Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent

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

This page was deleted a bunch of times and salted, but since then the group has released its debut album on Tooth & Nail Records and hit the Billboard charts in the U.S.. Would like the title Unsalted now that the group passes WP:MUSIC so that I can write them a decent article. Chubbles (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unsalt. Uncontroversial request by an editor in good standing. Go have fun with it, Chubbles. Happy editing. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The typical action here is to write the article in Userspace first, perhaps at User:Chubbles/Ivoryline. That way, we can assess the new article and, if it stands up to policy, unsalt & move. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite —Preceding comment was added at 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy Unsalt with full history for Chubbles to improve on, to refer to, if he wishes as he writes a better article. In UserSpace first, might be prudent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to the last two editors, I don't really see the need for the red tape. I'm here enough as it is. Chubbles (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Chubbles, never met you before. Didn't appreciate your good standing. Unsalt as per Chubbles, he knows what he is doing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unsalt. If the group has a Billboard charting album or single, that is more than sufficient for WP:MUSIC in my book. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I recently put Boomerang engineer up for deletion. User:Pedant's comments on that article's AfD page suggest to me that, while Boomerang engineer should still be deleted, Rusty Harding, the only person that this term ever seems to have been used to describe, might be eligible for restoration, using the references cited by Pedant in the "Boomerang engineer" AfD discussion as evidence of notability. The Anome (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation of Rusty Harding. User:Pedant makes a very good case at the AfD for having an article about Rusty. Using the sources and information provided there, I'm sure a fine article can be written about him. However, the cached version doesn't appear to be that. The AfD for Rusty was closed just fine, and the more recently deleted version wasn't all that great overall, so I'd say recreation is the way to go. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. The article that was deleted was not very good, and had history with WP:BLP problems. But were User:Pedant to create the article proposed by his comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomerang engineer, the re-created article would neither be an unreferenced article that fails to make a good case for notability, nor a simple re-creation of deleted content. So I say just do it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• I agree: allow recreation per my comments above. Can we close this now, since we seem to have unanimity? -- The Anome (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Works for me. (may not get done really fast though, I am swamped this month) I apologise for wasting Wikipedian resources (editor-hours that could be spent writing articles rather than deleting them) by having left such a stubby article to begin with. I must have gotten involved with something else at that time or (insert some sort of valid reason). Thanks, everyone. User:Pedant (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia, and it gets more tiresome that people nominate articles about perfectly notable articles for deletion, simply because they're stubs. I think I have a Fine Woodworking from the 70s (?) with an interview with Harding. This isn't newfound notability, either. --Blechnic (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I created this page about founder of first Serbian Web Journalism School and I wanted to put his publications when this page was deleted Iguana.dragon (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Was added to Ljubisa Bojic by nom. Moved here by Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation (not that you need our permission to, the page isn't salted). Assuming the above is true, it's a valid assertion of importance. You might want to wait, however, until you can make sure that he would pass our relevant notability criteria and make sure that the information you use is verifiable in reliable sources. Feel free to ask me if you need any help with it. Cheers! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Close review as unnecessary. The article has not actually been deleted, so no deletion review is needed. I restored the content to the most complete version. The article can now be edited normally. Of course, the article may be considered for deletion at a later time, but right now I don't think that is appropriate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jnazaroff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

ALthough this page is a bit of an advertisement in its initial draft, the intent is to have an article detailing a NEUTRAL opinion about an African-American owned company which has made considerable contributions to the city of Detroit and to the automotive industry. Futhermore, there are several articles on Wikipedia with nearly the exact same content, featuring other companies in the same industry, which appear to have no merit other than simply being a company in the United States. Examples include Kelly Service and Aerotek, for starters. The purpose of this article was to speak more about the community involvement and philanthropic efforts of the companies owner, Jon Barfield. There was barely two paragraphs covering any information that could be deemed as an advertisement of the company; the rest was 100% factual information which will be cited. Finally, the page has only been up for one day and this is my first attempt at creating a Wikipedia page. I had not moved it out of my user page yet, because I know that it needed to be refined and worked on before doing so. There were already two sources cited, and I have a dozen more to enter for the article. I would appreciate the article being returned to my user page so that I can AT LEAST cut and paste it into a word processor and continue editing it. Thank you. Jnazaroff 12:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. A userpage is not to be used as advertising or promotion as a pseudo-article. Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site.--Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy-deletion but... Many people try to use their userpage to create content that would be deleted if it were in the main article space. That's a bad thing. On the other hand, we encourage people to use their userspace to create drafts of content that might later be moved into the articlespace. In this case, I'm going to assume good faith on the part of the requestor that this was a legitimate attempt to draft an article. My opinion, however, is conditional. Please read Wikipedia's generally accepted standards for inclusion of articles about organizations to be sure that coverage of this company is appropriate for the encyclopedia. I would also ask that you closely read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. If, as I suspect from your writings, you have a stake in the company or people, you would be strongly advised to let someone else create the page. If the company is truly notable, someone will sooner or later. Rossami (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn with reservations. Yes, the tone of the article was terribly promotional, but in all fairness the author did seem to be actively engaged in working on it. It is far better to have a poorly-written start in userspace with the intention of cleaning it up before moving in to mainspace, and I too am willing to assume good faith on the editor's part that s/he intended to continue improving it to inclusion standards before moving it into namespace. Give them a shot. Shereth 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore as User:Jnazaroff/The Bartech Group (that is, not as the requester's main userpage, but as a subpage). I am taking Jnazaroff at their word that they will rewrite the article in a neutral style and add more sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Green Beer Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I noticed that this listing was removed. It is a real live holiday celebrated by thousands of students at Miami University students in Oxford, Ohio every year. Could you undelete the listing? The article held valuable content relating to a tradition that has been around for over 50 years and is covered annually by news media in the Dayton and Cincinnati, Ohio region as well as by the AP, and is part of the rich tradition of Miami University's students as a form of protest. See http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/12/loc_greenbeer12.html

