Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 January 28
2007 January 30 >

29 January 2007

[edit]
Squared Circle Wrestling 2CW – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Squared Circle Wrestling 2CW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted for a legitamate Pro Wrestling Company that provided a history and ability to find out the current historical information of wrestling in the Central New York Region. The suggestion that only one person contributed context is false. People seeking this information no longer have a place to go. Rock345 22:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Maintenance note: - I fixed the spelling in the header and the above links; the article listed here was a redirect to Squared Circle Wrestling, for which I've linked the AFD above.) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - no new information presented to indicate there's any notability as compared to the article that was discussed at the AFD. Year-old small feds don't seem to have much in the way of notability, and the arguments in the AFD didn't hinge on providing notability, but instead suggested those !voting to delete were the competition. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Unsourced articles don't annoy me. People who assume and claim delete voters (that have explained their arguments in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, no less) hate the subject of an AfD drive me insane. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Yes they do, it's called the Square Circled Wrestling website. Don't have one? It's simple to create, and there are many free webhosts. Wikipedia is not one of them. ColourBurst 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If people who want the information no longer have a place to go, it's unverifiable original research. -Amark moo! 02:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me that having the NWA/TNA Championship defended twice in a federation makes it not noteable. In fact, that's what I was going on their to update. If you're going to let other originizations in the area run wiki sites with less information just becasue they are a year older that's fine. Just letting you know I disagree with it. Rock345

Which organizations might those be? If they don't have verifiable non-trivial reliable sources we might certainly consider those for deletion as well. Existing articles don't guarantee immediate inclusion of other articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mind showing some coverage of these title defenses in a published, reputable source? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stepanavan Youth Center – Restored by closing admin – trialsanderrors 08:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stepanavan Youth Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The AFD (here) was improperly closed. The sources to satisfy WP:N were provided. The closer noted this but deleted anyway, saying "the same can be said of a large number of youth centers". That may be true, but we do have over 1,600,000 articles. It's not like we're going to be overwhelmed by a couple hundred youth center articles (even assuming anyone actually bothers to write all those articles that might potentially pass WP:ORG). The fact is that WP:N was fulfilled, and there is no reason to selectively enforce the notability policy just because of the type of organization. Specifically, WP:ORG states, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." And those reliable third party sources were provided, both in the article and in the AFD. So the fact that this might let other youth centers in means very little; notability was clear, and selective enforcement is detrimental to Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of BitTorrent sites – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of BitTorrent sites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was AfD'd in september, under the grounds that it was little more than a web directory, and not much of a comparison. I userfied a version of it before its deletion and worked on it for several months, until I had grown satisfied that the arguments made at the AfD were no longer valid. I then recreated the page, leaving a message on the talk page about why I had chosen to recreate it.

This page was speedily deleted by Proto a few days later, with the summary "CSD G4 - Receaation [sic] of deleted content". As I stated above, it is correct that the article had been deleted before - however, the old version was substantially different from the new version (diff) to not qualify under CSD G4. I contacted proto informing him about his error, and asked him to either recreate it or, if he thought that that was not possible, to userfy it so I could have a backup version (I naturally didn't want to lose several months' work). He chose to userfy it. I contacted him again, a week ago, reminding him that it didn't qualify under G4, and asked him again to restore it to the mainspace. He still hasn't answered, so I chose to take it here, to DRV.

As you've now probably gathered by now, I think that this page should be recreated because the new version is an actual comparison, as opposed to a web directory, that it is sourced, and that it is substantially different from the original deleted version to not satisfy CSD G4. Even though it's a weaker argument, I'd also like to point out the high traffic it used to get, and the messages asking why it was deleted (1, 2, 3). Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 07:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • These comments are asking for you restore it on another site outside of Wikipedia. I think that's a good idea. Proto::► 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What relaible sources is this comparitive table built on? How many articles on torrent clients do we have? There isa fair bit of precedent for excluding form such comparisons those for which we do not have articles, else they rapidly pass the spam event horizon. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I was going to conjecture that the addition of two extra columns would not change the AfD participants' minds, but then I saw that I don't need to conjecture. Ultra-Loser said in the AfD "New columns have been proposed, which will make it more encyclopedic." to which TheFarix replied "Neither of the proposed columns will make the article encyclopedic, nor are they particularly useful." No-one contradicted him. The AfD still applies in full and this was a valid General-4 deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The columns proposed were different from the columns that are there now - I don't remember the exact two, but I remember that google pagerank was one of them (I later decided that alexa ranks would be more useful). Plus, there are more than two extra columns - scroll down to the private trackers section, for example.
