Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 2

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

re-emphasize the notability of ASHIKA , who are about to embark on their third world tour (icluding JAPAN , AUSTRALIA, USA andEUROPE.) A member of ASHIKA (Ro Prasad) is a member of the legendary KILLING JOKE, as a DJ. These are all criterion for inclusion. It appears you have no real understanding of contemporary rock/metal and cannot realize the notability of ASHIKA. There is an article reviewing BLACK CELEBRATION festival, 7th nov 2005@ astoria theatre in London uk. where Ro Prasad represented KILLING JOKE,as a DJ. type BLACK CELEBRATON in google search. Aleishap 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed the name of the article. There was no article under ASHIKA. ~ trialsanderrors 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Is there some reason to undelete hidden in there? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I've just spent a good three minutes on google searching for different combinations of the names mentioned above, but all I get is a handful of myspace profiles. --Ezeu 01:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per all above. If there are reliable third party sources of information about this group, please feel free to mention them and I would be willing to reconsider my opinion, but based on the above, there is no reason to undelete. --BigDT 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As deleter, I deleted this per the seventh article criterion at
  Wikipedia:Notability (music), and I think there may be a misunderstanding here of what sort of a resource Wikipedia is. Hiding Talk 10:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• deleteper
  mathewguiver 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment national or international touring is a notability criterion listed on
  Verifiability is non-negotiable. I conditionally endorse deletion unless sources are provided. Xtifr _tälk 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It was speedied, visible from the lack of link to an AFD and from the deletion log. A statement about a "world tour" is in the deleted article, with no details or sources.

  GRBerry 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Ben Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Subject finished in third place in a

I am the closing admin. While it is of course not a vote, the great majority of discussants favoured deletion. The argument against deletion was WP:MUSIC. I did not find this a compelling argument compared with those for deletion. However, I am open to persuasion.--Runcorn 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: This lot satisfies the central criterion of
  The X-Factor, a programme watched by about 1/6 of the UK population, clearly satisfies sub-criterion number 8. David Mestel^(Talk) 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. He does fulfil the letter of
  reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What, you mean like the Sunday Mirror, ITV, The Sun and Sky News? David Mestel^(Talk) 09:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, AfD looks valid to me, no new information above and the guy finished third in a reality show (not a music competition). Even if it were a music competition, third would not cut it. Come back when the second album goes platinum. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Closer did not give proper weight to the arguments, as the subject met WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist in a new AFD (first choice) or overturn and restore (second choice). Even if he doesn't meet
  WP:BIO from his appearance in a well-known television production. The AFD seemed unduly influenced by the assumption that User:Benmillsonline was the subject himself. The large number of non-trivial news articles about the guy that David.Mestel mentioned above was not mentioned in the AFD and his signing a record deal with Sony was not mentioned until the very end ... so that would seem to be enough new information to justify a new AFD. --BigDT 02:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Appearance in a reality show certainly does not confer notability. The question here is: in six months time, will anybody still be writing about this person? Past consensus has been to merge to a contestants article and then allow separate articles for those who go on to achieve something notable independent of appearing on the show. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This, however, is different to most reality shows, in that it is also a music competition, not just a "whether people like you as a person" competition. David Mestel^(Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the
  Cardiff Singer of the World. Do the runners-up in those get articles if they don't then go on to sign major deals? Most of the winners of the Guildhall gold medal don't have articles, and that is far more prestigious. Those who do include Jacqueline du Pré and Bryn Terfel. Third place in a reality show-cum-talent contest? I don't think so. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Um... they probably don't have articles because no-one's written any, not because they don't deserve them. David Mestel^(Talk) 09:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn per David Mestel, this person is the subject of many reliable news stories. They easily meet
  mathewguiver 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Uphold closure This is an attempt to re-run the AfD. The question is whether the closer came to a rational conclusion. The answer that any reasonable person would reach is yes.--Londoneye 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have responded to parts of this argument on the user's talk page. Eludium-q36 09:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per Guy.--R613vlu 12:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Guy is correct; one would have to be the winner of this quasi-competition to merit serious consideration of meeting
  WP:BIO. Certainly the closing admin made a reasonable determination under policy, and I don't see that anything new forces a change or a relist. Barno 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment One argument above suggests that subject meets
  WP:MUSIC about this criterion, so that we are not faced with similar confusion in the future.Eludium-q36 09:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Imamate: The Vicegerency of the Prophet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Book by notable author, speedy deleted stating that notability was not established, while Wikipedia:Notability (books) gives "The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer." as a criteria for notability. This does not deserve a speedy. --Striver - talk 19:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore to review G11 speedy -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i agree, G11 says "Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."--Striver - talk 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content was, in its entirety: Imamate: The Vicegerency of the Prophet [s] is a book by

