Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 9: Difference between revisions
→Picnic (2004 film): overturn |
→Picnic (2004 film): overturn A7 |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*''' overturn''' as 1/ no evidence of being only a you tube video and therefore not unambiguously in scope And 2/ even if it were there is a credible claim to significance. "I don't think it will pass afd" is not a reason for A7. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 18:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)` |
*''' overturn''' as 1/ no evidence of being only a you tube video and therefore not unambiguously in scope And 2/ even if it were there is a credible claim to significance. "I don't think it will pass afd" is not a reason for A7. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 18:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)` |
||
*'''Overturn''', what DDG said, not to mention that A7 ''applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works.''. As I've said before in other DRVs, I suspect this won't survive AfD, but AfD is the right place to figure that out, and we should be very conservative about using [[WP:CSD]]. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 18:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn''', what DDG said, not to mention that A7 ''applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works.''. As I've said before in other DRVs, I suspect this won't survive AfD, but AfD is the right place to figure that out, and we should be very conservative about using [[WP:CSD]]. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 18:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn''' not an A7 as not clearly in scope and there are assertions of notability. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 19:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:Pablo Zibes]]==== |
====[[:Pablo Zibes]]==== |
Revision as of 19:24, 9 May 2016
Speedy deleted as A7 even though films are expressly ineligible for A7, and even though the article made a clear and credible claim of significance -- the film was created by a notable performer. The deleting admin treated the film as web content, but a film created even before youtube existed does not become web content simply because a copy was later uploaded and made available online. Deleting admin has refused to restore, on the basis that the article "did not have sufficient reliable sources", which is by policy not an acceptable basis for speedy deletion.[1] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn A7 Whether on not this is within A7's scope (though it's unlikely it was), being created by a notable person is a credible claim of significance (note: WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply to A7, before anyone cites that as a reason to endorse). Also, the non-notability and lack of sources reasoning demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of both A7 and CSD in general, for it is explicitly stated that is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Adam9007 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Gonna need a temp undelete to evaluate. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. → AA (talk) — 16:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Definitely not A7. Both written and directed by two different notable people. Adam9007 (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. → AA (talk) — 16:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This was previously deleted also for pretty much the same content. It was mentioned that it's a 15min short documentary but I could not find any significant coverage in searching for sources. → AA (talk) — 17:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I was involved. Didn't find anything to indicate that it was anything other than an online video, for whatever that's worth. (TIL YouTube started in 2005.) TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- overturn as 1/ no evidence of being only a you tube video and therefore not unambiguously in scope And 2/ even if it were there is a credible claim to significance. "I don't think it will pass afd" is not a reason for A7. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)`
- Overturn, what DDG said, not to mention that A7 applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works.. As I've said before in other DRVs, I suspect this won't survive AfD, but AfD is the right place to figure that out, and we should be very conservative about using WP:CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn not an A7 as not clearly in scope and there are assertions of notability. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This page was nominated for deletion, all within a few days. I was never notified of this discussion and was a couple of days late, when the decision had already been made and the page was already deleted. The reviewers were not given the full picture for the reason to keep the page, and unfortunately it was removed before any arguments to keep it were presented. At a high level, Pablo Zibes is for is internationally renowned, having earned many prestigious awards. The decision to merge the page was made speedily and without the proper arguments to make a more informed decision. This request is to undelete the page either before or after we are able to make edits calling out the group's significance to an audience who may not be as familiar with the genre. Some references included from FAZ, Stuttgarter Zeitung, and more . --Otto-muell (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse decisio. Frankfurter Allgemeine ZeitungPablo Zibes präsentiert... , 25.11.1997.. Stuttgarter Zeitung In: Stuttgarter Newspaper In: Stuttgarter Newspaper. 24.02.2013. --Klaus-Pas (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. http://www.staatstheater-hannover.de/oper/dateien/pressemeldungen/1262967953_pressemappe_kinderfest2010.pdf Théâtre:] Staatstheater Hannover As established above, the article subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. The closing merge is appropriate per WP:Summary style. Regards, --Maus-78 (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Conditionally endorse @Otto-muell: you were the only person who participated in the AfD who argued to keep. You made the assertion that there were sources. You were asked during the AfD to provide those sources, but you didn't do so. As it stands now, no sources were presented, so the delete close seems perfectly reasonable. If you do have sources to present, please do so here. If you can show the existence of a sufficient number of reliable sources to meet our notability guidelines, I'll be happy to change my mind. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- My close said, "If reliable sources arise, take it up with the discussants." The nominator does not appear to have attempted to contact either them or me, despite the Deletion Review directions. czar 13:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)