Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 March 17
2011 March 19 >

18 March 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cort and Fatboy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted in February after a short review where an admin did not take several factors into account. Among them, he called The Oregonian, the most widely circulated publication in Oregon, a "blog." I created a new page under the show's revised title, "Cort and Fatboy" (originally "The Cort and Fatboy Show"). I bulked up this new article with citations from the Associated Press along with several, large-circulation publications from Oregon including The Oregonian and Willamette Week. I spent a goodly amount of time on this project as well. I've discussed this issue with the two admins involved. Both of them suggested that I submit a deletion review.

Based on the national attention the show has received and the citations I acquired, I feel that Cort and Fatboy, despite the less than witty title, is more than worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, especially in light of the ever-growing number of articles on the site and the increasing minutia and localized focus of their content. At least one other program on Cascadia FM, which hosts Cort and Fatboy, has an article on Wikipedia. I would be happy to revise the article in whatever manner you see fit but I humbly request that you take another look at this case and the circumstances. This article should not have been deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumptowner (talk • contribs) 23:24, March 18, 2011

  • Overturn. The AfD cited in the G4 was closed as a speedy under G7, which (one assumes) does not still apply. lifebaka++ 23:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect for Lifebaka, "overturn" is the wrong language here because NawlinWiki's original deletion was quite reasonable and within process. I would prefer to say allow recreation, but for the avoidance of doubt NawlinWiki's earlier close is still endorsed.—S Marshall T/C 00:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more specific, I only mean to overturn the most recent G4 deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Temporarily undeleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at AFD. While the original AFD had 2 delete !votes it was only open for a day before the author requested deletion so there's no way to know if other editors might have showed up in the next 6 days with sound keep rationales. Therefore, CSD G4 should not have applied. Furthermore, in my view a G7 delete should be treated just the same as an expired PROD. The fact that the article was recreated and the second deletion challenged here shows that the deletion was controversial. Therefore, the proper venue for discussing whether or not we should have an article on this subject is AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion because, as S Marshall says, there was no mistake or wrongdoing by the closer of the AfD, but allow recreation because obviously the situation has changed since then. Reyk YO! 21:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the consensus seems to be in favor of restoring the article. Where should things go from here? Stumptowner (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As several have noted, while the deletion itself was both reasonable and in-process, it does seem likely that the consensus is to restore the article and send it immediately to AfD for a more thorough discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my confusion. I read through the instructions on "Articles for Deletion" and that seems to be a place to discuss articles that are up, well, for deletion. My goal here is save the page, not delete it. So...I should still post this debate there? Stumptowner (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are in the right place. People are saying that it be restored, but not unconditionally. They are saying that, given current circumstances, a fuller deletion debate is needed. Speedy deletion is for specific limited circumstances. The page appears to have met those circumstances previously, but enough doubt has been raised that people are saying that it now deserves a debate. It's a step forward towards having the article remain, but the article would still need to show it's worth at the following full deletion debate. AFD debates are far, far from a rubber stamp for deletion. If one is started, you'll get your chance to argue against deletion at that point in time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well. That's what Ron Ritzman was saying. I was saying "allow recreation" without the need for an AfD—although if the article that's created in the space isn't satisfactory an AfD could always follow. If I read the comments from Lifebaka and Reyk correctly, I think that's also their view.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a deletion discussion is shortcut by a speedy, then the XfD is not valid for the purposes of subsequent G4's. The same or other speedy deletion criteria might apply, but G4 is only for fully formed XfD discussions, not PRODs or speedies. In addition, it sounds like the content was substantially different enough that G4 should have been off the table to begin with. Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 You can't G4 a speedy so the last deletion is invalid. Spartaz Humbug! 11:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the discussion was very one-sided and short, although I agree the decision was right for the discussion that occurred. Previously there were not references to the fact that this is an award and an honour, not just a membership of a society. I have added a selection of references under FRSA. More could be added if needed. With this new information, I believe that this category should be restored. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think it is overstating the case to say that FRSA is "an award and an honour". The Society's website more or less solicits applications and the application form only requires naming some referees, who need not even themselves be members. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: There are references demonstrating that it is considered an award and honour under FRSA. Some people are invited to become fellows based on their achievements. Those that apply must still demonstrate relevant achievement. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see how being one sided invalidates the discussion, there is no requirement that a certain number of people voice requirements on each side, and indeed being one-sided suggests a strong consensus exists on that side. There is also no quorum so the number of participants isn't important. As such I can't see this as a DRV issue, there is/was nothing faulty with the debate or the close. If the category can be recreated is more as to if it overcomes the reasons for deletion, which as I read it was largely about it being a defining characteristic, which I can't see has changed any. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Most category discussions are very little attended, and this one is of more general interest, and should have been more widely discussed. In any case, it is not a vote, and In the discussion, BHG gives sufficient reasons for keeping it that the admin should have recognized the correctness or sought further input. --that it is not open to anyone, but the referees etc are intended as a screening process, and the net result is 27,000 members. It's accepted that being a member is not sufficient evidence for notability. But many members will be notable. It's like being an alumnus of a college--not all graduates of Cambrdge are notable , but some of them are, and for the ones who are , we have a category for them. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • BHG did point out that the RSA is not "open to anyone with the fee", but she also wrote: "I think it's [election to the RSA] too widely-distributed to be a defining characteristic, so I won't oppose deletion." Relisting may have been called for if she had opposed deletion, but relisting discussions where all participants essentially are in agreement does not seem to be good practice.