      Also, I forgot to mention that at one point there was a criteria for inclusion to stop the article from turning it into a spamhole, but proto removed it. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 11:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) deletion, G4 applied. It also remains an annotated list of external links, so could have just as easily been deleted for other reasons. Proto::► 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and AfD. I'm not sure about the G4 at all, honestly. Looks like a lot of new material to make it pretty different from what was originally there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an identical unsourced list of weblinks with no internal links, but it is a very similar unsourced list of weblinks with no internal links. Fails WP:NOT a link farm, and also fails the same criteria which got it deleted last time. Of course we could waste some more time, or we could simply accept that lists of weblinks with subjective and unsourced additional data are not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing as WP:NOT isn't a speedy criteria, and "similar" isn't "substantially identical," and discussion is rarely a "waste"... --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would be relevant if there weren't an AfD. There is. G4 is a speedy deletion criterion, and the mian part of G4 is failing to fix the things that led to deletion. Thise things are not fixed, and the deletion debate specifically indicates that cosmetic changes will not fix those problems. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • G4 has nothing to do with fixing things that lead to deletion, but only the recreation of a substantially identical version of something previously AfD'd. I have no clue where you came up with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Jeff, we deleted a list of weblinks with no secondary sources. This is a list of the same weblinks still without secondary sources and based on the original content userfied. That's a G4, in my book. Waste of time AfDing again, since the last AfD specifically said these changes would not sort ther fundamental problem. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your book needs some fixing, then. Check the diff, there's a major content difference between the two. They are not substantially identical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • So you say. Me, I don't see the point in allowing the re-creation of an article which will immediately be AfDed and, because the previous AfD already addressed the issues "fixed" here, deleted for failing exactly the same policies as it failed before. It's a quirk of mine. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Whether you see the point is not relevant. G4 doesn't allow speedy deletion of a previously deleted article simply because it'll be deleted again. The language is very clear and direct for a reason. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The common sense application of General-4 is clearly to articles that were validly deleted where the same reason for deletion still applies. Interpreting 'substantially different' any other way means that reversing the order of the list from Z to A, or grabbing a thesaurus and replacing all possible words with different words while keeping entirely the same content, merits wasting editors' time with another AfD. Do you plan on giving any argument as to why this article was not suitable before, but is now?
                      "Check the diff" indeed. General-4 is not about "if you diff the new and old version and more than 15% of the words are in red, the article needs another AfD". --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a very similar unsourced list of weblinks with no internal links - it's a sourced, highly expanded comparison of websites, complete with internal links. The arguments made at the AfD were to the effect that it was a simple repository of weblinks, and now it's not a simple repository of weblinks. Therefore the AfD no longer applies, and neither does G4. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, a lot of BT sites host files that are licensed in the US, thus creating a copyright problem. Let someone else have this list. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: that has nothing to do with anything. There is no copyright problem. There is no potential for a copyright problem. Go try to AFD The Pirate Bay and you'll see what I mean. There is substantial media coverage on most of the large bittorrent sites. That is not a legal problem for the media, and it's not a problem for us. (Just a clarification. No vote from me.) — coelacan talk — 20:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning. The original article as AfD'd and the recreated one are identical in substance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Guy. It's a reposting with the same problems, and running the AFD again for the same result for the same reasons is processwanking at its finest. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist The new site appears different, gives different information, and gives quantitative information. I do not see how the old discussion is applicable. It would furthermore seem the obvious course to do this discussion as an AfD---at least by the criteria of common sense. It will be much more straightforward to discuss the new site simply as a site, without the minutia of whether it was not validly reconstructed, or validly deleted by speedy, or which rule applied. WP:LAWYER is only an essay, and was in fact written to stem unfair tricks to keep an article, but it makes just as much sense the other way round. DGG 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid G4. >Radiant< 16:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-redeletion. I've compared the latest version with the version as it stood during the AFD discussion. I am not finding the kind of substantive changes which would indicate that the concerns raised in the AFD discussion have been successfully addressed. Rossami (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. The point of G4 is to prevent people from recreating the article in a form that does not solve the problems raised in the AFD. If the new article has the same problems as the one that was AFDed, it doesn't really much matter if it's identical, "substantially similar", or just similar; Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, after all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, as per badlydrawnjeff "The "common sense application" of G4 is to read it as written. Period. I'm not going to re-run the AfD here, the G4 was improper and DRV is allegedly about process". (once it has been recreated then those who oppose can slap an AfD tag on it and get it deleted, this however is not the place to run through a new AfD on a new article). Mathmo Talk 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The point of G4 is to make it easy to delete things where it is obvious that the concerns were not addressed. It is not at all obvious that the concerns were not addressed. -Amark moo! 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
T.H.E. Fox – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
T.H.E. Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
For the purpose of review, I have made a copy of the comic strips under debate. It will be removed after the conclusion of this debate. The comics have been altered from their original file format, but other than that they should be undisturbed, including the non-extension portion of the file name that dates them. GreenReaper 05:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally come to deletion review, but I'm surprised at this one as there was no consensus to delete. Five votes for keep, two (or possibly three) for delete. One previous vote had been converted to keep on the basis of arguments establishing the comic's notability (namely, that it appears to be the first comic distributed online, dating to 1986 and onwards). WP:WEB is an inappropriate metric to apply to content that appeared several years before the web itself existed, and being the first "webcomic" that we know of in the world seems a clear claim to notability. In response to the closing administrator's comment, I disagree that an interview conducted with the author by the Commodore Roundtable group does not count as a source. Indeed, I would have thought them rather well-placed to determine the comic's provenance and to challenge any inaccuracies. Moreover, several facts from the interview were independently verifiable, as noted in the AfD discussion. GreenReaper 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I too am surprised, albeit for the opposite reason: While I have my work ruminated here almost daily, I had thought this a totally un-controversial deletion. Primary sources (like interviews with the author) are only applicable where not self-serving; this is a firmly established practice. In the absence of any other supporting sources, deletion was the only tenable outcome. I suppose that I could have used the woeful caveat "without prejudice to a properly sourced article being written." However, to my knowledge there is never such a prejudice, so I didn't. Use the caveat, I mean.
    brenneman 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see how "stating the truth" comes out as "self-serving". As far as I can see none of the claims made by the author regarding such things as the number of comics made, the time and places in which they were distributed or even the future distribution of the comic are unreasonable. In many cases they are backed up by other sources, such as the newgroup post covering the relatively minor matter of the print publication. There is actually an archive of the strips, uploaded by another person, as mentioned by him in the interview. It contains the strips described by the author, as well as almost two hundred others. Exactly how much more evidence do you need that this comic existed and that it took place at the time described? GreenReaper 04:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that's not the assertion. The specific assertion is that it was the very first comic published on the internet. Providing a date for the comic doesn't actually prove it was the first (and any attempt to infer it was the first by taking other comics into account would be original research), and that means the only fallback is the author's own statement. ColourBurst 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then change the statement in the article. But let's use common sense here: If we have a comic for which we have no reasonable doubt that, say, it was posted in 1987 - a full year after he claims, but it's a year I have several dated files from - and we have no record of any other comics until Where The Buffalo Roam in 1992, then maybe, just maybe, it's worth keeping around on the theory that it is quite likely to be the first online comic - and certainly the first that we've found any sources for? Five years margin is a long time. GreenReaper 04:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, the sourcing for this article may be dubious but this deletion is even more so. The original deletion proposition was for a "lack of notability" which has been clearly disproved. Yes, this article requires better sourcing... can this article be resourced and improved while deleted, no. -- DeVandalizer 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Content_review - brenneman 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is my view that although further sources are, as always, desirable, an extensive interview with the author that contains several points that are verifiable through other sources is sufficient to establish a basis for the article, particularly given that the only "special" claim is the age of the comic. Nobody else who took part in the interview disagreed with his statements regarding this age, and as fellow users who had followed the comic, they would be the ones who would be in the best position to know. GreenReaper 04:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Some of