WP:WEB. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

A simple google search will give a lots of hits confirming that the book is real and writen by the author, if one would suspect that al-Islam is making up books and attributing them to scholars... and even if that was the case, they would need have the site making the picture to be their co-conspirers in making fake books attributed to known scholars. But on the other hand, maybe you don't didn't mean that Al-Islams notability is relevant here... actually, i dont get your point, are disputing that the author wrote the book? --Striver - talk 00:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May we have an ISBN for it, please? If it is not notable enough to have an ISBN, then how can it be notable enough for Wikipedia? And as for the "notable" author of the book, Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi only has a stub article because Striver (talk · contribs) created it on 2006-12-02, and today they removed the tag {{subst:prod|This article lacks Reliable Sources to meet Notability (people) -- see talk page.}} from that article without any comments or improvements.

I accuse this editor of attempting to bootstrap

WP:BIO based on what's in their stubs. --72.75.84.93 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I dont get it. Are you arguing that wikipedia should not have an article about Shi'a books if large Shi'a site view them as notable enough to include them online? Or are you arguing that the articles should not link to online versions, since it would bolster that sites page rank? Isn't actually building an encyclopedia supposed to be the priority? I have so far not understand your problem with me, i create many articles on scholars and their work, and that is somehow a problem? Or is the problem that i source to Shi'a sites? I mean, cmon, give me a Shi'a site that is more notable than al-Islam.org or Rafed.net and i will use that as a source, what is your problem? --Striver - talk 03:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It rather depends on the bar to publication. Christian books are a dime a dozen and the vast majority are sold in relatively small numbers only through the web or specialist booksellers. An ISBN is a good start to finding out how important the book is. The "article" did not make any claim of notability whatsoever, nothign,l for example, about circulation or anythign else. Your articles on the books republished on Al-Islam.org have the appearance of a walled garden, each asserting notability by reference to others whose notability rests in turn on the original. How about, instead of arguing over a one-sentence substub, writing an article which actually makes some substantive claim of notability? Guy (Help!) 10:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse without prejudice to creation of an actual article, if sufficient reliabel independent sources of critical review can be assembled to write one. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as valid stub. Not a G11, not an A7, not a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. G11 does not apply, stubbiness isn't a reason for deletion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice to creation of an actual article. History shows a sub-stub created on December 1, with no futher edits until the deletion nominations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And I'm not Wikistalking you, User:Striver. I found this on DRV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An ISBN or similar listing/numbering is not necessarily a guarantee that a book exists and certainly not a guarantee that it is notable. No opinion on this particular case. Bwithh 04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite true, but the lack of an ISBN is a strong suggestion of non-notability which is, I think, the point here. Eluchil404 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a ISNB is a first step, sure, but we already have the last step: its from a notable author. Anyhow, this is not a afd, this is a drw contensting a speedy deletion. --Striver - talk 17:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion (but per
  WP:CSD A1 rather than A7 or G11) - this was not a stub. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn per Amarkov and nom (me) --Striver - talk 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denton Bible Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article did not get due process in my opinion as it was put up for nomination quickly after the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayside Community Church mass-nomination in which a lot of people responded keep all and it only got two votes in its nomination afterwards which I feel does not reflect a consensus. New information being brought to light is it's reported attendance of 5300, this site [http: //www.hscripts.com/tools/HLPC/index.php] reporting the official site has 3528 links accross the web which is the highest of the deleted stubs from the mass-nomination, and other information I added when I tried to restore it. I improved it at User:Jorfer/Sandbox5 from the google cache.--JEF 17:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This was accidentally listed in the December 27 log. I'm moving this here. ~ trialsanderrors 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion "one of the largest churches" in a small city and a famous pastor without his own article are not valid claims of notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, lack of impartial external sources not addressed here or at AfD. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Reliable sources? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - valid AFD with no new information. Virtually all churches will get plenty of g-hits simply because there are lots and lots of websites that index churches ... but those are trivial references, not meaningful ones. Size itself isn't really a meaningful criterion for notability. If there aren't any non-trivial and non-self-published sources of information, we don't really need an article on the church or anything else. Wikipedia is not a phone directory. --BigDT 00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the closing admin. I stand by the deletion in terms of process being followed, though I suggest that the article be merged to Denton, Texas. If it is indeed the "largest church of a small city" then it deserves mention there, and that article isn't too long to talk about religion in the city. If a redirect is created then an uncontroversial history undelete can be performed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 00:55Z
• Comment the deletion is OK (although relisting would be better) but since the deletion was basically on grounds of verifiability, then if you can provide independent verification there is nothing to stop a recreation. If the article is too short, or deemed 'not notable' it can be merged. No need for this review.--
  Doc^g 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Independent verification of what? That the church is one of the biggest in Denton? That it has a pastor? That's not notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it can be verified that it is one of the biggest in Denton, that would be fairly notable. But that aside, if we have verifiable neutral information that doesn't merit an article then merge it.--
      Doc^g 23:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Master Exploder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article was deleted again after previously under Deletion review on December 20. The result was to restore history and redirect to The Pick of Destiny. Why was it deleted again? Milchama 17:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like someone used the history restore to recreate the article with assorted trivia crap. Redirect recreated, edit history stays in the vault this time. ~ trialsanderrors 18:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anal stretching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