• I've notified the deleting admin who seems to be going on wikibreak. It was tagged as spam, but that doesn't really fit and the article has been deleted as copyvio, but that seems to be mistaken since the quoted site [1] explicitly attributes wikipedia itself. So restore. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy-deletion. I concur that this was not a copyright violation. List to AfD because the topic does not seem to meet any of Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. The sources above and alleged in the deleted content are more like human-interest stories run on a slow news day than the kind of substantive and reliable sources needed to support a proper encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD, the speedy deletion was a mistake, not a copyvio. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Overturned. Send it to AFD if you need to, as I'm not seeing major notability established. seicer | talk | contribs 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison_of_one-click_hosters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please have a look at the Afd link above for the discussion before. Nevertheless this page has been deleted again.

There is a small list now included in this article https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File_hosting_service , but it is very incomplete and obviously a list is better suited on a separate page.

If wikipedia admins decide that it is not desirable to put this page back up, can you at least email me the contents of this article, then i can put it up on another wiki, because lots of people are looking for it. Hundreds of thousands of people use one-click hosting every day, so an extensive list of the available services with their details compared in one table is a must to have somewhere online where everybody can update it regularly.

Thanx in advance, my emailadres is najamelan -> gmail -> com

Please not that the deletor has not been notified on their talk page, because i cannot find an edit button on their page. It is semi protected. Maybe that's why i cant post there...

ps: im not the original creator of the page, but one of its users that already misses it alot. Hostingcomparison (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)— Hostingcomparison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - I've notified the deleting admin.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion it looks ok to me. I'm also unconvinced that someone who uses it a lot has made their first edit here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Comparison of one-click hosting services exists, however it is a double redirect which needs to be fixed to direct to File hosting service, where the "encyclopedic content" is. If this "one edit" account looks through the history of the redirect the spam linkfam still exists (which he/she is claiming to use "alot"). Wikipedia is not webspace provider, nor is it a repository of links.This DRV is Moot.--Hu12 (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanx for the link to the content Hu12, i will put it somewhere else. I don't care where it is as long as it's not gone.Hostingcomparison (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore as redirect from merge for our own GFDL. - Edit history tells me that Comparison_of_one-click_hosters was immediately spun off from Comparison of one-click hosting services and went through a few hundred edits after its successful AfD. The content was then first pruned to notable entries that have a wiki entry, then merged to One-click hosting and then merged once more File hosting service. After some back and forth between the full article and the remaining redirect, it was deleted as housekeeping. I don't see how that can apply here. Even an Rfd might have concluded that we keep the full edit history in such cases.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy-deletion and restore the history. Pages which have been through an XfD discussion are ineligible for speedy-deletion. Arguing that this was a G6 (housekeeping) speedy is a gross abuse of the intent of that clause. Redirects and preservation of pagehistory are important to the project. "Housekeeping" speedies are intended for temporary deletions in order to make way for pagemoves, etc. That clause was not created in order to allow the deletion of content. Rossami (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Clear violation of WP:Deletion policy. The view of an individual administrator, or even two or three of them, does not trump the community. We interpret the consensus, we don;'t defy it. If someone wants to bring another AfD in 6 months or so, they are certainly welcome to do so, to see if the consensus has changed. There are usually 3 or 4 articles kept at AfD each day that I think should be clearly deleted--you dont see me going around speedying them, though I certainly speedy delete a good deal else when they fit the specifications. DGG (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• A two year old AFD for an article which years later has been merged into other articles leaving only a duplicate and depricated redirect certainly isn't against the deletion policy. is it? I don't see any Redirects for deletion debates (RfD) to precident this as non-speediable.--Hu12 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It absolutely is for two independent reasons. First - merges took place. So we can't delete the history at all. Second - a prior AFD occurred so the only speedy deletions that would still be viable are the copyright violation and pure attack page in all version deletion conditions. GRBerry 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - There's a discussion here about sightly modifying G6, to avoid things like this. The result of that discussion could influence this, and users commenting here may want to also comment there. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Merges, prior AFD. GRBerry 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion A RfD would have closed as a Keep to preserve history and abide to GFDL. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Restored for its history.Y Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Laughter at GFDL issues, bare facts are not copyrightable, this is a simple list with no creative element. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lupus et Agnus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hello friends. I'm not familiar with all of the guidelines of Wikipedia, but I noticed a message on my user page related to the template Template:Lupus et Agnus. This is a fable written by Phaedrus who lived between 15 BC and AD 50. In response to the message I received: I did not copy and paste this from another Wikimedia project. Nor was this "transwikied out to another project" (to my knowledge). I'm not sure why this would be a copyright issue. My main objective was to show the source of the Gallo-siculo translations of this fable. I didn't know a fable of ancient "common knowledge" belonged to any one person or project. I'm not quite sure if I understand the problem at hand. Please advise me of how I may be able to continue to show the source of these fables. This is merely for comparative linguistic purposes only. The Latin original is an integral part of my work in showing the development of Gallo-Sicilian from Latin. Thank you for your time. Cheers! Zulux1 (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a copyright violation or anything, but all the content was in Latin. This is the English Wikipedia, you'll find the Latin Wikipedia three doors down and hang a left. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a few issues here, some of them go beyond this DRV.

