Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 2

2 July 2008

Psychotic Waltz – restored as contested PROD – Stormie (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Psychotic Waltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) Expired prod on notable band (4 studio albums); album pages are all still up. 83.203.130.234 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Daniel Johnston (Consultant) – Userfied – Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Daniel Johnston (Consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) Page was deleted for noncompliance with Wikipedia's notability and reliability requirements. However, it now meets both of these requirements. Daniel Johnston has published a number of books that have been extremely influential in the field of international petroleum finance, and he also has several positions on the executive committees and editorial boards of various academic publications, including the newly launched Journal of World Energy Law and Business. Maikadal (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Restore in userspace it was deleted at AfD in February and speedied today. While the recent re-creation lacked inline sources, enough exist to make a workable article. Other than DGG's !uncertain vote at the AfD, none of the votes were particularly strong, i.e. "COI issues" and 'probably spam'. The article needs work but was improved over the February version and was not an A7. It's not a clear keep, but it needs a chance. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Article has been userfied, located here, for improvements, sourcing. Closing this (unnecessary) deletion review...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Spore (2008 video game) – Already restored, appears to have been an accidental deletion. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Spore (2008 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) Article was suddenly delted just now, with absolutely NO discussion whatsoever. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC) whoops, it seems to be back. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Marcel Richard – restored, "founder of the Greek section of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes in Paris" is an assertion of notability – Stormie (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Marcel Richard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) Contest deletion Marcel Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive sweeting (talk • contribs) 15:03, July 2, 2008 (UTC) According to the article's text, the subject, who died in 1976, was a priest and Greek scholar. The page was deleted under speedy-deletion criterion A7, no assertion of notability. Having reviewed the deleted content, I must endorse that assessment based on the state the article at the time. If you have evidence that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies, please provide it here and the page can probably be restored. Rossami (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC) overturn because it is an indication of notability. But if all the work is a series of articles, he may not prove to be notable. DGG (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC) As the deleting admin I stand by my decision. I am not saying the person is not notable. The article as it was at the moment of being tagged for CSD and then deletion did not assert notability under WP:BIO. If the author, or another editor can show notability then that's great, and it can be resurrected. -- Alexf42 17:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Please read the criteria for speedy deletion, which clearly state that notability guidelines are not to be used to determine if an article indecates "why its subject is important or significant". Undelete. --NE2 00:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Glenisson and Vieillard list 69 published articles. The notability of the founder of the Greek Section of the Institut de Recherche pour l'Histoire des Textes and author of Opera Minora seem to me at any rate incontestable. I am unhappy with recent speedy deletions, which do not allow for other editors to show notability if (this)one has failed----Clive Sweeting 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC) (ps the Italian wikipaedia allows 10 days for this process). Sounds important/significant, but unless that information was in the article at the time it was deleted, it doesn't apply in this discussion. JohnABerring27A (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Comment The article was deleted because the article text did indicate why Marcel Richard was important or significant. If the article text indicated why Marcel Richard was important or significant, please list in this thread. Thanks. JohnABerring27A (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Can Clive sweeting please explain why he chose to ignore the big warning box above which says "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)"? Stifle (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC) The editor was contacted despite my preference to deal with real names. J. Berring is right. Opera Minora and IRHT were mentioned----Clive Sweeting
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Muslim outrage – Deletion overturned. Can be taken to AfD is necessary. I would have userfied, but no one has offered a place to userfy it to. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Muslim outrage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) This article was speedy deleted as "neologism." First of all, there is no speedy deletion category for "neologism." Second of all, the article was up less than 15 minutes, so there was no opportunity for anyone other than the author and the administrator Jimfbleak to look over the article. The article is not intended to elaborate on the phrase "muslim outrage." Its purpose is as a starting point for information related to the plethora of recent events regarding the West's characterization of the Muslim World's reaction to images, media, and the like that are considered innocuous in the West but that are highly controversial in Islamic countries. The article is a stub, and as such will require a great deal of work, and someone may even come up with a better title. But I think dismissing this as simply "neologism" after not more than 3 people looked at it is incredibly unnecessary. Please consider allowing the article to have more than a 15 minute chance. Thank you. Poetnewly (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I'm not clear what the subject of the article is. Do you have a reliable source for the name of the article, or are the words related to a concept that you've chosen to call "muslim outrage"? If the latter, did you check to see if there is already an article about the concept or a related one that covers the field well enough, or could do so with some expansion? --Jenny 06:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn Does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, being a neologism is not grounds for speedy deletion. Davewild (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC) "neologism" isn't a speedy delete criterion, but it would probably be wisest to work on this article offline or at User:Poetnewly/Muslim outrage before pushing it into article space, it will take quite some work to get that into a state that would not be deleted at AfD. --Stormie (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Can Poetnewly please explain why he chose to ignore the big warning box above which says "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)"? Stifle (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn, doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Needs discussion and consensus with the article available to all interested editors to be able to determine notability. Celarnor Talk to me 10:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Userfy with a view to later introduction into article space under a suitable name (to be determined) once it's recognisably an article about something. --Jenny 10:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn due to invalid speedy deletion reason. --Rividian (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC) While this article probably did not meet the strict interpretation of the speedy-deletion criteria, I am deeply skeptical that it would have survived an AFD discussion. The entire article boiled down to "Muslim outrage is when Muslims are angry and can lead to violence". The thesis of the page could be considered a self-evident definition of a common phrase. The creation of a page specifically titled "Muslim outrage" would seem to fall afoul of WP:SYN. Those, however, are issues for AFD to sort out. I would urge the nominator to accept the recommendation to work on this content in his/her userspace before submitting it to the article-space. Failing that, list to AfD. Rossami (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn and list at AfD - much as I am loathe to suggest overturning something that I'm almost certain will be deleted anyway - it's the fact that I'm almost certain and not absolutely certain that leads me to do so. The speedy was, after all, invalid. Shereth 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Comment I speedied this. Note that the creator of this article removed an earlier prod notice. Although neologism is not a CSD,it seemed to me to be setting up a platform - why "outrage" and not "protest" (see WP:SYN)? Also the removal of the earlier prod notice did not suggest that this is a good faith editor jimfbleak (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I'd suggest revisiting WP:PROD -- you're obviously familiar with the process (as all experienced editors are), but you don't seem to be in touch with longstanding norms. The community has always been very emphatic about not scrutinizing the removal of prod notices. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn Jim, there is policy for what can be speedy deleted, and you are not following it. You do not have the rauthority to et up speedy deletion criteria of your own--and I doubt "platform" would be accepted as a new one--everything that might fit there will be controversial are require a discussion. Having ben prodded is also not a reason to prejudice an article. This needs a hearing at Afd. DGG (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn, improper speedy deletion as noted above, but userfy instead of AfD. In its deleted state, it probably wouldn't have survived an AfD because of WP:NEO, WP:DICDEF and WP:SYNTH problems, among others. Should be moved to main space by the author only once it is clear that this is not just a media stock phrase, but a subject worthy of encyclopedic treatment.  Sandstein  17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn Improper speedy deletion, admins don't get to make up their own speedy deletion criteria. RMHED (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn and list - Topic outrage is basis to speedy delete the article. On the otherhand, will Catholic outrage, Jewish outrage, and a visit to arbcom be far behind? JohnABerring27A (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn and userfy per Sandstein. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn not a speedy. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn and list. Not a valid speedy delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Overturn and list at AfD Not a valid speedy criteria. DGG, I think by platform jimfbleak might have meant wp:coatrack. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC) yes, I understood it in that sense. And coatrack is not a speedy criterion either, and equally unlikely to ever be accepted as one.DGG (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Porkchop Cash – restored as contested PROD – Stormie (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Porkchop Cash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) I completely missed this prod. Although I'm not criticizing the deletion, I would appreciate it if the article could be restored (either to the mainspace or—even better—to my sandbox at User:GaryColemanFan/New) so that I can expand it and bring it up to the standards for inclusion. Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Candy Coated Killahz – Speedy deletion endorsed, am fine to usefy on request – Davewild (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Candy Coated Killahz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) Page deleted for failing to meet notability/significant requirements. This was made in error. Page met the general notability requirement of coverage in two reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Admittedly the article was a stub, but don't destroy the house while it's being built. Notable band, creating page with hopes that other wikipedians will expand it with information. Buddybudee (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, it was deleted under criteria for speedy deletion A7 for failing to make any claim that the article subject was in any way important or significant. (One of the core types of articles this criteria is meant to deal with is articles on garage bands.) Reviewing the deleted text, the text indeed did make no claim of importance or significance. You may also wish to review the inclusion guideline specifically for bands. GRBerry 04:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Can Buddybudee please explain why he chose to ignore the big warning box above which says "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)"? Stifle (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I agree with GRBerry here, there wasn't a single line in there telling us why the band is important. I endorse the speedy. I also doubt the authenticity of the first of the references, the one which lacks a hyperlink; the other reference, from this year, states that their debut album is newly released, so I doubt that a piece regarding it could have been written in 2006. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Userfy for Buddybudee. Deletions are a poor way to welcome newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.