Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 29

< June 28	Deletion review archives: 2008 June	June 30 >

29 June 2008

Commune Ango – Articles restored and AFDs reopened by deleting admin – Davewild (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article and all of the following of town/villages/settlements on the French territory of Réunion below were undergoing AfDs and so far the consensus in all of them was Keep.[1] However after somebody discussed these articles in the Village Pump, administrator Gwen Gale immediately deleted all of them, this within one day of the AfDs starts. She used the following comment as justification.

The result was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Deletion, these are all non-notable former farm and place names which by blatant error have been carried forward as village or town names by some external sources (maybe to begin with through some careless data dump having to do with the island's mail delivery). A sampling of visual inspections of these sites through Google maps clearly confirms none of these places has more than 2 or 3 families, as described in the VP thread. All of these stubs should have been deleted when the prods expired. [2][3]

Not only was this a severe violation of WP:NO ORIGINAL RSEARCH (a "sampling of visual inspections"?), but a violation of WP:PROCESS and WP:CONSENSUS. At very least, these should all be allowed to complete the AfD process where consensus will decide.

--Oakshade (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-list let consensus decide. While I'm not generally a fan of every map dot being notable, I accept that as general consensus and a quick Gsearch, which I commented at the AfD showed these places to exist. Let the community decide, if they're to be deleted let it be through discussion and not " Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commune Ango) which it certainly was not. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list—I was the person who brought these to AfD. I did not think it proper for a Village Pump decision to trump standing consensus regarding the potential notability of these places; as it stands, a decision to delete was made on the Village Pump and the admin who closed this AfD is arguing that the Village Pump thread should be honored over the current Deletion Process .. I don't particularly like the precedent that would set. As far as I could see from the Village Pump discussion, the decision to delete on Wikipedia was based on a) original research and b) prior deletion on the French Wikipedia. (see here) The self-described admin on the French Wikipedia states "You can trust me when I say that the above articles deal with places that are not even known by the local population..." One can assume good faith and trust that this person speaks the truth, but there is no reason to act counter to established norms on English Wikipedia in the "spirit of entente", as one of the involved parties states as a driver behind the deletion here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The thread at VP (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Deletion) happened six days ago, all of the prods had expired and these are not villages or towns. As also noted, the existence of these places is not disputed, but their representation as villages or towns by the cited external sources is a blatant error. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The articles were all dePROD'd one day after the initial PROD; the PROD's had not expired. They were then all re-PROD'd, which violates Deletion Process; they should have all been brought to AfD rather than being re-introduced into the PROD process. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec)Plus, if they were expired prods, as you claim, just their listing here is enough to get them undeleted. Wanna go ahead and do that? --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~With all respect, the deleted histories show you are 100% mistaken when you say "The articles were all dePROD'd one day after the initial PROD." The prods had indeed expired.~~ I see some were PRODed twice. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional articles that I did not get to before they were deleted: These should be included in a re-listing; they also were dePROD'd and rePROD'd against process - I just did not get to these before an eager hand did away with them (not bothering to look at the histories).
- Sous les Bois Noirs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Union, Réunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Verger Hemery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vue Belle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, possibly re-list. Let me get this straight: Someone from French Wikipedia cam over and said these didn't exist. The pages were put through our normal deletion process (first prod, then a listing at AFD). After 2 comments and 6 hours, the pages were speedily deleted by the admin who suggested the prod in the first place, based on "visual confirmation", and certainly not a neutral party in the discussion. Yeah, there's a problem with that. Notability of these places should be discussed and determined through process and not by admin fiat. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that's not what happened and I did not place any of the prods myself (only suggested this as an option six days ago). Since consensus clearly shows unhappiness with how this has turned out (never mind these are not villages or towns) the only helpful way I can see to handle this is to re-open the AfDs and I'm glad to do it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and possibly relist. (I also contacted the closer asking that this be reopened before I saw this DRV). My major concerns are of process. Let the AfD go 5 days rather than letting a discussion at the VP be where this is decided. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the four articles beginning with Sous les Bois Noirs which still have prods on them. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please handle those as you like, they were never AfD'd. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As they already had the prod removed once, I have removed the prod from the four articles anyone can take them to AFD if they want to. I think this DRV can be closed now unless anyone has any objections? Davewild (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As opener of this DRV, I agree with Davewild in that this now can be closed. Thank you Gwen Gale for re-opening the AfDs.