1. You seem to have had a template in mind, but created it in article space.
2. That article has been compared with the one of the Latin wikipedia and essentially found identical, as it also basically contains the same original text. This isn't surprising since there is indeed only one common ancient source but it is already inside: the deletion reason essentially amounts to it being a duplicate inside the wikimedia family.
3. The right place for such source text isn't even the Latin wikipedia, but the Latin wikisource, where it is indeed kept at [2], so you can now link directly there, eg. via {{ws}} or the like.
4. You have now started to work on Sicilian language templates for the same same story, that seem to have been copied form some website. So thy are probably copyrighted. In any case, this wikipedia isn't the right place for them. I'm afraid the new templates need either to be speedily deleted as copyright violation or be put up for deletion at WP:TfD as more appropriate for some thing like the Sicilian wikisource. Or if you follow this reasoning, you can mark them yourself with {{db-author}}.
5. Besides, you have to make sure that 'your work' here isn't original research

So it is endorse for this deletion.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion What you need to do is add some substantial sourced commentary and background about the fable. I gather you are doing original research on it? You cant use that, at least until its been formally published,but you can certainly discuss what information is available in other sources. Since the text is very short and very much out of copyright, it would not be inappropriate to include it in a more substantial article. If you do this, just rewrite the article. DGG (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about each single translation of original public domain text not really being a copyright violation. I was looking more at the whole website split up into templates and then reappearing together in the article Gallo-siculo. They would at least need to be attributed on the level of template / language and translator (as in the website), but there are other reasons not do to this in template form. What occupies me now more is that Zulux1 has not only removed them but also seems to taken this deletion and its review as reason to leave[3] which I would really regret as all my additional remarks above were mostly intended to clarify the role of the templates and sources --Tikiwont (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I gather then you are supporting recreation without the template formatting? DGG (talk)`

Well, let's say with respect to a direct usage of the quotes I would still have editorial concerns, but that is a different level than opposing the templates. If someone writes an article about the Phaedrus fable itself, that would probably contain the full English text and maybe also the Latin one. There may also be other places such as the Gallo-siculo language article where the text can appear, but that doesn't mean that the deleted Latin article should be recreated or that it would somehow be necessary as the source is already available in wikisource. With respect to the Sicilian ones, one of them now at TfD, the website where they are from, informs that they are intended to give an idea about the various dialects, to be taken 'with some indulgence and without claim of scientific rigor'.[4] In requesting and compiling these translations into rare dialects i saw initially the 'creative' element to be considered. On the other hand they still lack a systematic analysis that would actually make them useful or for the English reader which brings us back to the OR problem. But this is really beyond this DRV and I don't want to appear or feel like the wolf hovering upstream and inventing ever new pretexts...--Tikiwont (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. As I understand it, Zulux1 is trying to use this fable to show how various Sicilian dialects compare to each other and to Latin from which they derive. If so, this comparison would belong in an article about the dialects rather than in a separate article named after the fable. Furthermore, the fable would only need to be made into a template if it were going to be used in multiple different articles, but it's not clear whether that is planned to be done. As indicated above, the original text is still available at the Latin Wikisource. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• I am the owner of the company. The information that I put on the wikipedia page came from my website that I also wrote. Therefore, it is not plagarism because I wrote it all myself. 68.193.10.19 (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Then it's probably blatant advertising... presumably you put the information on your website to promote your company, and if that's the purpose of the content, it runs afoul of Wikipedia policy, most directly, the no blatant advertising rule. --Rividian (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Run-of-the-mill real-estate firm: see WP:NN. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion even if you are the copyright owner (something which you would have to prove) the article read like a promotion piece and could have been speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your company. Read Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. Hut 8.5 08:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, right result if not the exact reason. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion & I think I'll just leave it at that ... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Having read the article, I agree with much of the above. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nipissing University Student Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a perfectly notable organization. Nomination rationale from a now inactive user was faulty. Overturn GreenJoe 00:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse close - an entirely reasonable reading of the debate. The final version of the article here was all about internal matters with nothing of external or broader significance. Suitable for the body's website but not for Wikipedia. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment nominator here has been un-doing the re-direct requiring said re-direct to be protected. Consensus at AfD was to delete or merge, no problem with how it was closed other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Endorse closure _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Eastman had argued to "keep" Based on coverage from the Northbay Nugget. This is not "significant media coverage." Keep arguments, though several, were based on Eastman's rationale. Student Unions are not inherently notable. Merger is the option supported by the discussion. Dlohcierekim 02:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Coverage is still not significant even though the Nugget is not a student paper. A search through Google news does not reveal any significant media coverage. The Nugget is a local paper this does not suffice. Dlohcierekim 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse my closure. I've had another look (the nominator came straight here rather than discussing it with me, after editing warring on the redirect for a bit) and I really don't see how else I could've closed this. The keep arguments were basically WP:ILIKEIT with a dusting of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and brought forth sources that were not much cop. The delete arguments were a bit hollow and didn't carry much weight with me. But the merge arguments had 'pedia policy on their side, offered the best of both worlds (the SU is not notable enough for its own article, but as a section in the parent article it's great) and seemed acceptable to most people on both sides. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AFDs end in "delete" or "!delete" and anything that happens after that is editorial activity. This should be hashed out on talk pages. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse no problems here. Eusebeus (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If the user doesn't like what was done afterward, that should be hashed out on the respective article Talk pages. DRV is not the right forum for that discussion. Rossami (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Would have been nice if the close came with a better explanation, as it clearly wasn't obvious. I'd have said delete as the sources were not sufficiently reliable/reputable, and were not sufficiently independent. Basically, a student newspaper can't demonstrate the notability of a student organisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Eastmain may have a valid point. Referenced material that I looked at was unimpressive, and I guessed wrong that it was a student newspaper. The current state of merge looks good. There is no delete here to overturn. I would not be inclined to separate a separate article, but if a consensus for this decision can be demonstrated at Talk:Nipissing University, allow it to happen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. The North Bay Nugget is not a student newspaper, but rather a mainstream daily newspaper. It is a reliable source. --Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Dyspraxic Wikipedians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|uCfD)

