Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2007 June 25
2007 June 27 >


26 June 2007

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

Deleted as "blatant advertising" instead of being reverted to a neutral version, one of which can still be found in the google cache [1]

Kappa 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • jaxtr – Deletion endorsed – pgk 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jaxtr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

now have a better understanding of necessity to reference everything in posting, would like to have the opportunity to create a new page from scratch which is strictly informational, not advertising Comet111 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that you create a new version in your userspace first and then bring it for us to review. We can unprotect the page if we agree that the new article meets
Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Friendbot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This should be undeleted, as it now sites its sources. James3uk 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Powerspace – Unsalt and history merge with userspace version. Someone should check if that image on commons is actually free use though, because its licence and source information looks rather dubious. – IronGargoyle 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Powerspace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

deleted six times and protected in January 2007. The band is now releasing an album on notable label

Chubbles 18:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
InspIRCd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted without consensus reached. Also article rewritten within Afd timeframe for notability but did not receive any new reviews after the article was rewritten. Should be undeleted and at minimum relisted for consensus to be reached. 83.88.224.53 11:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Australian soccer players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Category:Australian football (soccer) players was renamed yesterday. This action happened without any imput from the Australian football community on wikipedia. I am requesting this decision be reversed. Players, fans, clubs and parts of the media refer to the sport as Football. User:Shalom started the process and he has said here :

I'm sorry that I failed to get the word out regarding the CFD. I don't do many CFDs, so I'm not familiar with the need to tell everyone. My main line of work is AFD, where this is generally not necessary because users who care about an article will usually see it on their watchlist. I have no opinion on the debate anymore. Feel free to decide things without me. Best regards. Shalom Hello 05:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tancred 11:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is also currently nominated for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 26. I suggest closing the WP:CFD discussion and simply redirecting all debate to this page instead. Dr. Submillimeter 11:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closed as a procedural speedy keep, sent everyone over here. Daniel 11:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Although I suspect that many people will say 'CfD valid, endorse move', and I would normally be one of them, I must protest on this occasion. Wikipedia has come to the compromise to call the sport
    A-League) uses 'football', including in their motto 'It's football, but not as you know it' (see also here), and Wikipedia's naming conventions on Australian football/soccer topics is to use 'football (soccer)'. I wasn't aware of this debate, and wouldn't have even known about this DRV if I hadn't have followed a link to a DRV above this from Riana's talk page, and I ask that the move be reversed and the CfD reopened. There's six years of site-wide consensus which is being over-ruled here. I won't say that the category should be at 'Australian football players', because I acknowledge that there are half the population who call it 'Soccer', but I ask that the other half be respected, as they have been on Wikipedia through this long-standing compromise, and that it be called 'Football (soccer) players'. Daniel 11:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • [Relist] Agree with Tancred. A hasty, bureaucratic decision, made wiithout any consultation to relevant editors. Blackmissionary 11:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Daniel. Riana (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closing admin, on a technical, DRV-based standpoint, I must endorse the closing, as there was nothing wrong with it. However, I wouldn't be upset if it were relisted to let the football/soccer people weigh in. --Kbdank71 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if DRV has jurisdiction on renamed things, so I won't be making a bolded "vote". However I see no harm in inviting additional comment and gathering more complete consensus, whether on a formal relist or on the talk page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist taking jurisdiction under IAR, first time i've said that. The change can obviously be undone by another request at CfD but there seems to be a general concern: the obscurity of CfD (and RfD and MfD) is a problem, and there has to be a better effort at notifying those concerned. DGG 16:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The procedures were correctly applied. It is not desirable to have more input from Australian soccer fans, as they are a biased minority within Australia, seeking to promote their sport making a claim to primary use of the word "Football" which is dismissed by the vast majority of Australian sports fans. This is a perfect example of a discussion where utilising more so called expert knowledge could lead to a biased POV outcome. If this is relisted, it should also be brought to the attention of Australian rules football, rugby league football and rugby union football fans. Alex Middleton 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no problem with it being relisted and notified amongst the followers of the other codes. I happen to be one of them. It is not wise to try and put people in boxes. The key issue here for me is not petty point scoring, after all i follow both aussie rule and soccer equally. The key issue is that there has been months of negotiation between the various relevant projects/editors that has been utterly diregarded. Blackmissionary 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is wiser to take counter action in such cases than to be willfully blind to bias, and thus allow groups of biased people to have unfettered control over any aspect of Wikipedia to which they choose to turn their attention. Alex Middleton 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. This seems to be an obvious case where consensus might not have been represented completely by those at the discussion. No harm in letting it run again. --- RockMFR 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Even though process was followed, the fact that the Australian football/soccer project wasn't notified meant that opinions were coming from those who were apparently not privvy to the previous debates (big list here). It's taken a lot of time and effort, and "football (soccer)" is clearly a compromise between the two, it's not ambiguous and it follows the WP standard for the name of the article itself. I have no problem with the RL/AFL/RU projects being informed, but it should be made clear that there should be no bias towards "leaving things as they are" because the way things are at the moment is different to what they were a couple of days ago, and for months (without complaint) before then. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 23:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Process was fine, but another discussion seems likely to get a different result, so let's put it up again.--Mike Selinker 03:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have relisted the debate Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_27#Category:Australian_soccer_players Tancred 08:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It would have been appropriate to wait for this discussion to close first before relisting. Having two discussions in one place is confusing. Moreover, as this discussion has been open for only one day, people have not been given adequate time to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 08:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Correct procedure, correct result. Nothing further to discuss. Postlebury 13:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've closed the other discussion. We certainly don't want to have two going on at once. -- Prove It (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone please add a link to the discussion under review at the top here. Thanks. Johnbod 02:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Make-Up.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Make-Up.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Administrator