GreenReaper's claims are overblown, so it should not go back into article space without sorcing from independent reliable sources. I recommend ignoring the userfied version and applying the Wikipedia:Amnesia test. If that comes out as a complete article, then merge in the userfied content. If not, go back to the drawing board and look for more sources. GRBerry 05:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly what claims are in doubt here? I don't see how there is any reasonable doubt that the comic was published on the dates mentioned in the interview. Several of the images which have been preserved in the archive actually have the dates imprinted into them, quite aside from the filenames. That may not mean that it is the first comic distributed online - as someone said, it's perfectly possible that someone used the ARPAnet to send out something - but it does mean that it is the first one that we have a record of - and that, in my view, makes it notable enough for a main namespace article. I'm not entirely sure what sources you expect me to be able to find, given the surprising lack of official online-comic monitoring bodies in 1986 . . . or why you're discounting the words of the author when there's no indication that they're lying and several statements that can be independently verified as true. GreenReaper 05:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Joseph Ekaitis would be a more viable target for this information. - brenneman 05:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand - if you don't believe his word about his works as a source, why would you believe it when it's on an article about him? (which doesn't exist, and rightly so, because he in general does not yet appear to be a notable person - he just happened to do this single notable thing) GreenReaper 05:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies to you, I should have said "some of" (now added) and said what in my first opining. The "several years before the web" bit stuck in my craw the most. The web was up and running by 1991 (and I'd created my first two web pages that year also - ah the joys of handcoding html, and the days before http: was the default prefix for browsers). And it isn't a webcomic until it is primarily published on the web. Online comic in 86/87, yes. Webcomic, no. The other is making the claim to first on the basis that we don't know of anything contemporaneous - that claim is canonical original research, and we can't use it - either in the article or to evaluate notability. GRBerry 06:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's why I put "webcomic" in quotes. Would online comic suit you better? :-) The point is that being online several years before the web is the very bit that makes it notable, and I feel that failing to consider that as notable does violate common sense. Wikipedians make notability decisions all the time, and they are based on the facts and sources available (because otherwise new facts could not change notability decisions). Notability criteria are our criteria, not determined by an external body. Here, the facts and sources available show that this comic was published in the mid-1980s and the next one that we know of was published in the 1990s. Do you have reasonable doubt that this is the case? If not, then why is it not a factor for notability? GreenReaper 14:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Brenneman's closure, which reflects the widespread consensus that we can't have an article if no sources exist. Userfy? May be a bad idea - if there is no chance of it becoming encyclopaedic in the near future due to lack of sources, userfying may violate WP:NOT a free web host. Of course we should provide the content for use off Wikipedia if licensing at both ends permits. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Unless we can verify the reliability of the Commodore roundtable interview, it's not really an acceptable source. And then its still unclear how pioneering this comic strip was. Also, I'm concerned that in his own book bio[1] for essentially a kid's furry book Joe Ekaitis thinks its worthwhile to mention his stint as a local college radio "personality", his appearance as a 6 foot giant singing raccoon on The Gong Show, the occupations of his Mom and Dad, his local church choir role, plus the earnest overstatement/hope "With the publication of Collinsfort Village, he joins the ranks of American storytellers, a fellowship that includes such notables as L. Frank Baum, E. B. White, and Frank Stockton. He looks forward to the day when his writing and storytelling will stand beside theirs." - but doesn't mention T.H.E. F.O.X. at all (I assume it wasn't an "adult-orientated" furry comic?). Stronger references are needed to bring this article back. Bwithh 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so the first few random T.H.E. F.O.X. pics I looked at seemed to a bit suggestive but after further research, I give T.H.E.F.O.X. a "PG" rating. Bwithh 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it's not a mature comic. There's some jokes that adults might get an extra laugh out of, but most of the comedy is wordplay, species-related or classic comic violence. GreenReaper 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overthrow and restore Coming at this as an outsider to this material who is in the terribly embarrassing position of never having seen this comic until right now, the evidence of a dated file is conclusive unless fraud is asserted. We therefore know the date this appeared. Saying the obvious is not OR. Saying that a comic that appeared before the web is earlier than any web comic is obvious. First is hard to prove for anything. Someone may always find an earlier--the online world at that time is not adequately archived, & there is no telling what someone might find in a backup tape. But this would appear to be a subject of wide interest, and it appears reasonable that if --given all this discussion--nothing can be produced, that it was the first, and the files itself are the RS for V. That the first such files would