No consensus to delete. Was deleted because of a "precedent" created by very weak participation in WP:UCFD. Deleting admin does not address the merits of the discussion, only that if this user category had been nominated with the older ones then it too would have been deleted. It's nice to know that our hands are tied by old discussion by a tiny minority of Wikipedians. Ned Scott 08:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, unuseful category. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The cached version shows only six members of the cat, and one has since removed the userbox from her userpage. I'd personally want a little of their input before !voting one way or another, since they would know whether or not the cat was actually useful. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  Most of these kinds of user categories are "sniped" before they have a chance to grow. Some of the past uCfD deletions included categories with hundreds of users, none of which were ever notified of the discussion (and it's highly unlikely for users to watch-list cats they put themselves in). I would not mind notifying these users at all and getting their input. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, precedent should not be ignored. --Kbdank71 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  So if someone makes the same flawed argument to the same group of users, but formats the discussion into several little chunks, that is somehow a precedent? No, it's not. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps if it were flawed, yes, but "flawed" is only your opinion, and obviously is not shared by others. --Kbdank71 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse (as original nominator) - precedent should be followed in cases like these where a keep result would go directly against the results of 40 or so past discussions. Consensus can change, but the best way to do this, IMO, is to bring up a discussion here at DRV on the group of categories as a whole to see if the community feels we should bring this type of category back. Keeping a single category where all similar categories have been deleted creates a double standard, which I think we should try to avoid. Thus, the closure was sound. VegaDark (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  When those 40 discussions include the same tiny group of editors, then your "precedent" holds no value. Revisiting all of these categories is something that I've long since wanted to do, but would require more time and effort than I can personally give at the moment. The very least I can do is point out a bad uCfD closure that only serves to further establish this illusion of a precedent. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  Another way to put this is that what you had was not a precedent, what you had was a steamroller. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Reflects a clear consensus (of those who participate at WP:UCFD) to strip Wikipedia of mechanisms of easy introduction to contributors self-organising. What's the point of cabals if they can be tracked? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:01622200.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|PUI)

The image is surely either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine, unless the original uploader's claim is true, in which case it's been released. Either way, it should not have been deleted. See my comments at PUI. Zsero (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as lacking source, if nothing else. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  Source is only needed to determine copyright status. Since neither PD-Ukraine nor Anonymous-EU require this, it's irrelevant. All we need to know is in the image itself, which is obviously from a newspaper published shortly after the event it depicts. -- Zsero (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Why not just upload these to commons? That's the place for free images anyway. MrPrada (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone will restore them, I'll do that. -- Zsero (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I've linked the PUI entry above. Without a source, there's no way to be certain about the copyright status. The chance that this is {{PD-self}} as claimed is vanishingly small, especially given the uploader's other deleted contributions. —Cryptic 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • So why isn't it either EU-Anonymous or PD-Ukraine? -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Anonymous" isn't "we don't know who made it", it's "nobody knows who made it". Uploading an image you find on some website somewhere doesn't imply the latter. —Cryptic 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • How can you ever know that there is nobody in the world who knows who made a photo? We are talking about photos that are scanned from a newspaper. I doubt that Czech newspapers at the time identified the photographers of news photos. So the odds that anybody happens to know this information is much the same as it is for any photo under EU-Anonymous or PD-Ukraine. There's always the possibility that someone, somewhere, knows; so according to you when can we use these tags? -- Zsero (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • When there's some shred of evidence that the author is in fact unknown and the image not just lifted from a random website and uploaded to Wikipedia with a falsified {{PD-self}} stuck on it. At bare minimum this would be when and where the image was first published. Like, y'know, the fine print on both {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-Ukraine}} ask for. —Cryptic 05:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Where the photos come from is obvious just by looking at them - they appear to be scanned from newspapers, and were therefore published shortly after the events they depict. Presumably a newspaper reasonably local to Munkach, since neither the funeral nor the ME's meeting with Benes would have been that newsworthy anywhere else. So unless Czech newspapers in the 1930s were in the habit of identifying the photographers of news photos, one of these two tags should apply. Oh, and what oart of the fine print on PD-Ukraine do you mean? -- Zsero (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Munkacs benes.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|PUI)

