide any. last I looked WP:V required information in an an article to be verifiable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist for more participation. Given that one of the comments was " It's a good list, but it still needs references" -- that would be an argument for keep and reference, not delete. We dont delete articles for being unreferenced. DGG (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We do if the request for sources is two years old and the article fails WP:V. Corvus cornix_talk 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No, there is no time limit... don't just make stuff up. But we do delete if something doesn't meet WP:V... however NFL announcers are covered by the media, there's little question of that. --Rividian (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - closing admin rightly closed an AFD that was unanimous for deletion as delete. That participation was low is not a justification for overturning the procedurally correct closure. There is no minimum number of participants required for an AFD to be considered valid. Otto4711 (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A low number of participants at AFD has traditionally been considered a situation where some leeway is to be given if someone comes along with a good argument, especially if some of the arguments in the AFD went contrary to policy. Let's not forbid an article here ever just because of what 3 random people said a year ago... consensus can change, especially when the establishment of that consensus was very shaky. --Rividian (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, unanimous delete recommendation. Note that an AFD does not "forbid an article here ever" — while a recreation of substantially the same content would be speediable, a recreation with new and different content would not. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This article (with substantially the same content) never should be been deleted - that's the point of this discussion. Pats1 ^T/C 11:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Was the original AFD closure correct? Yes, for a unanimous AFD it was correct. Was G4 deletion correct? Again, yes, the first 16 May version and the last version before the AFD are identical as far as I can tell, which since it was literally an undeletion is unsurprising. I can't object to a relisting, but what the article really needs is sourcing, and I'd prefer userfying if someone wants to take on that project. (And if nobody wants to take it on, this is fundamentally primarily an article about living people, and I don't like the idea of leaving those around unsourced for endless amounts of time.) GRBerry 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

This was an important article on the mythos, both Native American and modern, surrounding a legitimate cryptozoological oddity. 3 books, 4 websites, a short film, and an album of music have been devoted to the Michigan Dogman. The fact that it is a controversial topic is not adequate reasoning for its exclusion from the wikipedia database. 61.147.254.71 (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• This was closed as a contested prod and restored, but I'm re-opening. The subject was very recently discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan dogman, where the result was Delete as a hoax. This request refers to a prod in 2006, the re-creation at Michigan dogman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and subsequent deletion reflects consensus re the verifiability of the subject, so I'd say that the standard response of undeleting all contested prods does not apply in this case. It's telling that the only ref in the version that was prodded is a now-404 link to a song dated April 1 1987, as noted in the AfD. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid consensus at the AFD and the article with the capital "D" was no better than the AFD'ed article with a lowercase "d". GRBerry 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the AFD was validly closed and no new sources have been produced that could underpin a new article. Smile a While (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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

continue_to_develop_with_new_content Ebenwalker (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Does this article have anything to do with the www.graphalloy.com link that you inserted here? It looks like graphalloy is some commercial product --Enric Naval (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure we can do anything for you. I'm fairly sure the speedies were done fine, since most are, and the content is half a year old on the most recent version. You also haven't given us a reason to overturn the second speedy. I'd suggest working with an experienced editor building a draft article in your userspace (at User:Ebenwalker/Graphalloy or some such) then moving it to mainspace when it passes the necessary criteria. You might also want to check out our policies on advertising and conflicts of interest, though I'm not implying anything by linking those. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Let's see some reliable sources which mention this material so that we can make a better judgment. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Worth noting that wikt:graphalloy was also deleted today. Conrad.Irwin (on wikt) 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• 'comment probably it is possible to write an article on it, if there are references from the technical press. I'll be glad to take a look at a draft if you let me know when one is ready. DGG (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• list. While it's sitting on Afd, allow active editing. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)