      I share your desire for more in-depth participation at CFD and other deletion venues, but we must work with what we have; and, on 3 February 2011, the average number of participants per discussion was 4.4 (less than the 5 that participated in the FRSA discussion). -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The best way of attracting people, is for more questioned CfDs to come here. Nobody can follow every page in Wikipedia, but we should aim at getting more appeals from the obscurer places. Perhaps some other groups of processes could have a similar system to Del Rev. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, with a qualification. It should be possible to revisit any deletion discussion, no matter how many editors participated in it, if it is thought that significant information has come to light or was not considered during the original debate. However, the number of participants by itself is secondary, in my view, if nothing new can be said.
          Another possibility for increasing participation would be through more extensive deletion sorting, though I suppose discussions at this level are more suited to WT:CFD than deletion review. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist so that Jonathan Bowen can has his say, and debate it. Someone new wanting to get involved in CfD is a great thing to be welcomed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
E.ON Kernkraft GmbH (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Since Fukushima I do a lot of work on nuclear energy articles. And it is very disturbing to me to see articles of companies that produce nuclear energy deleted. It only said A7 in the explanation. Very disturbing these deletions. Thank you. I stop creating new content until this is resolved. NuclearEnergy (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I personally would say that saying that a group oversees a number of nuclear power plants is a pretty strong assertion of notability. That said, the article as it was (or at least what I see in the cache) doesn't meet WP:N or WP:ORG. I'd prefer the deleting admin undid the speedy and sent to AfD. I don't speak German, but I am seeing 6 news articles that seem to mention this organization in the last few weeks. Seems likely it could be sourced. Hobit (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the current nuclear power crisis in Japan, I think our users will be looking for articles like this about their local nuclear facilities, so I have ignored the rules/guidelines for now and undeleted the page. Someone will need to develop the article so it meets WP:N or WP:ORG otherwise it's likely to get sent to AfD. This company is a subsidiary of E.ON, if the page can't be developed to meet our guidelines - perhaps a redirect to E.ON would be useful. --Versageek 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
International Bolshevik Tendency (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Improper close; correct "read" of the debate was NO CONSENSUS; serious difference of opinion among debate participants as to level of necessary sourcing for inclusion-worthiness of an article on a small political group. Closing administrator flippantly ignored serious arguments of those with whom they disagreed without ruling on specific merits of their case. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep !votes were very weak. They key question is if WP:N is met, not if folks find this useful. Given that it was a pretty poor debate on the keep side, I'd be keen to see if people (Carrite in particular) can come up with a few sources that are independent of the group and cover it in some detail. I'm finding a number of news stories and books that mention this group (or are published by it), but nothing in depth. If those can be found, I strongly suspect the closing admin would overturn his closure. If not, deletion was the right result. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist there was no consensus to delete. As Hobbit says, there was also no real consensus to keep, and the options were therefore relist or close as no-consensus. Either way, that would yield a new discussion at AfD , which is the place to discuss the sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think the delete arguments were strong enough that the deletion outcome isn't unreasonable. But those arguing to keep were arguing on the ITSUSEFUL basis rather than WP:N or our actual inclusion guidelines. I'm hopeful that is is due to a misunderstanding and that there are goods sources out there and that the nom or someone else can find them (I've not found anything I consider enough for WP:N though I only looked for 5 minutes or so). Hobit (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- on the strength of the arguments presented, this was not a close no reasonable admin could make. AfD is not a vote, and the closing administrator was right to give more weight to arguments that examined the state of the article and availability of sources. Reyk YO! 22:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Reyk: the deletion arguments seem so much stronger to me than the keep ones that I think T. Canen's close was correct. I do think there might be grounds for a small clue level adjustment about WP:BITE as it applies to AfD closing statements, though, Timotheus. We're supposed to be more collegial and respectful than this.—S Marshall T/C 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Reyk. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above. I simply feel that the arguments supporting deletion are stronger in this case. I don't think the closing administrator was ingoring any serious opposing arguments, there was enough strong consensus. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and endorse The interesting thing about this is that a consensus had clearly developed early in the discussion... which went on for TWO MONTHS because the nomination was incomplete and hadn't been picked up properly. Then, once that had happened, the arguments became higher quality and tended to favor deletion. Thus, we really have two separate deletion discussions: the first consensus was keep, which I would endorse, and the second consensus was delete, which I would also endorse. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good close. Spartaz Humbug! 11:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Chris DeRosa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are several references to support keeping this article some of which are: http://www.moderndrummer.com/md-blogs-archive/300001252/Chris%20DeRosa and http://www.moderndrummer.com/md-blogs-archive/300001352/Chris%20DeRosa