WP:CSD. An archive of the discussion (or lack thereof) can be found here. Drewcifer3000 08:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The Image, in lower resolution, exists here: Image:Makeup.jpg. It's redundant, and larger than the dupe, which is a valid reason. There is no need for a second. Fair use is restrictive, and we cannot have as many different versions of random copyrighted images hanging about to meet pathetic aesthetic whims. You people should be damned lucky that we even allow fair use in the first place - this is the Free Encyclopedia, after all, not the Encyclopedia where we rip off images as we see fit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid hashing out the discussion here, I would first point out that I completely agree with most of what Jeffrey said above. However I have previously responded to this exact line of reasoning here (3rd bullet point midway down). I believe Jeffrey's line of reasoning, and Wikipedia policy, dictates deletion of the other derivative image more so than the original which was instead deleted. Drewcifer3000 09:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of which image here is the right one to delete, it's a replaceable fair use image. The people in question are still alive, and in general we do not accept copyrighted media for such people since it is reasonable that a free licensed equivalent either is available or can be created. I've tagged the remaining image as such, and notified the uploaders. --Durin 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience with Fair Use, specifically the first criteria, if a picture is of a group (rather than a single individual) then the important factor is whether or not the group is still active. In other words, is it a realistic (or even remotely hypothetical) possibility that these four people would ever gather together and be photographed as the same group. Unfortunately the Fair Use criteria does not specifically mention this, but it seems like a reasonable conclusion to come to that the band will never be photographed as a band again, since the band has dissolved and everyone has moved on. Even if the members were gathered together, which I suppose is realistically possible since they are all still alive, they would not be "The Make-Up" since "The Make-Up" has long since dissolved and the members are parts of other bands now. I checked a few archives of WP:FUC Talk Page and couldn't find any discussions related to this, but perhaps this might be a question better suited to the policy itself rather than this one image. Drewcifer3000 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting point. I do think though that the policy still applies, as the band members are all alive. It would be possible, for example, to take individual pictures and montage them. --Durin 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it this way: in the same way that a fair use image of an individual is replaceable if a person is still alive, a fair use image of a group is also replaceable if the group is "alive." Since the Make-Up is, for all intents and purposes "dead" it is unrealistic to assume it is replaceable.
As for the montage idea, that would also seem insufficient to me since it would depict the people who were part of the Make-Up but not the Make-Up themselves. If that makes sense. But, the same concept could be applied to an individual. If an individual is "dead" might it be possible to create a montage of fair use images to represent them and their physical features? Take
WP:FUC
, we must treat media of individuals and groups under similar criteria, since there is no clear distinction made.
Finally, you might think of an image of a defunct band as a historical document. The band existed from 1995-2000, and the image represents the band within that time frame. Any article concerning a defunct band could similarly be considered a historical document, as opposed to a document about a current event. Therefore, a historical article would require a similarly historical image.
But, like I said above, perhaps this might be a discussion better suited to
WP:FUC talk page rather than this one isolated image? Drewcifer3000 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BatchMaster Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

BatchMaster Software is the leader as far as formula/recipe based process manufacturers are concerned. There are many companies listed in the 'List of Software Companies' that are less notable than BSI.

