View source for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 28

<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude>
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 28|28 March 2014]]===
<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.

Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~      -->

====[[:Akbar Golrang]]====
:{{DRV links|Akbar Golrang|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akbar Golrang|article=}}
I closed the original discussion as delete; the main problem with this biography was the absence of reliable sources proving Golrang's notability. Since then, an IP editor has come to my talk page asking me to restore the article so that he could add a couple of sources. I have moved the page to the draft namespace and, {{plainlinks|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AAkbar_Golrang&diff=601635859&oldid=601014012|name=in these edits}}, he actually added the sources he mentioned. These, however, are in a language I don't understand (which prevents me from ascertaining their reliability). On my talk page the IP also added that 7 books of his are in the Library of Congress ([http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=golrang&all=true&st=list]). I'm starting this drv to determine whether, in light of the new evidence, Golrang qualifies for inclusion. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 11:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Based on the evidence in the draft, I'd still say there is no evidence of notability. Publishing books in itself does not make someone notable, we need evidence that they have been ''noted''... However, I have no time right now to search for book reviews or anything like that right now, so I won't !vote yet. The original closure was fine of course, but I don't think that's really an issue here. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 11:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

====[[:AlphaCom]]====
:{{DRV links|AlphaCom|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_20|article=}}
I found another source providing information on AlphaCom which I believe satisfies [[Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources]]. The source is http://aplawrence.com/Security/ssh.html . The author of that article has been mentioned in TechRepublic with regards to the author's knowledge in the area of terminals: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ap-lawrence-delivers-sco-unix-linux-information151and-lots-of-it/#. [[Special:Contributions/121.99.164.96|121.99.164.96]] ([[User talk:121.99.164.96|talk]]) 04:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
*The biggest problem with using self-published sources is that in many instances we can't entirely guarantee that there has been any editorial oversight. That's generally the biggest issue when it comes down to it. I'd also like to mention that opening a new deletion review the same day that [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 20|the previous one closed]] is generally not seen as a particularly good idea unless you have multiple sources to use to show notability or argue for inclusion. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[user talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style='color: #19197;background-color: #FFFFFF;'>  (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']]  08:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
**Even if the self-published source has been referenced by a more authoritative source? I see other articles in the same category where most if not all of its references are self-published and in some cases are what I would consider less authoritative than those in the AlphaCom article.

====[[:Dieselpunk]]====
:{{DRV links|Dieselpunk|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 14|article=}}
Before I express some viewpoints, I am requesting an '''Overturn''' and '''Restore''' regarding ''Dieselpunk'' the article not only passes all forms of [[WP:GNG]], has been covered by numerous [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], but is also inherently academic. 

This article's AfD history is extensive. The first one in 2005 had ''deletes'' citing a lacking in [[WP:GNG]] and some forms of [[WP:OR]] which during the time, may be true. However the genre and the article has come a long way since. Today I have found multiple independent reliable sources referencing Dieselpunk as a distinct genre separate from other cyberpunk derivatives and sets a clear definition as to what it meaning. Here are some sources: 

'''News publications:'''

*[http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/dieselpunk-steampunk-beginners-guide/ The Daily Dot]
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/arts/design/prisoner-art-at-eastern-state-penitentiary-philadelphia.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry859%23%2FDiesel-punk&_r=0 New York Times]
*[http://www.ottens.co.uk/gatehouse/Gazette%20-%201.pdf Gatehouse Gazette]
*[http://www.registerguard.com/rg/entertainment/arts/31168141-60/springfield-art-broadcasting-channel-museum.html.csp The Register-Guard]

'''Book publications:'''

*[http://books.google.com/books?id=U-klUCfD844C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Dieselpunk%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bgY2U_-QLKasyAHU1YCICg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Dieselpunk%22&f=false Dieselpunk ePulp Showcase]
*[http://www.amazon.com/Dieselpunk-Retro-Futures-All-American-Years/dp/1909051098 Dieselpunk: Retro Futures of the All-American Art Deco Years]
*[http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=english_fac&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D20%26q%3D%2522Dieselpunk%2522%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C26#search=%22Dieselpunk%22 Academic Paper]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=sBIOXJqqVEUC&pg=PA90&dq=%22Dieselpunk%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-fc1U-2YNaTuyQGP8IGoCQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=%22Dieselpunk%22&f=false Virtual Words: Language on the Edge of Science and Technology]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=6K9xngEACAAJ&dq=%22Dieselpunk%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bgY2U_-QLKasyAHU1YCICg&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCQ The Warlord of the Air: A Scientific Romance]
*[http://www.amazon.com/Dieselpunk-Retro-Futures-All-American-Years/dp/1909051098 Dieselpunk: Retro Futures of the All-American Art Deco Years]

'''Game publications''' (I was unable to access some sources due to corporate blocking):

*[http://www.alteredgamer.com/best-pc-gaming/67680-top-10-steampunk-and-dieselpunk-games-for-the-pc/ Altered Gamer]
*[http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ID=22860 Inside Mac games]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20070119005820/http://www.misguidedgames.com/press_frame.htm Misguided Games] (RS?)

'''Unknown''':

*[http://steampunk.republika.pl/chrono04pl.html Polish]

Just a note, the article changes significantly with every AfDs. The article should always have been notable enough to be independent. OR and unreliable sources can be removed and cruft can always be clean and the article should be retained per [[WP:PRESERVE]].

I am requesting that this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dieselpunk&oldid=462957097 version] be restored. There are already copious citations and seems to meet Wikipedia standards.

This article remains a Wikipedia conundrum. From a non-policy standpoint I have an interest in deleted articles with extensive debates and articles that can never seem to stay in the grave. To me it represents a form of notability which exists on a sub-cultural level. I have great enthusiasm and hope that with new sets of eyes and a great expansion in the genre since 2005, that consensus can change! [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Valoem|'''<font color="Green">contrib</font>''']]</sup> 23:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

*That version of the article should remain deleted. It was deleted after [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk (3rd nomination)|an AFD discussion]] in May 2010, and the decision was endorsed at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 14|deletion review]] in June 2010. In July 2011, User:Valoem [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dieselpunk&diff=440841898&oldid=368407801 restarted] an identical version of the article, which eventually was redirected (again) following [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#Advice, please?|an ANI discussion]]. (See [[Talk:Dieselpunk]] for the complete history.) The nominator is welcome to create a new version of the article that meets Wikipedia guidelines. This version does not. - [[User:EurekaLott|Eureka Lott]] 00:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
::The ANI is a strictly procedural debate. I am questioning the outcome of both the thrid nomination and DRV. Both outcomes were certainly controversial and AfD results should have pointed to no consensus. Once again if OR is an issue it can be resolved per WP:PRESERVE. Also I did a bold restore in 2011 and the article had been edited since. Looking at that version some cruft can definitely be removed, however the core context is maintainable. Due to the history of the article, (also what happened last time I did a bold restore) I thought it be wiser to follow standard procedure and receive permission. [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Valoem|'''<font color="Green">contrib</font>''']]</sup> 01:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

::*I'm afraid you're making up your own rules. As far as I'm aware, there's no review of deletion review. If that did exist, the challenges could go on forever. There also is no such thing as a "bold restore". (In fact, if you [//www.google.com/search?q={{urlencode:wikipedia "bold restore"}} search for "bold restore"], the top results are about your attempt to sidestep the previous decisions.) It may be possible to create a viable article on this subject, but the book is closed on this version. - [[User:EurekaLott|Eureka Lott]] 02:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)