Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 28

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

This is an article with a number of sources that help asset its notability and it should be a stand-alone article rather than merged into the Aplus.Net article as this individual has a broader business background than just Aplus.Net 69.76.132.152 (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Painting and Decorating Contractors of America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

This entry is notable. The association has been around since 1884 and serves several thousand members across North America. All information provided was neutral/factual. Please consider restoring the entry. (Multiple submission is the result of my inexperience with WP.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1801270P (talk • contribs) 16:27, May 28, 2008

• Comment - Usually the quickest way to get protected pages back up is to create a draft version in your userspace. At, say, User:1801270P/Painting and Decorating Contractors of America or something similar. Then you can work on the content and bring it back here when it passes all the necessary content policies and guidelines. If you'd like, we can userfy if for you. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment -Page created,User:1801270P/Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Thank you for the suggestion LB. —Preceding comment was added at 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It needs third party reliable sources that help assert its notability: non-trivial mentions on newspapers an other stuff. Notice that press releases usually count as WP:SELF self published and don't assert notability. The facts described on the press releases can count for notability, but they will usually need verification from reliable sources, specially for big claims. You want third-party mentions of notable stuff, like being the greatest association, the oldest one, influencing legislation on painting, reviews of the association on notable magazine, as well as stuff that shows its importance inside its own field like being an association where most paint manufacturers are, etc (again, you need third party independient confirmation of most stuff). You want to fill the article with notable stuff, and drop those long lists of places that add nothing to the article. Instead, just say "PDCA has xx Councils all over the US" and place there an inline reference to the list --Enric Naval (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy if the draft gets improved and list at AfD as a stub, since it looks like notable, it probably just needs to be more sourced. I see, for example, that the Californian Contractors State license Board uses a *lot* of PDCA resources on the study guide for the Painting and Decorating exam [1]. I assume that the association is important on the painting field. I say a stub could be fine. I see that on 2000 they were already planning lobbying activities [2] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Appears to have a claim to notability, so the original speedy is invalid. The appropriate place would have been prod followed by AfD. MrPrada (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you for the feedback, comments and edits. What are my next steps? Post the article again and list in AfD for further review? --1801270P (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the page still needs third party reliable sources. I would continue to improve it in user space until you have added the needed sources - a rushed recreation would result in an AfD - see also below. Smile a While (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Close as userfied - the version at User:1801270P/Painting and Decorating Contractors of America is already good enough to avoid a speedy so events have now moved on beyond this DRV nomination. The nominator should move the user page to main space when he is confident enough about it. See above. Smile a While (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Kari Havsland Jørgensen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Subject is notable for several reason. First because she is one of the few (or only?) known Danes to have committed a serious crime in direct support to the actions of a terrorist group without being charged with this. Secondly, her person is a matter of widespread public debate in Denmark because she is still a practising medical doctor. Her crimes are not a matter of discussion in Denmark (nor denied by her), merely the lack of penal consequence. Law Lord (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse for now. I'm affraid that without sources, we can't do anything here for you. The deletion, though attributed to an AfD, appears to have been a WP:BLP admin-discretion deletion. This doesn't preclude the existance of another, well sourced and not defamatory article on her and you are welcome to create it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• The article had a source/reference. Here are several more:
  1. Ring til terrorlægen!, Avisen.dk 18 March 2008, 131 words
  2. Læge: Skandale at Blekingegade-læge slap, Avisen.dk, 17 March 2008, 398 words
  3. Bande Fogh afviser Blekingegade-undersøgelse, Nyhedsavisen 1 February 2008, 2nd section, page 20, 235 words
  4. En undersøgelse af Blekingegadesagen kan være på vej, Nyhedsavisen 22 January 2008, 2nd section, page 16, 339 words
  5. Sig navnet!, Berlingske.dk, 22 January 2008, 926 words

  --Law Lord (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what the content or relative importance of those are, they not being online and I not knowing the language. However I'm pretty sure that the fastest way to clear this up is to simply create the article again so that it doesn't meet the concerns that caused it to be deleted. It's not protected, so there's no reason you can't do it right now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Referencing was never one of my reasons for nominating the article for deletion because I do not see how adding more references to the article could prevent it from being a BLP-violation. Reliable sources only cover her in the context of this crime so writing a well-rounded biography is impossible. Actually, the ones I've read of those articles of yours only give trivial coverage about her (I admit to not having read them all). They primarily cover the crime and the debate about the crime, so in my humble opinion while the crime is notable, the person isn't. And as I read WP:BLP#Privacy of names, we should not even be publishing her name: while some news sources have published her name, others (such as Politiken, example: [3]) choose deliberately not to and the work which is the greatest authority on the topic (Peter Øvig Knudsen: Blekingegadebanden volumes 1 and 2) also chooses not to publish her name. Hemmingsen 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• endorse deletion as she has not been convicted of any crime. The article on the crime protects her identity. I suggest a courtesy deletion of the Afd and of this discussion. DGG (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The article did not say that she had committed a crime. Merely that is is an established fact that she committed actions, which would normally result in criminal charges. This by her own admission also. Please point to which policy you base your opinions on. --Law Lord (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • that is the sort of approach to use evasive wording to avoid BLP that I do not think we can accept. DGG (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse', this is not AfD round 2, administrator made the correct call in closing per consensus. MrPrada (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/speedy-deletion. Even without the WP:BLP issues, I am skeptical that this person would have met Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies as a stand-alone article. As is, the decision here appears to be completely consistent with the requirements of WP:BLP. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Cricketainment is a valid word and is newly coined word in 2008. Cricketainment is very much a part of reality and this word is already popular with a huge section of people in India and elsewhere. It should be noted that "cricketainment" is not merely a word but a new concept of entertainment that is revolutionizing the sports and entertainment sector in India. Also it should not be redirected to IPL since IPL is one of the clubs which is merely implementing the concept. Even ICL is implementing cricketainment, and in future more clubs or organizations may participate. So i strongly feel that such an article should exist as it defines a new concept and merits it existence in Wikipedia with more contributions from people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.142.36 (talk) 06:56, May 28, 2008

• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to explain how the deletion policy was not correctly followed, not to advance new (or the same) arguments for changing the result of an AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, the consensus in the AfD was unambiguous. Arkyan 13:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Though I argued for a merge/redirect it didn't command a consensus and the close was correct. There is certainly not enough sourced content for a standalone page. A sourced paragraph can still be added to the IPL page as a normal editorial action, with a new redirect, and that seems the way to go though it obviously will not satisfy the nominator. Smile a While (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The outcome was crystal clear. MrPrada (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn since article can be rightly categorized in sports entertainment section. it cannot be redirected to IPL, since cricketainment is a concept and IPL, ICL are the clubs merely implementing it.--Gururaj 007 (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I can find no process problems in the deletion discussion. Note: I would have no objections to a temporary undeletion for the purposes of transwikiing this definition over to Wiktionary. But the consensus is that it is a neologism was clear (and, in fact, is reinforced by the wording of the request for review here). Rossami (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure keep arguments were weak or unsupported by reliable sources, so the closure as delete was justified --Enric Naval (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn article looks pretty valid. cricketainment is a popular concept and gainaing popularity. This article will be a valuable addition to wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.142.36 (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)