Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by C.Fred (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 2 December 2013 (→Vedontakal Vrop: endorse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2013 December 1
2013 December 3 >

2 December 2013

Vedontakal Vrop

Vedontakal Vrop (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as no consensus, but none of the arguments in favour of keeping the article provided any reliable sources to support such a position. Whpq (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • But that doesn't make the "no consensus" close wrong, does it? Non-deleting outcomes discussed at the AfD, such as "merge" or "redirect", do not require any reliable sources. Those outcomes were backed up with intelligent reasoning from established editors and JulianColton could not rightly have disregarded them. If JulianColton had closed as "keep" without any reliable sources, then I would say you were right to bring the close here, but that's not what happened.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the words "no" and "consensus", and the phrase "no consensus" are clear, and JulianColton's summary of the debate in these terms was accurate.--Smerus (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, it was a good close. (1) There was no consensus. (2) Even if an article has no references and fails the notability guidelines, that does not equate to "delete", as S Marshall says. (3) a nomination or !vote for deletion based on lack of notability or sources is a weak argument unless it explains why merge or redirect is inappropriate. Thincat (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Having read the discussion, the closer's interpretation that there is no consensus appears to be the appropriate outcome. I also wouldn't go so far as to say there's consensus toward merging the content, but that does appear to be the prevailing opinion among those not !voting to delete. I'd recommend to the nominator that he keep an eye on the page, and if after a few months it hasn't been merged or improved, that a second AfD is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Knights

Holy Knights (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The band now satisfies criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC by virtue of releasing a second album via Scarlet Records [1]. Therefore, the articles for the band and their first album, A Gate Through the Past should now be restored. The closing admin has been contacted - to no avail. Óðinn (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm a 6 year old AFD that has, assuming good faith, been superseded by events. I don't think you need to wait for a week for the DRV to close to start work on this. Lets wait a day to see if anyone disagrees, otherwise I'll probably just close this and undelete the material for you to work on. No doubt someone can take it to AFD if they disagree. Spartaz Humbug! 08:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Thincat (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hobit (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but even a six-year old AfD requires a successful effort to address the problems, as here, or we'll be doing everything over again. Most of what we did then was right, and remains right. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Bourbon Liqueur

Mystic Bourbon Liqueur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was neutral and non-promotional and was the subject of an ongoing discussion. The deletion was premature. Blitzlaw (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metropolitan, if you really think this, and if your view is supported, please overturn my deletion and return it to AfD, but think first whether there is any actual chance of there being an acceptable article here. Do you really think any other close than delete is the least likely? A city business journal, after all, is my idea of the most unreliable indiscriminate PR-ridden source imaginable, Relying on it as the best source, is pretty much a proof of promotionalism for what even the article admits is a very locally known product. I suggest instead simply allowing a new article to be written, preferably through AfC. I restored the article here immediately myself for visibility, because I think it shows on its face its nature as a prime example of what G11 is about, better than any argument I could give. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Endorse as well within the acceptable range. We'll not be leaving it up to WP:SPAs to judge 'neutral and non-promotional'. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historically, we used to have a problem because there are several major reasons why Wikipedia is attractive to marketers and advertisers. We dealt with this by implementing G11. The purpose of G11 is to empower our sysops to remove blatant marketing material without wasting the community's time with any bureaucracy. So the proper question for this DRV is: "Was this blatant marketing material?" If it was, then the process has been correctly followed and we should endorse, and if it wasn't, then we should overturn and list at AfD. In my view, it was blatant marketing material and DGG was therefore correct to remove it.

    This doesn't make Metropolitan90 wrong. It is conceivable that the subject article could be toned down. I would encourage Metropolitan90 to restore it to the nominator's userspace so that he can tone it down, add his reliable sources, and bring a non-promotional draft back to DRV for us to consider again.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse deletion Oh yeah, that was marketing material. The topic may or may not be notable, but that was spam. If a non-spamy version were created based on those sources, I'd strongly support it getting a chance at AfD (where it would almost certainly be deleted). But this version clearly meets the speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neutral and non-promotional" is a pretty hard sell when the article contains word-for-word copies of the company's own marketing material. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_December_2&oldid=584233613"