Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 1

I see no reason for this page to be deleted, but someone has put it up for deletion. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

• Speedy close. Wrong venue, the speedy tag was incorectly placed and has been removed. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Gigi Mon Mathew (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It was a stub sort of article created with proper references. Even, each and every wordings were properly cited. Three main references was there including tradearabia.com, considered to be one of the Middle Easts leading business online. Low-blp criteria is not the reason for deletion. The closing admin also did not mention the rationale. In short, an article that is not spam and the contest was one of the first of its kind in the world. Therefore, it should definitely come under the category for Lottery winners Harjk (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, the AFD was pretty unequivocal, only keep opinion came from the creator of the article. Other folks who opined on the AFD agreed that the person was not notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• AfD should not be decided by the majority of votes. It has to be judged by consensus. No matter one keep vote or 100 delete votes. If the one who commented keep has valid reasons, it has to be accepted. I had clearly provided my rationale and stands for a truth to be added to WP, though I do not have any particular interest in this topic. I support for it because, it is one of the first of its kind in the world. That’s why I created it. Moreover, the material is total fact info by the support of references per WP:RS. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• However, if the hundred who comment delete also have valid reasons, then their hundred outweighs the one. Just having one valid argument (and I'm not saying it is or isn't, I haven't even seen it) doesn't defeat a deletion. You still need to convince others to have it and gain consensus. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my reply to UsaSatsui.--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. DRV is not a place to try and get a better result because you disagree with the AFD result. Consensus was pretty clear. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced and the Consensus was not pretty clear for me. Because I disagree with the decision of deleting it. Because, it is fist of its kind in the world. If you could take off some time & read the deleted articles and supported references, you would say so.

• What gives you the power to decide things based upon whether you agree with them? Those are the breaks of any group decision making process...sometimes things don't go your way. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Because the RS cleary says that it is the biggest prize ever offered in UAE by a nationalzed bank. A kind of first of its kind in the world. I, WP:IAR, is using the power of be bold and arguing. No matter whether you like the winner or not.--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Harjk, you are a bit out of process here. Have you bothered to notify the closer of the AfD, which is explicitly asked of you in the header of this very page? Does User:Sandstein even know this is happening to a debate he closed? Even with notification, the AfD was nearly unanimous, endorse deletion on that basis alone, regardless of procedural grievances. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldnt complete it as I'd to logout yesterday.--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Consensus was read well by Sandstein. I've put a {{DRVNote}} on his talk page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd already spoke to Stifle about it.--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Lifebaka, for notifying me about this DRV. I make no comment about the merits of the closure or, indeed, on the process followed by Harjik, as all has been said already. Sandstein (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Where else I can post it other than Wikipedia where may not be any issues? --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 07:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:Alternative outlets. Sandstein (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Linked to by former Article of the Day

The Phoenix Recordings are a very frequently bootlegged set of recordings by British singer/songwriter Kate Bush predating her signing by EMI records. A Google search for "Kate Bush" AND Phoenix produces 408,000 hits, limiting it to "Kate Bush" AND "Phoenix Recordings" produces 380. The article on Kate Bush (a featured article and former Article of the Day links to it. Admittedly, the article could be fleshed out, but deleting it without discussion does not seem useful. Any "bootleg" recording may be in a gray area as they are generally omitted from official biographies and record company supplied discographies. But the Phoenix Recordings are mentioned in several unofficial Bush biographies, and a considerable amount of information is provided on the Bush fan site Gaffa.org. K8 fan (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Restore as contested prod. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Close: Heh, a Deletion review wasn't necessary here. All that was required was you asking me to restore it, and I would have, considering I only deleted it after the PROD expired. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For the life of me, I'll never understand those who "contribute" by deleting. K8 fan (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to dispute my recent website deletion from both photoanalysis and optical granulometry. The website provided has information in regards to these technologies!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipware (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please link to the pages you want to dispute the deletions of? In the meantime, speedy close this, as it wasn't properly filed. To file one, put {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ on today's log page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close - Nothing to do here. This is a content dispute over linkspam being inserted into articles [1] [2]. -- Kesh (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)