Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 15

15 October 2015

Nathan Norman – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nathan Norman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) WP:ENTERTAINER requires an entertainer to have significant roles in multiple notable works to have an article. Nathan Norman satisfied this through his significant role (Lead guitarist) in the notable rock band Devo 2.0, and his significant role (Lead villain) in the notable movie 16 Stones. Administrator ignored this and deleted the article based on majority vote. The fact that Nathan Norman is now running for president may have convinced his opponents to bombard the discussion with delete votes. Giant Bernard (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Update: now it looks like some campaign opponent moved an article about a sea captain over the old one.--Giant Bernard (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC) That move was a perfectly normal thing to do, and you should not be accusing the editor of an ulterior motive. If we only have one article on a person named Nathan Norman, then we don't put a disambiguation in the title, they just take the main title. The move can just as easily be undone if this review decides to overturn the AFD decision, so it should be of no importance to you and is irrelevant to this discussion. I did not ignore the additional information, but I noted that participants continued to call for deletion on policy-based arguments after the Devo 2.0 and 16 Stones information had been introduced to the debate. SpinningSpark 18:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, the claim that the subject of the article had any claim to notability through WP:ENTERTAINER was pulled apart quite decisively by User:NewYorkActuary, despite a number of allegations of bad faith made against them. The closing administrator acted entirely properly on this one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC). Endorse- the article was relisted at AfD and the discussion after that was unanimous to delete. There is no way the closing administrator could have done differently. Rearguing the AfD and attacking delete voters is not what DRV is for. Reyk YO! 17:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse And calling 16 Stones notable might be stretching it a little, fwiw. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. Clear consensus of lack of depth of coverage, clear case for deletion. Yet again, Wikipedia:Notability (people) fails to convey to new editors what is required for an article, particularly on subject where there is possible perception of promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. Deletion review is a place to review failure to follow the deletion process. It is not a de novo appeal venue or a chance to get a second bite at the cherry if the AFD hasn't gone your way. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Draft:Global University, Missouri – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Global University, Missouri (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I, the author of the draft, had access to the original sources at Global University that is found on the Malta website (http://www.globaluniversity.org.mt/homepage.htm). The Malta School is a satellite school of Global University and has access to the same materials as I did, but did not reference the original materials like I did in my draft. If I need to reference this website in my draft, I am more than willing. However, the original source of the information on that website is, in fact, the information that I am including in my proposed draft. Thank you for all your help! Jedisteve0001 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. Material on other websites is copyrighted and we can't accept it here, referenced or not, until and unless the content is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC) And even if the copyright is release, making an article from a single source is not the way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.