Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 27

Q without u (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

whilst this article was in its infancy i can see no reason for deletion as it cited several repuatable sources Qwithoutu (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: Glasgow’s Q Without U will release their debut album in a couple of weeks. Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, A7 applies as there was no indication of importance. Citations in the last version were largely from user-edited resources and did nothing to establish importance. Arkyan 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless the requester can provide some reliable sources with coverage of the band. Also COI issues. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is not the place to promote your own band. MER-C 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Sources marginal; one EP and two singles hardly establishes notability; COI issues; process seems to have been followed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Clearly should not have been speedied; was sourced with third-party references; was not advertising jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I tagged this article for speedy deletion, because IMHO, it read like a glorified AD for the Institute. It may have been sourced, and that's nice, but it was still SPAM. GreenJoe 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment User:GreenJoe added notability tags twice, while I was adding sourced material. Then he added a speedy-delete tag, which was clearly inappropriate. User:Gwen Gale then deleted it, presumably without taking much time to read either the article or the edit history. This is a research institute at the University of British Columbia whose founding (the result of the largest donation to the university to date) was the subject of national coverage, and whose activities involve academics sufficiently notable to have their own WP articles. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I TWICE asked you to prove notability, and you failed to do so. Adding sources on sources doesn't change the fact that the article was bias in favour of your POV, and it read like an advertisement. GreenJoe 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    Sources are what show notability. If you had a problem with POV, then you should have edited the article, or dropped a note on the talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Further Comment. Comparator articles would include BC Cancer Research Centre, Centre for Forest Research, or any of the other similar institutes in Category:Research institutes in Canada. In fact, this article was much better sourced than the vast majority of those. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • See WP:WAX. GreenJoe 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    Indeed. These are simply comparator articles for the benefit of those reading this review. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but we still can't cite them and I don't think we need to. I did read through the article and saw no assertions which struck me as having encyclopedic notability. Rather, the text reads like a public relations/alumni mag hand out for any expensively funded org at a uni. It would have helped if the article had been written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, with topic notability clearly set forth. However, I see no reason why we can't give this article some more time to grow. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'll give it 2 days to see some improvements, or I'm listing it on AFD. GreenJoe 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

21:16, March 10, 2008 Seicer deleted "Doctor Steel" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance)".

I had listed two national television appearances, including an appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and two released CD albums. Google results in 23,200 for "Doctor Steel" and 49,000 for "Dr. Steel".

I was in the middle of listing clubs and areas he plays in regularly, more details regarding the band, and other notable facts when the article was deleted. Coolgamer (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

this has been speedied and reconstructed 8 times already-- it really should go to afd for a community opinion. After that, depending on the result, it could be salted. DGG (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the recreated versions has been to AfD. Coolgamer's version, at the time it was deleted, was substantially shorter. —C.Fred (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Article went to AfD, and consensus was to delete. The 10 March version was correctly speedy deleted (although IMHO, criterion G4 was more also applicable than A7). Coolgamer: If you'd like to work on a possible article, consider doing so in userspace. Then once you have multiple sources in place, you can present it in DRV as an improved article. Until there's a new and improved version, I see no reason to overturn AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per C.Fred. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: deletion has already been discussed and endorsed once before, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22. --Stormie (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that the deletion reason given there was "major fair use violation" -- which does not seem to have been proven--the fair use violation was the illustrations in the article not the text. The deletion review was apparently based on its unsuitability on other grounds. I have no opinion on this overall. DGG (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put this in caps, because it's important and not directly obvious. THE ARTICLE THAT WENT TO AFD AND WAS VOTED ON WAS NOT MINE. My article had no fair use violation, and I do not have a backup of the text, but I was about to cite sources, including the television appearances, which automatically mean A7 is passed. This is a notable band, and yes, there have been problems with nonsense bios regarding it in the past. All of my article, however, was factual. At the very least I request a copy of my original work. Coolgamer (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Restore to Coolgamer's user space, let them add the sources and work on it. Then after it's moved back to mainspace it can be sent to AfD if doubts about notability remain. RMHED (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Most recent DRV on this was in November 2007. The version deleted on March 30 of this year was far more detailed and had a number of sources than Coolgamer's version; I forget exactly where the discussion took place, but I know there was some conversation about it, and it was deleted yet again (it might have been on User:JzG's talk page, actually). Fact is that Doctor Steel doesn't have the mainstream sources to make it notable as yet; the TV apperance has been discussed and rejected as an indicator of ntoability numerous times. Keep deleted. Coolgamer, if you still want a copy of your particular version, I'll restore to your userspace, let me know on my talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletions unless someone shows here the sources asserting enough notability, which is the root cause for this being deleted --Enric Naval (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Jack Blood is a notable radio show host based in Austin, Texas. His show, Deadline Live is heard in 60 countries and has a large following on the internet. He has interviewed on his show Tim Russert (host of Meet the Press), Congressman Ron Paul, Michael Moriarty, Congressman Tom Tancredo, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, and many others. He is in his 7th year of broadcasting and 4th year of syndication. Here is his Program Page on GCNLive. Alex Jones and Jeff Rense is on the same network and there are Wiki pages for them. Here is a news article mentioning Jack Blood. Here is Jack Blood interviewing Tim RussertRebel lonedog (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC) -->

• Endorse deletion. Article failed to demonstrate the notability of the radio host with sufficient reliable sources. Accordingly, there was insufficient improvement over prior versions, and the speedy deletion (G4) was correct. (N.b.: of the links mentioned above, only one—the Austin Chronicle article—is from a reliable source, and that only makes a passing reference to Blood.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Deleted under G4, now without being able to see that old version of Sept '06 it's impossible for me to say whether the recently deleted cached version was substantially the same or not. RMHED (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - likewise I cannot assess the G4 since I have no access to the earlier version. However, there is nothing particularly notable in the version in the cache and the news item is simply a passing mention. The way forward is to write a new, better sourced article in user space and then come back here with a request for agreement to recreate. Smile a While (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. DRV is a place to point out how the deletion process was not followed, not a place to present new (or repeat old) arguments as to why the decision should be changed. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. While the original AfD was certainly closed correctly, this involves the G4 speedy. I think an administrator should verify their similarity before we decide. MrPrada (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've looked at the article versions. The new one adds 2 more public figures who were interviewed there. But the new one does not have the part about a controversial interview with Tim Russert, nor does it put as much emphasis on Blood's involvement in 9/11 conspiracy circles. Overall, Blood's most notable accomplishment seems to have been filling in once for Alex Jones--I dont think the article would possibly stand at AfD.DGG (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as substantial recreation of deleted material. Should we find it here again, salt. MrPrada (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion as recreated content. While the versions were clearly created independently, the newly deleted versions did not address the concerns that led to the deletion decision. If new evidence can be found which would justify a reconsideration of the original AfD, please present it here (at which point the article could be temporarily undeleted and relisted to AfD). Rossami (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)