Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 8

< April 7	Deletion review archives: 2007 April	April 9 >

8 April 2007

Liam Mcleod

The AFD nomination of this article was frivolous, and was created by a vandal (see [1], for example). The article was deleted against a majority of established users who favored keeping it, without any explanation whatsoever. If we are to invoke the theory that "AFD is not a vote" in the deletion of articles, then surely the closing administrator should provide an explanation as to why the article was deleted. John254 14:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you want an explanation, I suggest you ask the deleting admin as indeed the instructions on this page say you should before listing here (in nice bold letters). I also note you haven't informed the deleting admin of this request for review. The entire text of the deleted article is "Liam McLeod is a football commentator on Sportsound for BBC Radio Scotland. He is currently largely an online commentator, although can occasionally be heard on the Radio Scotland Frequencies. Liam was born in Aberdeen but now lives in Glasgow", which would appear to me to be an A7 deletion. The keep comments really didn't actually address why this should be kept. --pgk 14:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a "football commentator" for a national radio network could well make Liam McLeod a notable public figure, and thus constitutes a non-frivolous assertion of notability. Insofar as CSD A7 is extended beyond its literal terms, it should only be applied to articles in which an assertion of notability is clearly frivolous. John254 15:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doba (company)

Nonsensical result, not within closer discretion. If Quarl thinks that, despite clear consensus to delete on an afd, specific, non-notable company names should be arbitrarily redirected to their type of business, thereby doing spammers' work for them, he should express that opinion on the afd just like anybody else so that the argument can be refuted as the idiocy it is. —Cryptic 12:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn redirect and relist. Am I seeing a consensus to delete here? No. Is there a consensus to keep here? No. Does the redirect make sense? Not at all. A relisting where a few more eyes can see it makes sense here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete consensus for deletion seems quite clear. --pgk 12:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Füritechnics

This article was speedily deleted as possible advertising. As it happens, I wrote the article and really don't know much about the company, so I used their web page as one of my main sources. Considering their signature product is endorsed by a major American TV chef (Rachael Ray), would it not be prudent to at least restore it and put it through AfD rather than speedying it? It seems like it could be rewritten to not look like advertising. Haikupoet 03:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list~~, although I would like to see what was deleted before sticking to that 100%~~. Probably using the homepage wasn't the best course of action, and I have no clue whether this would survive an AfD, but it's highly unlikely a longtime editor such as Haikupoet would be writing ad copy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've undeleted the history so you can take a look. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  - Thanks. Sticking with my auggestion upon reading. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I don't think this is a valid G11; it can use a bit of work, but G11 is very specific in what it applies to, and I don't think this qualifies. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list, probably not a G11, but I don't think this would survive an AFD. Better to do it there, though. --Core desat 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. As the editor who marked the article for speedy deletion, I am happy to overturn should the article be improved. It is possible the topic is notable, but to my mind the article as written read like a brochure. --Mattinbgn/^talk 12:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Heritage Alliance

This article was deleted by an administrator, who cited BLP concerns. I believe this was an overreaction. The offending sections could have been removed, and proper citations added for the rest of the article (indeed, much of the article was already sourced). The CHA is a noteworthy far-right organization in Canada, and its article should be restored and improved. CJCurrie 00:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy-deletion and nominate to AFD. This is an article about an organization, not an individual. BLP does not apply to organizations. I'll also admit that I am unable to find any specific claims in the article that fall afoul of WP:BLP. But if there were any, that would be solved by editing them out (and maybe deleting specific edits from the pagehistory), not deleting the entire article. Nominate to AFD because I'm not sure that this particular group meets our notability criteria. Rossami (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Rossami said what I would have. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large print Wikipedia

Large print Wikipedia was a project that was called both humorous and nonsense. Yet it was a supposed to help the elderly. At least where I come from many of these people have poor vision and usually do not have a computer so they must go somewhere else like the local library. Many of the Web Browsers in these places do not have the text-zoom feature and thus a larger font Wikipedia is needed and I made it . It took a long time to get the project started and rewrite its two articles and write the instructions for creating a large print article. Neither this comment or Large print Wikipedia were written as jokes. Thank You very much.