be N is equally obvious, or we wouldn't all be discussing it. Using the wording of various practices to deny N and V when they may not quite apply to this situation is quibbling. DGG 06:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're suggesting that sources should be "assumed true unless proven false" but the burden of proof is on the creator of article content as per WP:V - not on the doubters. I don't understand how a dated computer file can be considered "conclusive" evidence. Bwithh 16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dated computer files which actually have the date stamped into the artwork, and which is in an archive that is not controlled by the original author? Many of which were distributed in a Commodore C64-specific format? Without anything that specifically cast doubt upon the claims about dates of publication made in the interview, I would consider that a reasonable level of evidence. GreenReaper 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse in the absense of third-party support for the claim. There is a fundamental difference between someone comparing the dates of this comic with other online comics and concluding that it "appears to be the first" and Wikipedia editors comparing the dates of this comic with other online comics and concluding that it "appears to be the first". That is novel synthesis and the essence of WP:OR. Serpent's Choice 07:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So don't put the claim in the article. But to say that we shouldn't consider it as a reason to have the article seems . . . well, very silly to me, and to others. This isn't some kook saying "hey, maybe we can make nuclear fission by cracking rocks together." It's a comic that still appears to be discussed by Commodore user groups years later. Given that online services for the Commodore were well-established and mostly active prior to the formation of the web, it is not unreasonable to claim that a comic made using a C64 for the amusement of other Commodore users was published during that time. GreenReaper 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overthrow and restore also. This deletion is another example of wikipedia being pointlessly pedantic at the expense of people who come here for information. Some editors won't believe it's raining unless they can find a weatherman to say so.
    Sys Hax 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure without prejudice to a properly sourced article being written. The requirements that our articles and their claims be verifiable is a non-negotiable requirement for the project. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow and Restore also. There was only one other delete vote other than the nominator, and even that one merely came in at the very end before closure and just said "per nom". While there were numerous keeps and even one person who got convinced to change from keep after intially voting delete. Maybe the discussion should have been allowed to run a little longer to get more support for deletion, if it was worthy of deletion it would have got it. Then again it didn't get even close to enough support from a purely percentages point of view for deletion, and to leave it open longer to try and get deletion could be viewed as trying to influence the outcome. Anyway... getting away from my main point in that is should not have been deleted, thus must be restored. Mathmo Talk 01:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dave Wills (wrestling) – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dave Wills (wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

On the AFD discussion of the page, there was no clear consensus of how editors felt about the article and not enough editors participating to make any consensus. 4 editors wanted to delete the article (2 of which are questionable/non-prolific editors), and 5 wanted to keep it. One of the editors found a link to a message board about the deletion of the article. Despite valid reasons given on both sides, it was deleted early under WP:SNOW. There was no barrage of keep/delete votes, and the editors did not give enough time to others to find reliable sources (although the article did list some) and just deleted it. Booshakla 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from deleting admin: None of the "keep"ers provided anything that would qualify under the "non-trivial reliable secondary sources" clause of WP:BIO. I "snowballed" the debate ahead of schedule because things were getting out of control. Looking back, citing WP:IAR might have been a better choice. On an additional note, the forum that was mentioned has had a history of disruptive activity on wikipedia. However, I'll happily endorse the undelete if some kind of non-trivial reliable secondary sources turn up. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Next time, think about semi-protecting, with a note directing new Wikipedians to the talk page and inviting established Wikipedians to copy legit arguments to the AFD page. Sometimes this works. GRBerry 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a grand idea, I'll try it next time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse deletion. early close of the AFD is troubling. Among the established editors, deletion was clearly considered correct. If he meets WP:BIO, where are the independently published reliable sources that are about this guy? They aren't in the article, they aren't in the AFD, and they aren't here. GRBerry 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't have a lot of time, and I haven't had a chance to look for sources yet, but I am fairly sure that some can be found. And it can be confirmed that his clip was used on Jimmy Kimmel Live, for sure. But with the 4 that voted to deleted the article, one was a vandal account (and was blocked for removing comments on the AFD), one was a single purpose account with around 100-200 edits, two others were established, but didn't real give any real reasons to why it should be deleted, just made jokes. That is not convincing to me. And I am also an experienced editor and I voted to keep the article and gave valid reasoning. I hope that this can be overturned or reconsidered. Booshakla 05:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion with keep arguments of the quality of ""dave wills" wrestling gets 1,800 ghits. The clip is one of the most famous clips on the internet" - 1,800 Googles is tiny and way way below the hits that really popular videos get. Star Wars Kid gets over 400,000, for example. 