The image is surely either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine, unless the original uploader's claim is true, in which case it's been released. Either way, it should not have been deleted. See my comments at PUI. Zsero (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as lacking source, if nothing else. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  Source is only needed to determine copyright status. Since neither PD-Ukraine nor Anonymous-EU require this, it's irrelevant. We know approximately when the photo was taken and published, what more do we need to know? -- Zsero (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• As above, endorse. —Cryptic 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm having a difficult getting this page to pass. The organization is a fairly new organization, and the admin that requested the deletion of the article says there is not enough evidence that we are a real organization and not a group of people. I've listed articles to show evidence of the organization but they were rejected. One was a newpaper article and the other the university's website that recognizes us. Another thing is there are a couple of other organizations who have articles on wiki and yet have less evidence that they are a real organization than we do. I feel like since they were able to start their article at an earlier time it was easier for them to stay and since we are trying to start an article now its been very difficult. hawee talk

Endorse deletion - very spammy, probably nn too, jimfbleak (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The problems with this article are that the 'new' version was substantially similar to the deleted version, the tone of the article is excessively spammy and self-promotional, and the sources given do not establish notability. Also, bear in mind that saying other articles like this one exist is not relevant. We have fairly stringent notability guidelines that must be met in order for articles to be kept - you might want to review the guidelines and see about pulling together sufficient reliable sources to back up the article before trying again. Arkyan 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the AFD had a consensus to delete and DRV is a place to point out how the deletion process was not followed, not to advance new (or the same) arguments about why the decision was wrong. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse The question is not whether or not this organization exists, but whether or not the article asserts notability. No verifiable, reliable sources have been provided that have shown that the subject meets notability. Despite the bizarre and inadequate nomination statement on the AfD, the outcomess per the AFD, the PROD, and two speedy deletions have been correct. Dlohcierekim 03:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion See WP:N and WP:COI. Coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources are required. If these can be found, then request userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

A new independent online bank has just launched called Ivobank, but new page entries have been deleted. Given that online banks don't launch everyday and the online community will wonder what it is, like I did, I think it deserves its own page. Please can we create one? --AbbieG (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• What is the name of the page that was deleted? It's hard to help you without it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Nevermind, found it. Fix't nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This page has been salted as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, both previous versions of this article were indeed overly promotional in tone, and had the character of an advert. Unless the nominator can produce reliable sources to indicate notability and demonstrate that an article can be written in a neutral manner, I don't see any reason to unprotect/recreate. Arkyan 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The company is probably on its way to being notable, as it has recently sponsored a PGA tour event. I would suggest userspace creation first before we unsalt it. MrPrada (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; the version in the cache is overly promotional and rightly deleted as a G11. I have been unable to track down good third party mentions, other than the golf sponsorship mentioned above. I agree that notability is likely in the future but not just yet. Smile a While (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've created a one line explanation of what Ivobank is in my Sandbox, surely it's ok just to have this. Then at least people will be able to find out what it is? User:AbbieG/sandbox --AbbieG (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to above. And no, I'm afraid that is not okay. That little stub there meets CSD A7 and would be very quickly deleted if you created an article with just that. You would want to include some references or external links to places that establish that it is non-trivially covered in multiple places, what we call notability and make sure that these sources are reliable. Hope that helps. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not ivobank.com. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above fine arguments Article did not assert notability. I am unable to locate verifiable, reliable sources asserting significance. Per the article, subject is new and has not yet achieved notability. As what we have so far is overly promotional, moving it to the creator's page would not be beneficial. It would need a total rewrite if it did achieve notability. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we should not have an article about every business that hopes to become notable. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No, we do not cover new and interesting things unless someone else covers them first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jones Lang LaSalle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Being quite familiar with retail, I know that Jones Lang LaSalle is quite a prominent shopping mall management firm. A quote from the article read "The company has more than 32,000 employees, approximately 170 offices worldwide and operates in more than 700 cities in 60 countries", which I believe is a rather valid assertation of notability. Furthermore, there seem to be plenty of reliable sources found in a Google News search. One of them even calls the company "the leading global real estate services and money management firm". Furthermore, one of the companies that was merged to make Jones Lang LaSalle has been around since 1783. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn/restore per the above links uncovered by fine mustelidian research. There does appear to be enough material out there for this to cross the threshold. Arkyan 16:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn & restore It was never a valid speedy A7. Not with 32,000 employees--that's a rather clear assertion of importance,.DGG (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral I speedied this - although it's probably notable, it lacks any independent refs to support the data. However, I don't object to restoration. I think that once this is finished, if not before, the creator should have an indefinite block on that username. jimfbleak (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see User:Joneslanglasalle isn't the creator but just did one and actually the last edit, which doesn't seem to be sufficient for a block per Wikipedia:Username#Company.2Fgroup_names. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy overturn 32,000 employees is a reasonable claim of importance. WP:CSD doesn't call for "independent refs to support the data"... just that an assertion of importance be present. Note that this company is even listed on the NYSE (symbol JLL), and gets 22,700 Google news hits which confirm the stock listing and probably much more. --Rividian (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore; the version in the cache includes several indications of importance and was not a valid A7. The grounds for an A7 explicitly state that the lack of reliable sources, which may well be fatal in an AFD, is not a criterion. Smile a While (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn - that's a huge company and would survive AFD, not to mind a speedy. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Restore 32,000 employees, operation in 60 countries and a revenue measured in billions of dollars is an assertion of significance, even without the references given above. Hut 8.5 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• overturn and Restore Asserts notability. Verifiable sources locatable by a Google Books search and as noted above. Dlohcierekim 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Well known company. Erroneous deletion. Eusebeus (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Sufficient claim of notability to beat Wikipedia:CSD#A7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and admonish for improper speedy delete. Article made clear assertions of notability for a company that is unquestionably notable. Alansohn (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Is a real site and is big enouch to be on wikipedia however keeps being deleted to soon. The arctle has been posted before being finished to allow the url link be posted to the admins of www.nonoba.com themselfs who agreed to help me write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowStalker35 (talk • contribs)