He is listed on many recordings and is also in several national/international music videos: http://wn.com/Melba_Moore_Phil_Perry_Performing_Weakness - 98.14.146.247 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The first two references are written by deRosa himself; as far as I can see the third doesn't mention him. What's needed is evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for now. I looked into this carefully when I filed the original AfD, which then sat without comment for an eternity. DeRosa is pretty young and obviously a fairly successful session artist for his age. Just by having a normal jazz career, he'll probably end up with sufficient coverage to merit an article at some point. But right now, the reliable sources to write an article consistent with the biographies of living people policy just don't seem to be there. Chick Bowen 15:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - The AfD had no "votes" except for the nom. I think the secondary coverage demonstrated above is significant and solidly so to warrent passing WP:BIO. Don't see any WP:BLP violations here.--Oakshade (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Don't know - It seems he might pass WP:MUSIC as he has been a drummer with many notable jazz artists, but I wish there was secondary coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think recreation with sources would of course be allowable. But my "endorse" above was meant to oppose specifically undeletion of unsourced content. As for sources, could you be more specific? I still have not seen any significant coverage. Chick Bowen 02:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Modern Drummer coverage linked above. --Oakshade (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Ahh, just realized that source isn't secondary as the topic is the writer.--Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Richard Kelly (rugby league) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am Richard Kelly and I created the article you have deleted along with articles about my two older brothers, Andrew & Neil Kelly Rugby League. In the one source you have found you say that it doesnt even say if I played yet the ? Is there because they can't put a figure on HOW MANY games I played , they are not questioning whether I played. Also in the same reference it states that I scored points, how could I have done this if I hadn't played? Please reinstate the article and I will then endeavour to add further references and verified sources to establish the authenticity. Thank you. Here is another link from the BBC referring to me as a former Wakefield Trinity player:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/wakefield/9379351.stm

In the link posted above from the BBC it states in the text that Richard is a former Wakefield player and in the interview with Richard Kelly the fact that he was a Wakefield Trionity player was brought up on numerous occasions. Richard has two older brothers who also played pro rugby league and there is substantive evidence that they played and that Richard is their brother. I also requested that this page was not deleted as I am waiting for articles about Richard Kelly to be delivered to me in the next couple of weeks. I am also waiting for back copies of the monthly rugby league magazine which have articles that feature Richard Kelly's time at Wakefield Trinity and once received I already have permission to post images from the articles on wikipedia. There is also a published book called Wakefield Sporting Catholics which features all three brothers and details their upbringing and path through to professional sports. I will obtain permission from the publishers and author to post a link and image of the relevant pages on wikipedia.

The point is that the article is authentic and there is already evidence that it is so. As can be seen by my comments above I will be adding to the article and my desire to seek an undulation should be seen as my commitment to conform to wikipedias standards by adding information.

Thank you

I will continue my search to find further evidence of Richard Kelly's Rugby League career but I hpe you will recognise that he played during an era which was not blessed by by the convenience of the internet and web pages.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would reinstate the page you deleted and afford me the time to add further supportive articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlofvl (talk • contribs) 09:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy and encourage new editor to make a new article. Read WP:COI for advice, but if the subject is Wikipedia-notable, all contributions are welcome. When well sourced, move to mainspace. Ask User:Vlofvl to provide some basic information about himself on his userspace, so as to disclose any possible perceived conflicts of interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am the editor that originally nominated the article for deletion and have absolutely no problem with userfication. Also agree with SmokeyJoe that Vlofv1 should first have on his user page a full discloser as to who he is and his relationship to the subject of any other articles that he edits. J04n(talk page) 02:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_March_18&oldid=1080450416"