1,800 ghits is less that I get and I am not notable at all. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn as an out of process closure, and trout-slap closing admin for doing so. Perhaps if the AfD ran the full five days, the independently published reliable sources could have been found. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing articles early has precedence. The article was created by a forum who has had a history of vandalism on wikipedia and the AFD was getting out of control by the same people. Badlydrawnjeff, I'm highly disappointed about your insulting and incivil additude here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of articles here about people with "15 minutes of fame", that's a pretty sharp comment to make. And also, for some more sources, look for some wrestling shows that he's been involved with as a ring announcer. He's done this on a lot of major shows and I'm sure they could be found, since he is a popular wrestling draw in the mid-south, and is probably more notable than most of the independent wrestlers featured on this site, that have got no national TV time, where Dave has. Booshakla 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Clock Crew – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Clock Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

They are an active community (www.clockcrew.cc). See Talk:Clock Crew for more on why this article should be back on Wikipedia. The last admin to change the article is on break. Lurcho 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bay Ridge Christian College – 2007 revisions userfied – GRBerry 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bay Ridge Christian College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)

I would request a review of the deletion of the above article. While the college does not currently hold accreditation they have applied. Several pages link to the college to include Church of God (Anderson), Warner Pacific College, and Association of Christian College Athletics. Additionally, I am currently researching the colleges move from Mississippi to Texas as a result of threats from the KKK. This would give the college notoriety from the U.S. Civil Rights Movement perspective.
Absolon S. Kent 22:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, having applied for accreditation means nothing; anyone can do that. Now... what? You say you're a liutenant commander in the Navy. Since when did research of naval officers make things notable? For that matter, if you were a scholar, I'd still say the same thing, because that sounds a lot like this is a new thing you're trying to research. -Amark moo! 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • recreate later I am a little startled at the apparent ad hominim nature of the earlier comment--I assume it wasn't meant that way. The background of the person making the proposal is irrelevant (except in cases of banned users, fraud, &c). Sounding like OR isn't being OR. "Researching" in this context is probably a name for "finding the RSs that say X" -- and that's what we all do. But in this instance, where the new material isnt there yet, and it seems it would show N, the equitable way to go is for ASK to recreate the article when he has the material. DGG 06:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't intend it to be ad hominem; I don't care who is making the request. The issue is that a naval officer researching something in no way makes it notable. I didn't get the impression that he was saying "I'm finding sources for it". -Amark moo! 06:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion also. Wikipedia is not a billboard for every fake wannabe pseudo-something. And the above poster's comment is not ad hominm; the original poster used a stream of irrelevant non-information as evidence of why his make-believe school should be taken seriously by an encyclopedia.
    Sys Hax 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion, but then again I'm kina feeling what DGG is saying. I'd advice Absolon S. Kent to create the page in his userspace and improve it there. Then come back with an article that you can show us would probably survive another AfD. Mathmo Talk 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and recommend continuing in user space. Want a userfied copy? Article doesn't have independent sources, so the only change I see relevant to the AFD discussion is that the college's website is live now. Given that the head of the school has changed since the AFD, there might well be new sources findable, but recreation should start from the sources. GRBerry 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review/discussion. Much of my original research into the college ("finding the RSs that say X") was contained in the article. Is there anyway to retire the information without starting from scratch to build the page in my user space? On the personnel comment note: I'm a little disappointed in the response tone in what I considered a legitimate request for review. I in no way wanted to present myself as a research expert, but instead was simply stating that I was looking for additional sources on the college. Bay Ridge Christian College is a small institution with limited funding and an interesting history to African-Americans and members of the Church of God (Anderson) movement. I was not attempting to do any free advertising for the college, but was instead trying to provide information on a top which is what I thought Wikipedia was all about.
Absolon S. Kent 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_29&oldid=1140437386"