--Oakshade (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Moneyfacts.co.uk – Overturn deletion. Clear case of new and relevant information being brought to light. Relisting at AfD is at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I do not accept that there was a consensus to delete this. On a strict vote-counting basis there was a small majority for deletion, but most of these votes were simple "me toos" without any analysis. Also all the comments coming after I had pointed out how much coverage there was in reliable sources were in favour of keeping, including a previous delete supporter who changed his mind Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There are several things I disagree with on the decision. Firstly there was a significant change of opinion in the AFD after new facts were added to the discussion, I doubt many of the early delete opinions saw this and indeed one who did changed his mind to a weak keep. Second the closer seems to be saying that references from non-notable websites are not acceptable for notability. If they are a reliable source it does not matter whether they are notable or not. I found these two articles giving significant coverage [4] and[5] of Moneyfacts on easier.com. Also I found this article from the Eastern Daily Press which definitely gives significant coverage to Moneyfacts. I can also point to [6] and [7]. Combined with the amount of times major news organisations use Moneyfacts as a source - shown from these I think notability is very clear and this closure should be overturned. Davewild (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, and also overturn the July 2007 speedy deletion of Moneyfacts (an article regarding the company that runs moneyfacts.co.uk), which was G11 speedied as "blatant advertising" despite being a fairly neutral statement of facts, and merge the two of them together. It's clear from the Google News search above that Moneyfacts are very frequently used as a reference by, well, every major newspaper in the UK. I think this clearly meets WP:CORP's standard of "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources .. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." --Stormie (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for the reasons Davewild mentioned. New sources in reliable sources (ignoring easier for the moment since I'm not familiar with it and don't know if it's a reliable sources) were found after the deletes and there was a definite shift in consensus after those were identified. While I wouldn't go so far as to say there was an absolute consensus to keep there was, at least, no consensus to delete. I think there is a good case for including discussion about the website in Moneyfacts, which as Stormie notes, was fairly neutral. Both would benefit from the addition (they exist, but weren't all in article) of the RS coverage and I think in the end the website article could be a re-direct to the main article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article really should be at Moneyfacts which is what the sources mainly use. Davewild (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Overturn and move as indicated. Even the closer knew his decision was doubtful. The sources are fully sufficient for a keep, not even a non-consensus. There's a difference between COI support and support from (at the AfD, 4) established Wikipedians giving reasons--that's why AfD is not a vote. DGG (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per WP:POLLS. DA PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I was waiting to see how this one was closed and am disappointed with the delete decision. I'm struggling to understand the closers rationale, by far the stronger arguments were for keeping, by comparison some of the deletes had the appearance of drive-by opinions. RMHED (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting for closing admin at his request : "DGG, I can't access the deletion review page because I'm on a silly public computer that is blocking the page for 'adult content' (low threshold for blocking pages, I think). So I can't comment on the deletion review. Would you mind putting a note on the deletion review to the effect that I welcome the review, and that what I wrote on the AfD when I closed it should serve as my reasons for my decision? - Richard Cavell (talk) DGG (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the closure seems to largely ignore the shift in opinion that came after new sources were identified. I would have preferred to see this relisted to get a better consensus regarding the article and discussion with the new information, and relisting may ultimately be the best thing to do with this article. Shereth 16:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My immediate reaction from reading the AFD is that the consensus was to delete, but given the sources and new info that showed up, overturn and relist. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist to AfD. The evidence added during the discussion is not wholely compelling to me but it does appear to have changed the tenor of the discussion from that point forward. Unfortunately, there is little evidence in this discussion that the editors who commented early returned to the discussion to reevaluate the new evidence. A second discussion will allow more editors the time to review the sources. Rossami (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin: I apologize for the fact that my ISP blocked me from contributing to this discussion earlier. The consensus here is that my decision should be overturned, and I accept this. I apologize for closing it the way that I did. I now recommend overturning my decision and relisting. A move to Moneyfacts seems in order too. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (keep or no consensus). Close was not a correct reading of consensus. Closer did not properly weight Phil Bridger's and DGG's contributions to the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Srinivasan Kalyanaraman – Restored as a contested prod – Davewild (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The article was deleted due to the reason that there was no asserion of notability. However, Google search returns 134,000 hits for Dr. S. Kalyanaraman. Book reviews of his have appeared in the esteemed The Hindu newspaper of India Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 06:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was deleted by template:prod which I believe can be overturned by any user, just ask an admin and they should undelete it for you. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

