Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 15

Xavier Rhone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

He is getting more popular, and people need to know of him67.183.248.48 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion The purpose of Wikipedia is not to document "up and comers", but to document individuals who have achieved a certain level of notability. If you have such evidence, please present it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. If people need to know of him, the implication is that nobody does know of him, thus meaning he doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, due to no reason for undeletion presented. "people need to know of him" is doubtful, and even if so isn't cause for an encyclopedia article: people need to know their cholesterol level and how much gas is in their tank, too, but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia is the place for such information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. "He is getting popular, and people need to know of him" - sounds like a self-contradictory nomination. If he is getting so popular, then wouldn't people already know of him? JIP | Talk 11:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Until people know of him, we don't have an article. We are not here to help things along. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Doemain of Our Own (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Another speedy deleted webcomic by this admin

• Always, always, overturn anything which has survived an AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per survived AfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist on AFD - overturn since it survived an AfD, but relist because that AfD was nearly two years ago. It should be sent back there rather than speedied. --
  desat 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion, valid, in fact obvious, Articles-7. Nothing on
  WP:CSD says that they don't apply to articles that survived an AfD back when policy and practice were different and we were more lax about inclusion (especially with geek-friendly topics like webcomics). The previous AfD contained no arguments for inclusion, and any admin who understands policy (hopefully all of them) would have closed it as 'delete' nowadays, or have their close overturned here. We're talking about shoving an article onto AfD whose entire prose content was "A Doemain of Our Own is a webcomic by Susan Rankin, regarding the lives of an anthropomorphic deer and her friends". Sending that back to AfD because of some made-up bureaucratic process reason makes no sense. If you can write an actual article using reliable sources, nothing prevents you from doing so. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The made up bureaucratic process reason that a deletion is obviously controversial if it was kept before, yes. You can't just dismiss things by calling them bureaucratic process reasons. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• From CSD A7 "If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead" thus overturn and relist (then probably delete)--
  Doc^g 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and relist, the CSD are clear that if it's been AFD'd before, you can't speedily delete it through A7.
  ► 15:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn, and a relist shouldn't be necessary as it meets WP:WEB anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What part of
    WP:WEB does it meet, considering it makes no claims of notability and has no independent souces? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Not being able to see the article, I'm not sure what the sourcing situation was, but sourcing is not a reason for speedy deletion anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What medium is both well known and independent of the creators? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keenspot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keenspot is not in and of itself sufficient to acquire notability for all of its comics. This has been established in previous deletion discussions. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree, and
              nothing can be "established in previous deletion discussions.". WP:WEB certainly doesn't reflect that, nor did a discussion on the talk page gain consensus for such an extension. As Keenspot is "a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators" of the comic, assertions that a comic is hosted there should preclude any speedies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • I will concede you that, but not that it by definition meets
                WP:WEB. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
                ]
                • And we disagree with that. I'm basing my opinion on the guideline, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If "nothing can be established in previous deletion discussions" it follows that the deletion discussion (two years ago) is irrelevant now and the article can be speedied as an A7. >Radiant< 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Apples and oranges. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It strikes me that you're using
                    WP:CCC to argue against any precedent you disagree with, but ignore it for precedents that you happen to like. Apart from this being a fallacious approach, WP:CCC does not at all mean that precedent is irrelevant, and neither does it say so on the page. >Radiant< 10:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
                    ]
          • The problem is that there have been editors that dispute the "well-known" status of Keenspot and the ability to produce verifiable information because of it. (I'm not going to name any names, you can take a look at the
            WT:WEB archives). ColourBurst 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
            ]

  I'd like to point out that this entire back-and-forth about

  WP:WEB is largely irrelevant; the article had survived an AfD and then was speedily deleted under A7, which specifically says that it shouldn't be used in such a case. Any argument about WP:WEB should be saved for the almost eventual AfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Overturn as it already went through Afd. Anyone is welcome to relist it if they want to, though I don't think that should be a direct outcome of this review. --- RockMFR 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as per EVula. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per
  Lithorien 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Subsidairy Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|RfD

)

• Overturn, that RfD was absurd. We can't go around deleting redirects because an AfD is considered likely to delete the target. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Reasons given for deletion are complete crap. Even worse that many users repeated "per Wizardman" even though he gave an entirely invalid reason for deletion. It's obviously a likely typo. --- RockMFR 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I had to look at "Subsidairy" and "Subsidiary" a few times to spot the difference, which pretty much establishes it being a plausible typo in my mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I merged the one-liner from
  Subsidiary Alliance to Subsidiary alliance, added two references and set the redirect there. Now if someone who knows how to transwiki can initiate it we can close this request. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn I have to agree, that RfD was bizarre. JuJube 07:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]