Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 2

2 July 2008

Spore (2008 video game)

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)

Marcel Richard

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)

Muslim outrage

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)

Candy Coated Killahz

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)