• Realness or bigness are not a part of our criteria for website inclusion... mostly what matters is whether there are enough reliable sources which have written meaningful coverage about the site. --Rividian (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion, textbook case of a CSD A7. If the site is genuinely notable, I suggest you try again with references to awards won, newspaper and magazine articles about the site, etc. See Wikipedia:Notability (web) for more details. --Stormie (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion, article made no claim of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion made nothing even approaching an assertion of significance. If you can prove it meets Wikipedia:Notability (web) then it can be unprotected, but you haven't. Hut 8.5 11:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - If you'd like more time to work on the article, try doing so in your userspace at a subpage. Say, at User:ShadowStalker35/Nonoba or something like it. Then, after it meets all the relevant guidelines you can move it into mainspace. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; there are very many gaming communities and the version in the cache did not indicate why this particular one has importance. The way forward, as suggested above, is for the nominator to develop a sourced version in user space and then seek agreement for it to be moved across. Smile a While (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonoba is of note because it's the only website so far to offer the muti-player API that is free as with sources and the whole site I guess I messed up in the planing of the main page for I first made the page so the URL would be shown by the time I have fully wrote the artcule it was deleted and then repeated. Since I am not the only one who wishes to help create the page and it be a lot easyer if it was unprotected. I will have the talk page updated. Umm... could I use the site itself as a sourse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.137.219 (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I've discussed this with the deleting admin in depth but in short: a) published writer for the fourth largest broadsheet in Manila is enough to avoid a speedy, and these can be verified; b) there's been so much vandalism including hoax claims that numerous speedies have been declined; c) she deleted it as a G7 when the person requesting a speedy was not the original author. While I have doubts this article will pass AfD (tho I'm trying to find secondary sources), I don't think this was a clear speedy because, "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." I'm willing to take it right to AfD if consensus is to gieve it a chance but I wanted to get consensus. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I'd already told Travellingcari it was ok to restore it, I see no reason for this DRV. I think it's an A7 (and it has other things in its history) but if others want to save it I'm more than ok with that. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn with OK to restore. Feel free to take it to AfD if you don't think he's notable but he exists and is published, don't think it's an A7. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 12:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Architectural design values (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:No original research and WP:SYN. Also not discussed at the is the WP:COI of the user and the copy vios of previous attempts(Design values, Architectural intentions) to insert this content, and the failed DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_23. Copy vios (http://www.aho.no/Utgivelser/Avhandlinger_elektronisk/Holm_Ideas_and_Beliefs.pdf and http://books.google.com/books?id=Gi7vcuGpAW8C ) Sole editor is Ivar Holm (Gutt2007 (talk · contribs) and 84.208.68.188 (talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than related to "his own work". Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought, nor is wikipedia to be used as Self-promotion. speedy delete Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure (no consensus). I see no process problems in this closure. Given what was known and discussed at the time, a "no consensus" closure seems quite reasonable. Furthermore, because this has been through an AfD discussion, it is ineligible for speedy-deletion. The one exception is if the copyvio claim can be substantiated (in which case, the normal copyvio investigation takes precedence and no Deletion review is necessary). I will note, however, that the copyvio allegation is unprovable by the link provided above.
  The important question, however, is why you didn't raise any of these issues during the deletion discussion? Deletion Review is not AFD-round 2. If you think critical facts were not considered, renominate the article and open a second discussion. (You should, however, very clearly explain why you are doing so only 2 days after the last discussion was closed. Other editors tend to be very skeptical of spuriously rapid renominations.) The prior discussion participants do seem to have fairly considered and rejected the original research/synthesis claim. Other than the copyvio claim, I don't see a basis to reconsider this decision. Rossami (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. No consensus to delete, a proper close. MrPrada (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. An initial comment on the possible copyvio issue. The talk page of the article claims that the source has a WP:OTRS ticket:

[Ticket#2008051010007236] GNU Free Documentation License

Unless that ticket fails to cover the source for the article then I am not seeing the copyvio. Smile a While (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The guy is citing his own Doctoral thesis, and using wikipedia as a web host. Just because he has Ticket#2008051010007236, doesn't give him a pass to add his own original research. --Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position on this. However, the initial question is that of copyvio since if the article is copyvio it must be deleted irrespective of the OR position. You placed a couple of Copyviocore templates on the page so, I presume, you must have doubts about the validity or application of the OTRS ticket since otherwise there would be no copyvio and the tags would not be appropriate and should be removed. What I am asking for is a clarification of the basis for your concerns. Smile a While (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

we can;t speedy delete as OR, and the possible nature of the item as OR was covered in the AfD discussion. If someone should happen to write a review of a subject as part of a doctoral dissertation that is not OR, but source-based, and meets our other requirements, and is willing to release the copyright under GFDL, then I see no reason why we shouldn't use it. DGG (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure As has been said, DRV isn't AfD Part 2. This conversation has already occurred and a correct interpretation of the results was rendered. Townlake (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). DRV is not AfD2. Nothing wrong with the AfD close. This is not the forum to debate a debatable copyright question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Close - there was no consensus for deletion. The fact that there are two "possible copyright infringement" templates currently on the article is irrelevant to this discussion (they must be dealt with separately). With the discussion in the AfD, there was no choice for the closing admin but to close without deletion. B.Wind (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Fling (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

In my understanding the criteria was met. Two guidelines were met from WP:Band. Clarification please on EXACTLY what more needs to be done. Blue Gillian (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse for now. I can't see any reasons explicitly given in the nom here to overturn. If you'd like to show evidence that an article can be written about the band, please provide the evidence, and I may change my !vote. Also, I believe that WP:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #7 doesn't work since Letter Kills is not notabile outside of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles, but I could be misunderstanding the way that's written. If you'd like you can work on the article in your userspace (at, say, User:Blue Gillian/The Fling (band)) while this is going on; it'd help your case here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Letter Kills seems notable per the presence of multiple reliable sources, satisfying both WP:MUSIC and the general notability guidelines. This band contains a former member of Letter Kills; therefore, #7 of WP:MUSIC is met for The Fling (band). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Consensus not established at AfD. Closing explanation inadequate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Foreignchar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TFD1 |TfD2)

Template:Foreignchars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

The singular name template was a very widely used template but when the TFD was placed on the template a notice to the fact was never transcluded to the articles affected - The public became only aware of the TFD when all instances of use where removed by a bot The plural name version also had a lack of a TFD notice on the template. Agathoclea (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from closing admin: That would certainly explain the difficulty we had in getting any involvement in the discussion! I'd repeat the point I raised above, though: there is no point whatsoever in overturning this TfD soley on this technicality, but rather the merits of the template should be considered. Happy‑melon 12:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. While that may have been an issue, it's not enough to overturn here. Even with that the TfD got plenty of traffic, and looks to have generated a decent close. This technicality is a bit too small to warrant an overturn on its own. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. Failure to properly advertise a TfD is hardly a minor technicality, as it means that the discussion will take place only among those who regularly review the TfD debates, not among those who actually use the template. I do not believe that the former kind of discussion can result in what is sought by consensus. And I would hardly say that the TfD got plenty of traffic, as it had to be relisted twice to generate more debate. The fact that there was no Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Foreignchar page created is a minor technicality — the fact that interested parties were not informed of the debate going on at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Foreignchar is not. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Relist Failure to properly advertise the discussion is not a minor technicality; it is a flaw that makes it impossible to use that discussion to determine consensus. Since no valid consensus can be formed from that discussion relisting is the only viable option. Might as well relist both together though, instead of just listing one and deleting two. GRBerry 18:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Relist both and advertise properly. As I see it, there was definitely no consensus regarding Template :foreignchars; it was not really properly nominated and only mentioned once en passant. There have been previous debates on the talk pages from which it was obvious that any suggestion of deletion (that was known about) would be controversial. In my opinion the nominations should have been advertised at WP:GER, since many German articles are affected. As far as merits go, as I see it, use of the hatnote was a tacit compromise that avoided move wars and long discussions on the use of certain German characters. The need for greater discussion on this proposal is obvious from all the discussions on foreign Latin characters and diacritics, as at the failed proposal Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). The issue is not really the template: the hatnote is so widely used and the desirability of standardization is so obvious that it boils down to recommending deletion of the Wikipedia usage instruction (hatnote/footnote) itself without discussing it at a more appropriate and visible place such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, or WP:Village pump, or at an affected project, preferably with an advertisement on the Community Portal using the RFC bot. I don't really think this is the proper place for a detailed discusson of the actual issues, but it is difficult to discuss the issues elsewhere while the hatnotes etc. have been deleted and nobody can see what we are talking about. Perhaps we could agree here on a proper place for the substantial discussion, without which a discussion about the template seems rather inappropriate.--Boson (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Relist per others. Seems ambiguous enough to warrant a proper discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Relist for a better discussion. It's not as if everyone who might be interested checks TfD regularly, DGG (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Relist, comparing the first AfD to the second, I think that there may have been a different outcome if the notification had happened. Everyone who wants a chance to participate should be allowed to. MrPrada (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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 redirected to the Aplus.Net article as this individual has a broader business background than just Aplus.Net. This article now has much more substance with backed references to establish that it should be a stand-alone article. 69.76.132.152 (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm the admin who closed the AFD and decided to convert the article into a redirect as there was support for the retention of biographical information in the Aplus.net article. I don't believe there has been a change in the subject's individual notability to merit the existence of a dedicated article. I'm beginning to gravitate towards supporting the removal of most of the detail on Murphy if it's considered extraneous to Aplus.net. SoLando (Talk) 08:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. While Mr Murphy is a noteable figurehead as the CEO of Aplus.net, there is much more information about this individual as referenced in the 16 cited sources. There appears to be a number of articles with much less content and cited sources yet they stand on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyc (talk • contribs) 12:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I agree that this article should be seperate from the aplus article as this person has information that expands beyond the scope of aplus. I would recommend removal of the information about this individual within the aplus article and just link his name back to the Gabriel Murphy article, which should be its own article, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.13.22.85 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I generally agree as the article seems to establish notability beyond aplus with facts from sources that are trustworthy and authoritative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.120.11 (talk) 14:00, June 2, 2008