I normally wouldn't contend this kind of decision, but I'm having a couple of problems with it. It was nominated for AfD by User:SamKinney with the justification: "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide nor is it a dictionary. Nothing within this article is actually referenced and the bunch of external links at the bottom are not valid citations so I say delete this and salt the earth.". The article is encyclopaedic. Even if it were not the case, the subject has the capacity to be encyclopaedic. The rest of the justification is concerned with referencing: deletion seems like a rather destructive way of dealing with a lack of references. The article now seems to have been protected from recreation so even if I wished to create a fully referenced encyclopaedic article, I can't (being an administrator I could, but I won't). The subject of the article is notable (375k Google hits, several mentions in scientific journals), it is verifiable and referencable (the journals). I hope to have this article recreated so that the community can deal with it in a constructive manner. Oldak Quill 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You can create an article in user space at User:OldakQuill/Anal stretching and offer it for review here. ~ trialsanderrors 18:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jediism (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

This talk page was summarily

• If the RfD results in a keep, restore as a talk page that is no longer orphaned. If it results in delete, keep deleted for the opposite reason. I don't think this really needs a separate DRV until the RfD concludes. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even assuming the outcome of the RfD is to delete, Philwelch wants the talk page to be protected, but there is no reason for it. —Centrx→talk • 17:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure if this is the reason. The talk page may have been protected because the article was deleted a a copywight violation. of this site [[5]]. Pleae look at the deletion log if you wish for confirmation. --67.71.79.225 06:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete regardless of the outcome of the RfD. Unless there has been actual and substantial trolling on the page, preemptively deleting it serves no purpose. BigDT 13:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - definitely if RfD reinstates the redirect, more hesitantly otherwise. I do not understand the deleting/protecting admin's reasoning here. Of course, as a non-admin I am relying on the nominator's indication that there is nothing in the deleted edit history that would militate strongly for another outcome. Newyorkbrad 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The grand total of edits to this talk page are two edits from August. The first edit is, roughly, 'Don't redirect to Jedi census phenomenon!!! This is a real religion!!!' and the second edit is "Sources?" —Centrx→talk • 09:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok ... some of us don't have the benefit of being able to see the history. But what is wrong with that talk page that justifies deletion or protection? Even if the discussion isn't meaningful, there's no reason to cut off potential meaningful discussion on the appropriateness of either an article or a redirect by this name. If that is the only content on the talk page, I guess nothing is lost by deleting it, but I don't see a justification for protecting it. --BigDT 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, there is no justification for it. —Centrx→talk • 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, absolutely no reason to SALT this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. Waiting for the rfd to end is not needed - the page should be restored prior to that, and then deleted depending on the rfd result. There is absolutely no reason why that page should have been salted. --- RockMFR 05:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore For all the reasons above. Dionyseus 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, both of my wikistalkers showed up for this one. Philwelch 07:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore per above...
  Addhoc 01:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Tara Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Tara has made a significant contribution to the field of marketing with her writings and organizing efforts carrying forth the ideas laid out in the influential Cluetrain Manifesto. Her primary work with the Pinko Marketing community is widely cited as providing a new vocabulary and understanding of online marketing whose ideas are widely cited as underlying much of modern marketing. Factoryjoe 07:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some references to multiple, independent, published works about Tara Hunt? If not, then there's no hope of getting the deletion overturned. —Psychonaut 12:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few, some of which were already on the page:

• SF Tech Chronicles - July 7th, 2006
• SF CHRONICLE: The people who populate Web 2.0 - November 5th, 2006
• Registration is open for the Emerging Technology Conference 2007 - December 21, 2006

Other folks might be able to add more. — Factoryjoe 18:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy overturn, contested prod, I'm going to go laugh at the AfD mentioned in that first entry now. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion if the above sources are it. Two passing mentions and an advert. Article was a valid A7 (and riddled with spammy links to boot). Guy (Help!) 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per above.--Beaker342 05:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The Google-test alone provides 111,000 results for <+"Tara Hunt" +marketing>. Notability is one thing, but the general mood of "I haven't heard of it, so it's not notable, verifiable, and besides it's silly" ruling WP these days is eventually going to make me turn to Uncyclopedia when I want any kind of info. It's that bad. --193.161.89.16 08:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• deleting admin here; amarkov is right, it was prodded. I'll take this drv as reasonable request to undelete (imho, the article would have been a speedy candidate)...but I won't take any action. I've informed the prodder. Lectonar 15:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close as an already restored contested prod. Eluchil404 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized Bicycle Components (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I started this article as

• Comment from the deletion logs, it seems like that it was speedied multiple times for G11, which means it was advertising. The best way to rectify this is to write from
  reliable sources. ColourBurst 16:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for your advice, ColourBurst. Based on the admins' comments, it looks to me like the page might have replaced with an advert for Specialized. In the state I left it, it was just a stub, but it was at least original content, and didn't rave about the bikes' quality. Twinxor t 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should have asked before commencing a DRV. I have undeleted a dozen or so old pre-spam revisions. Please add references on how this business meets
      crztalk 21:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Wow, I looked at the title of this article and thought it was about some small brake and gear shift shop. Specialized is one of the biggest American bike manufacturers, there is no question they meet
  WP:CORP. They're supplying Tour de France teams for crying out loud. It's only sad to see how little attention even unquestionably notable articles get that this could turn into a corporate ad. OK to close this? ~ trialsanderrors 05:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yeah, it was a mistake because the article was replaced with ad copy. Twinxor t 06:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll undelete Specialized Bicycles as well, since that is unambiguously significant (I am a cyclist, I know dat!). Guy (Help!) 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close. Restored by deleting admin after concerns addressed. I think we're done here. Eluchil404 09:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Ramah in the Berkshires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Originally was deleted because a camper created the page and posted nonsense, causing the page to be deleted in protection from re-creation. The same thing may happen to an alias of the camp,

• Please make a copy of the article you would like to create on the camp in a subpage of your user space (such as here -
  ► 09:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Mexican Folkloric Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Henry A. Roa I made a mistake by listing an incorrect source for Mexican Folkloric dance. I should not have shown that it was from www.mexfoldanco.org. It was not. It was my own words. Please help me correct this because there is nothing on your site on Mexican Folkloric dance and I think that my input is important. --Mexfolroa 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Henry A. Roa [email protected][reply]

• This article was signed by the editor, but I don't see anything nearing spam or evidence for copyvio:

  "Mexican Folkloric Dance developed over five centuries from the pre-Columbian, the Spanish conquest, the French Intervention which included an Austrian influence, the Porfiriato, and the 1910 Revolution to the modern. The fusion of all these influences with the indigenous created over 300 dance styles, within the thirty-two Mexican states, that are now just "Mexican" and unique. Mexfolroa 05:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Henry A. Roa [email protected]"[reply]

  I thought we might already have an article on Mexican folk dance, but the only thing I could find is this:

  Baile Folklorico. ~ trialsanderrors 09:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I deleted it because of this revision where it states "From The Mexican Folkloric Dance Company of Chicago, www.mexfoldanco.org. I'll remove the protection from the page so that the article can be recreated.
  Naconkantari 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The deletion seems to be based upon the criteria that the LudumDare.com website is not notable. The LudumDare is an event rather than a website. The competition itself has occured 8 times, The fact that the competitiion occured twice while the LudumDare.com website was unavailable distinguishes the two clearly and dmonstrates that the event is notable in it's own right. The Ludumdare is one of a class of peronal challenge competitions that includes the

• Overturn and relist, I'm not convinced it got enough discussion. Anyway, a little late, aren't we? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reliable sources for the claims of notability? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well first of all, is it agreed that if the competition is as I say then it is notable (that is, the event has occured 8 times with over 60 competitors completing games in the most recent competition, larger numbers for entrants who drop out of course.) , then I can look at hunting down some sources to confirm that.

No, that's not even close. My school's homecoming game has occured at least 36 times with 60 competitors, yet it most definitely is not notable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think playing an instance of a game is somewhat less notable than the creation of a game, and it seems disingenuous to suggest that an instance of a team event can be counted on the same basis. In actuality there are only two teams competing. Never mind that though, Rather than poking holes in your comparison, I'd rather get to the matter at hand. Here's what I know of the Ludum Dare. It's a competition amongst programmers where they develop en entire computer game from scratch in a 48 hour period. It has been held a reasonable number of times, Given the difficulty of the challenge and the number of finishers, I think it can be considered worthy of note, but in terms of wikipedia noteworthyness it seems it might be difficult to find sources, although it gets talked about quite a bit I haven't yet managed to find something that would be a good source. I think it is noteworthy so I'll keep half an eye open to see if someone writes about it. Having said that I do still think that the deletion criteria was incorrect, it may meet another deletion criteria, but not the one that did it in.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 03:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, but I am troubled by the apparent conflict of interest - most of the edits appear to be bny User:Allefant (see [6]). Guy (Help!) 10:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, I've seen coverage of this on Slashdot and other tech news sites, so I'd imagine there are sources out there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I imagine there are sources out there" is not a
    reliable source. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Linux.org.ru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Speedy deleted with no explanation. Google for "slashdot.org" returns 1,320,000 results. Google for "linux.org.ru" returns 568,000 results. Considering the number of people that speak English and the number of people that speak Russian, one may make a reasonable conclusion that the popularity of Linux.org.ru is at least as high as that of slashdot. Now why the article about one site is kept and about the other one is deleted? MureninC 01:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist - hang on, it's never been listed. Google-hits aside, any discussion over its content or notability should be taking place in a proper AfD. I don't see what speedy-delete criteria was used here. Quack 688 02:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list From the deleted history, it had an A7 tag on it. I see the following claims to notability: "the most visited Russian website about Linux, BSD and other Unix-like operating systems and their userland", "LOR is so famous in RuNET because of so known 'Spirit of LOR'." I see no sourcing satisfying
  GRBerry 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and list. I deleted this on the basic that it did not show notability, and seemed semi-obsolete. To quote form the article the majority of it is rather outdated. The infamous poll on the main page has not been changed for almost 3 years, and now it is present mainly for historical reasons. However, in the light of the comments above, i have no objection to listing for AfD. Jimfbleak.talk.07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AFD - shouldn't have been speedied as notability is asserted.
  ► 09:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and AfD per above. Suggest speedy close as deleter has voted overturn and there is no support for endorsing speedy deletion. Eluchil404 14:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]