World Games 1997 – Article restored by deleting admin to create redirect from sub-stub. Nothing more to review here. The article has been substantially expanded with results. Redirect, merge or keep at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deletion was made without any clear justification or discussion. Hektor (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently working on creating series of articles about the various sports at the world games (see Sumo at the World Games for instance) and will also enrich the articles devoted to the articles themselves. I know, I am doing that slowly. But please don't cut me out by just deleting the articles without other justification than the lack of content. I think that the World Games are an IOC sanctioned event and are important subjects. Now we are in the strange situation that there are articles about all World Games editions except 1997. Thanks. Hektor (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article only said where the games were held, (which means it is probably not a good A3 speedy deletion as there was a very small amount of content), would it not be better, however, to just be a redirect to World Games where everything that was already in the article is already covered until it is going to be expanded? I would support the restoration of the history so it could be used as the basis for an article when it is to be expanded. Davewild (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire textual content of the article was "The fifth World Games were held in 1997 in Lahti, Finland". I recommend working on the article at User:Hektor/World Games 1997 and not moving it to main article space until it has some meaningful content, e.g. competition results. --Stormie (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, and add an "underconstruction" tag, which was designed for just this situation. Did not qualify for speedy as empty. Empty means no meaningful content, and it means it quite literally. DGG (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletor's comment: I've restored the article due to DGG's elucidation of {{A3}}. However, unless the article is to be immediately expanded to at least meet WP:STUB and reasonable community expectations, it should be redirected to World Games now. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly support the redirect. Tony, just go do it, se my talk page. DGG (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:Kastoria1.jpg – Informational request, deleted revisions show source was missing. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hello, can you review the history log of Image:Kastoria1.jpg deleted by East718 on 04:31, 26 March 2008. I am concerned, because it was deleted for reason of Image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days, while this same image several months before this, on 18:08, 28 October 2007, was transferred from EN WP to Bulgarian WP under GFDL with attribution to User:Makedonas, and the transfer was made by one very respected user of my community who is well aware of licenses and such stuff. I am prone to believe that he has correctly cited the license and author and I am wondering what has happened in the meanwhile between October 2007 and March 2008, so that this data was apparently lost. Thank you in advance. →Spiritia 17:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fix't nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When uploaded, the uploader specified {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. This template was later replaced project wide by {{PD-release}} in January 2007. The image page never specified who took the article, so it was later tagged with {{Di-no source}} (associated user warning {{Di-no source-notice}}. The uploader appears not to have been active between when the image was tagged and when it was deleted. GRBerry 02:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks. What does "Fix't nom" mean, by the way? :-) →Spiritia 11:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Just a clerical thing. I used the {{newdelrev}} to make all the links above show. That's it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I guess fix't is an archaic way of writing fixed. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jamie_Allen – Userfied by deleting admin. Non-admin closure. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

notability 78.105.219.85 (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followed a link to Jamie Allen's entry and was suprized to find it deleted. Seems an erroneous deletion, and lack of online references was sited as the reason? I know of these: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]

Endorse closure of AfD. There was no other way it could've been interpreted. If you'd like to create an account and create an article about Jamie, feel free, but it seems that only three of the above links are suitable to show notability ([23], [24], and [25]). The rest are either trivial mentions or unreliable (note that we don't cite other Wikipedia articles as references, and other articles cannot ever help establish notability). However, given these it looks like a decent article should be able to be written about him. If you do create an account, drop me a line on my talk page so I can point you at the relevant policies and guidelines (and explain them if you don't want to read through the entire pages, they are quite long). Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my closure, but am very willing to userfy the article for you, so that you could try and make the article meet the notability guideline (or you could just start a new article but taking care to make sure it does address the concerns raised here and using WP:Reliable sources). You would need to create an account in order for this to be done however. Also endorse Lifebaka's comments. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.