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

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]