Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 17

< October 16	October 18 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

17 October 2006

Arjinderpal Sekhon

Doctor Arjinderpal Sekhon's [[1]] profile was deleted from this site by Luna Santin. There is no particular reason for the deletion of Dr. Sekhon's page, and I therefore wrote the following posting to Luna:

Luna,

I saw that you deleted the article on Arjinderpal Sekhon[[2]], who is the Democratic Congressional Candidate for District 02 in California. I am unclear as to why you deleted his page. There are many other candidates' biographies on this resourceful website, and I am confused as to how his was either offensive or merited deletion. The Republican opponent has a page that you did not bother deleting. Is this politically motivated?

I ask that you please respond promptly or I will seek an answer from another review board.

Thanks,

X

I ask that someone please review the reasoning for such deletion as I have an inclination that it is politically driven just 21 days before the election. This website has been a new, popular source of information in our country, and I expect that constituents of California's District 2 will rely on its content.

Thank you in advance for your help and cooperation!

The page was deleted under the prod method because it did not satisfy the guidelines in WP:CAE. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I have notified the original PROD nominator and they can decide whether to give it a full hearing at articles for deletion. Nothing more to be done here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JAKAZiD

I wish to have the JAKAZiD article Restored/Undeleted, I feel it was unfairly deleted, it contained factual data about the Arist and was not Spam. ShadowmanX 15:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For benefit of other reviewers, article was speedy deleted by User:Blnguyen with the summary "self web-recorded musician". Endorse deletion unless notability per WP:MUSIC is asserted and verified. This is about the creator of the Internet Cillit Bang and Esure videos, which are funny and arguably merit a mention in those articles (which they've got), but absent third-party coverage they and their creator do not merit articles themselves. However I would encourage administrators to at least link and refer to WP:CSD when speedy deleting articles for the benefit of users like ShadowmanX. Even cryptic shorthand like "CSD A7" is better than something that really just looks like the administrator's opinion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. It's a contested speedy, 'nuff said. Even if it wasn't enough, the cached version indicates assertions of notability, such as the television commercials. Clearly not an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All speedy deletions are contested by at least one person. The word WP:CSD uses when it says that some articles should be sent to AfD is "controversial", not "contested". And he hasn't made any television commercials - he makes parodies of other people's which are self-published. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a discussion at CSD about it, then, because that's what some believe there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Contested PRODs need to go to AfD, not contested speedies. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion unless notability can be established. Looks like another teenager with a webpage. The fact that he's remixing commercials and posting them on the web (does he have permission from the original makers?) doesn't seem like an assertion of notability to me. Fan-1967 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia

Request for the deletion of Lostpedia to be reviewed. I appreciate the article was previously deleted but on this occassion was removed without any kind of discussion. I personally had added the {{hangon}} template, yet the article was still swiftly removed despite my requests for review first. Please could the article be restored, if only to allow actual free debate --Nickb123 3rd 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD. Whispering 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment {hangon}} has pretty much no value on reposting deleted content. Those must come here first. Fan-1967 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The linked deletion review is for an old version of the article, and main grounds for deletion was "shameless advertising". The new version I made today was an attempt to overcome this, however it was still removed despite my pleas for actual formal voting. Therefore, I request the content to be restored, if only for to be deleted after a real debate. The content, I believe, is objective and causes no offence to anyone, so I don't see why it cannot remain until a proper conclusion is made --Nickb123 3rd 22:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List on AFD. I've got conflicting thoughts on this. On one hand, it's lostcruft. On the other, it passes one of the notability guidelines from my interpetration. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]