• Note, none of the three above editors have many contributions outside this discussion, and User:Troyc and 70.13.22.85 have none (74.5.120.11 should be considered a good faith editor). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment For non-admins, I think the revised history that is currently visible under the redirect is sufficient to get a rough sense for whether the new article merits an AFD listing. The personal life section is new and unsourced, the numismatics section is new, as are its "sources". The deleted article linked to 3 sources not from the Kansas City Business Journal, namely: [6] [7] [8]. GRBerry 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I have reviewed the article carefully and I do think there is enough content outside of the scope of the Aplus article that this article warrants is own article (but all info/references on Gabriel Murphy should be removed from the Aplus article and directed to the article on Gabriel Murphy). I do think the sources establish notability though some additional sources will be needed under the "Personal Life" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.120.11 (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree- I have reviewed the previous article for Gabriel Murphy and I think it is pretty clear that the scope goes beyond aplus. Personal life is non-important and should either be sourced to show notability or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.177.2 (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn as per status quo. Bad closure, with no consensus to. Merge and redirect better reflects the AfD. Note the illegal "move any relevant information into Aplus.net and delete" in one delete !vote and the unwelcome "vanity" comment in the other.
  • Comment There was demonstrative consensus to delete the article. My decision to convert the article into a redirect after deletion was based on the AFD itself and the fact that pertinent information already existed in the Aplus.Net article (check the history of Aplus.Net). In retrospect, that should have been included in the rationale for the sake of clarity. Nevertheless, there does not appear to have been a substantive change in the independent notability of this subject. A large part of the "expansion" is unsourced (likely unverifiable) and that which has attribution doesn't seem to assert individual notability. SoLando (Talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the one "keep" suggestion was struck and converted to "neutral"; the remaining comments indicated that a separate article was not merited per the reasons also cited by the admin. No objection to subsequent creation of redirect article. B.Wind (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe you are referring to the discussion on a much earlier version of the article prior to its sources and expansion of other topics. I believe the current version of the article is notable and has enough content outside of the aplus article to stand on its own without a redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.120.11 (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and current redirect. The AfD was sufficiently clear in its consensus for not having a separate article. Having a redirect to Aplus does not amount to saying that it is the only thing important in Mr. Murphy's life, but creating one after deletion was justified as we have one (and as far as I see only one ) notable topic related to him. The sources in the recreated version do IMO not yet warrant expansion.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

This article on a song and related articles (Replace Me, Kountry Gentleman, Whatcha Gonna' Do With It) were listed at AfD, where I believe that consensus very clearly developed to redirect the articles according to the guidelines quoted from WP:MUSIC. I do not believe that the AfD closure reflected any of the issues discussed within the conversation. I have discussed the matter with the deleting administrator (here), but she declines to reconsider her decision unless approached by one of the editors who participated in the AfD. I'm perfectly happy to create the redirects myself (trusting that this would not be perceived as a WP:CSD#G4 issue), but I believe that the language of the closure should be revised to reflect the actual outcome of the debate. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

After after reviewing comments about my close of this AfD I thought the most helpful thing I could do would be to change the outcome to redirect, which I have done. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment given that the language of the closure was " delete these OR stubs for now.", I dont see how a redirect would possibly be considered a violation of that. DGG (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Neither do I, which is why I trust they would not be. Nevertheless, I think that the closure should be revised. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I brought them to AfD and have no problem with the redirects...I usually bring songs to AfD because they tend to be created by fans who incorrectly delete Prods or undo redirects without discussion and in contravention of WP:Music...redirects are totally appropriate tho. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. While Gwen's idea may not be a bad one, it's not what consensus was leaning towards (except possibly with Whatcha Gonna' Do With It, supposing no redirect target exists). I favor relisting them after reopening the AfD's, but simply reclosing as redirect is a possibility as well. As for simply creating redirects now and performing a history restore under them, such redirects wouldn't be G4-able under any reasonable interpretation of the criterion. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)