Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 31

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

I don't know why this article has been black listed. Adam Cote is an Iraq War vet who is running for Congress in maine and has been interviewed by USA today and sevral other publications of note so no he's not a fringe candidate. Furthermore both the people he's competing with in the primary have articles about them so why does wikipedia not want there to be an article about Adam? Ridgedoga (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC) -->

• Write the article up in user-space with the sources. If it passes muster, it can be moved in. Keep in mind just being a candidate doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion, see WP:POLITICIAN. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• The article was discussed in June 2007 and deleted as Cote was, at that time, "a candidate who has yet to win his party's nomination". Not being American I have no idea if that situation has now changed (I assume not since you mention "both the people he's competing with in the primary"), but WP:POLITICIAN does state that unelected candidates may be sufficiently notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Interviews in USA Today and "several other publications of note" may satisfy that - as UsaSatsui said, the best approach is to write an article in your userspace (e.g. at User:Ridgedoga/Adam Cote), with sources. --Stormie (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Unsalt/permit userspace recreation, per [1]. It is possible for candidates to fail WP:POL and pass WP:BIO, given that there is enough notability derived from verified sources. I would suggest creating it in your userspace before creating it again as you may find it right back at AfD. The article needs to be redone properly, with citations etc, especially for his career prior to entering politics, for it to have a chance. Once you have a workable version in userspace, come back to DRV. MrPrada (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The article has been speedy deleted because of lack of implication of importance. However, this artist has been signed with Interscope records and has worked on a single with Akon. Should that be at least an implication? w^{L<speak·check>} 18:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It is, assuming the article stated it. Either way, chances are it'd be faster to just recreate the article rather than have it restored. Cheers. Oh snap I forgot to sign this! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Well that's the sort of assertion of notability that could save an article from speedy deletion (if it was stated in the article) - however, unless there is something more which passes the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC, it is unlikely that the article would survive an AfD nomination. I would definitely recommend looking for multiple independent, non-trivial published works (e.g. magazine articles?) before recreating. --Stormie (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• comment I can't judge importance here, but the information you suggest as showing importance was present in the article when the admin deleted it. It seems that either he doesnt recognize that it indicates some importance, or that he thinks it has to show enough importance to make a plausible case for Afd. Based on previous discussions with him, it's the latter. How do we propose to deal with this? To let the criterion for speedy depend on whatever admin comes along first? ). People have already been commenting on my talk page that this is what it seems to be here. Complain to him each time? Or bring every bad one here and reverse it, until the pattern becomes apparent and he gets the message at last? (He's been notified of this discussion).DGG (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There was no mention of her having worked on a single with Akon. It did say she was signed to "Intersope", is that an assertion of notability? Taken in conjunction with having one single on iTunes, and an album not yet released, I'd say not. --Stormie (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the company is even remotely notable, yes. As I said, I cannot judge that--I relied of Lifebaka. DGG (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Allopathic usage controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The contents of the page first appeared on Allopathic medicine and was then moved to Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine in the United States. That page was was renamed to Comparison of MD and DO in the United States and the redirect from the original page eliminated (for unknown reasons). The content (which has now been deleted entirely) of the page is well-sourced with RS. The issue is that this is a controversial term, which some object to. However, Wikipedia tackles numerous controversies, sometimes by creating a separate page for discussion of the controversy itself. Several editors, myself included, have been disputing the correct presentation of the content for over 1 year. I feel a review of the content by a broader group of editors not involved in this long-standing dispute would be helpful. If the content is not to be undeleted, it should be moved to one of the aforementioned articles, but not eliminated entirely. Several editors in the AfD requested the content be merged. Bryan Hopping ^T 16:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The redirect does not appear to ever have been deleted. I believe the page you were looking for was Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic physicians in the United States (note "physicians" vs "medicine"), a page which still redirects to Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. Rossami (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Close; wrong forum. Comment by closing admin: As I noted in the AfD, this (now-deleted) content can indeed be restored for merging purposes, if there is consensus for such a merger. However, the place to establish such consensus is an article or project talk page, not DRV. It appears that the procedural correctness of my closure is not contested, so we're in the wrong forum.  Sandstein  16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominating editor. Given the highly charged environment of this page, it will be nearly impossible to establish a consensus on another page. Hence the request to have a separate page discussing the controversy as per WP:Controversy. Bryan Hopping ^T 17:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Consensus properly read. While some users did ask for a merge, others refuted the idea as there didn't appear to be anything useful to merge. If you'd like the history restored for a merge, please provide merge targets and where to redirect the article to. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Article had historical info about bugs 220.235.57.202 (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not totally savvy with wikipedia editing and such, but I'd like to request an undeletion. I can't tell who deleted it... I get the impression it was first merged to a different article and then deleted from the merged article, which strikes me as somewhat shady.

The article related to a bug in Pokemon. I'm not a Pokemon player or fan, but have an interest in computer bugs, computer games, virtual worlds and such. Since this article related to the phenomena of entire world levels arising as computer bugs, I think it has a general interest level above that which can be judged solely by Pokemon fans. I ended up on the article, somehow or other, while looking into the Therac-25 radiation accidents, which were caused by computer bugs, and found it fascinating.

Best Regards, Jared

• There's nothing we can really do here for you, since the page isn't actually deleted. If you're interested, the most recent version that isn't a redirect or something else not-useful is here. Close and cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DJBooth.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe this AfD should be relisted. There were only two contributors (who "voted" keep), but no evidence was provided to back up the claim this site is notable. One person incorrectly used the WP:NOTPAPER argument and the other asserted it was notable with no evidence from reliable sources. No third party sources discuss this site; the only references are the site itself or trivial passing mentions in blogs. Spellcast (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reopen AfD. It always disturbs me when AfDs are closed with very few editors contributing to them, and the given closure in this case is obviously wrong. The two arguing for keep do not present valid reasons why or evidence that the nom's rationale is wrong. It should probably be noted, however, that Spellcast nom'd the AfD and previously attempted to PROD the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close. There was no deletion and so this is the incorrect forum. If the nominator wants to take it to AFD again, he might do so on the grounds of inadequate consideration. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • DRV is also used when someone feels a "keep" decision in an XFD is improper. This is the right forum. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• The nominator is just repeating his arguments from the AFD and so is forum-shopping. Consensus is determined by the editors who bother to show up. The nominator provided no evidence and no policy reason to delete. The AFD was open for a generous 9 days and so there are no grounds for relisting. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, he's explaining why the close is improper. DRV is good for reviewing any close of any XfD and for all other avenues of deletion. The grounds for relisting is that there was no substantial discussion. The nom was not refuted by arguements that hold weight and the two other commenters didn't provide evidence or reasoning for their !votes. A relist is rather proper. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Relist. The nom's concerns were never discussed. This should have more discussion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. Improper close. Corvus cornix_talk 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • BTW, I've notified User:Pigman of this discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment? Looking over the AfD and the current article, I have to wonder if I was on psychoactive drugs causing derangement when I closed it as keep. I agree the number of participants (2) was too low for a realistic consensus. I agree that sources in the article are weak and I agree that the arguments to keep were less than definitive and persuasive. It seems obvious I didn't give the AfD the attention it needed when I evaluated the closing, apparently focusing too much on the !votes than the opinion content/arguments. Exactly what closers are advised to not do. Mea culpa. I'm uncertain whether it should be re-listed or what. (For the record: I don't do drugs or alcohol and I accept responsibility for my poor judgment in this case. I vow to be more careful in the future.) Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)