I admit that I am guilty of placing our article on Wikipedia repeatedly, but I was making changes to the article every time based on the comments on the talk page or the primary cause of deletion. I honestly believe that considering the position of BatchMaster ERP in the world of process manufacturing, having an article on BSI is justified. Rahulkhare 06:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted as promotional; I am willing to unprotect the page to allow somebody else to write a new article about the company (the deletion discussion/vote was more about the article than about the company); but Rahulkhare, please don't re-post your version of the article. - Mike Rosoft 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will completely re-write the article. A humble request to please unprotect the page. My assurances that my version of the page will never see light again. Rahulkhare 08:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, I really appreciate this. Will do as you've suggested. It might take me upto a week to create a new page. Will this thread be active until then, so that I may place my request to the editors once again? As you may have noticed, I am fairly new at this. Do you think If I removed the company infobox from the original page, it will be less offensive? Rahulkhare 04:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the subpage as suggested by Mike User:Rahulkhare/BatchMaster Software. Please provide your feedbacks if any changes are desired. I am prepared to make any change as required, but humbly request the editors to give specific suggestions for improvement. Please let me know the next step in the process. Rahulkhare 10:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please advise on the next step in the process of re-inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. Rahulkhare 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI: I am eagerly waiting for instructions for the course of action. How do I attract the attention of editors to view my sample article so that it may be included as a real article. Rahulkhare 12:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wishtank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Why did this page get deleted as if it were "blatant advertising?" This makes very little sense considering it was three sentences long, one giving the title and web location of the magazine, a second stating when the publication was born and a third naming the two parties who founded the publication. I feel like a disservice to the wikipedia community has been made here and ask that it is corrected. Wishtank isn't even a commercial magazine, it is run by volunteers and sells absolutely nothing. What would this wikipedia entry be blatantly advertising? Garrettheaney 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion TwiceThree times speedied as advert, and reading the article I can't say I disagree. Would never ever ever ever pass an Afd vote anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is it about the article that you consider and advertisement? The information and language are unbiased and straight forward. It makes little sense to me why anyone would find the article inappropriate for wikipedia. How does the short Wishtank entry differ in form from any other wikipedia entry giving information on a magazine or resource? Wishtank is a voluntary service and doesn't monetize in any form — this claim of "blatant advertising" is simply untrue.

  • Just because it doesn't say "BIG SALE!!!" or "AMAZING OFFER!!" at the top doesn't mean it isn't blatant advertising. It's an article about a brand-new (less than a month old) website, obviously created by the operator of said website. How else are we supposed to see it? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could see it for what it is, an entry holding basic, unbiased information on a magazine. Is there a policy regarding the length of time a publication has to be in circulation before it becomes a valid source for wikipedia? I was not aware of any such policy, and if there is, I sincerely apologize. It's actually funny, that you noticed a third attempt of the wishtank entry, and you inaccurately describe that as an "advert" deletion. The reason given for the third deletion was that it didn't do enough to "sell" the magazine as an important source. This seems contradictory, considering you are here saying that that sort of "advertising" is not permittable. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you do in keeping Wikipedia free from advertisement, but any reasonable person would see that the entry made for Wishtank is purely informational, without any of the "blatant advertising" you site in your deletion and endorsement of deletion. You are providing a disservice to the Wikipedia community and wrongfully censoring information. But I digress, you have the authority to do so and it is done. It's just disheartening from my perspective to see an objective, informational entry be labeled "blatant advertising." Go look at other magazine entries on wikipedia and tell me how they differ (other than their duration on the news stand, which again, I wasn't aware was a qualifying factor).

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Lying Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted as

WP:DP#Deletion review which says "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." But having undelted, I find that it was in mid-afd (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lying Game), which discussion was speedy closed by the speedy deletion. I want some support in undoing this close, and reactivating the AfD. DES (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
X-sample (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

This was deleted with the log comment "CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance (emphasis added by me). Now of course A7 does not extend to "subjects" in general, and this is an article about a pseudonym. Furthermore, even if A7 extended to such articles, the assertion that this pseudonym was used by the very notable Eric Clapton is IMO at least a claim of notability. Now at an AfD, this might well be merged into Eric Clapton, or perhaps even deleted. Or it might be kept and improved. Overturn as improperly speedy-deleted. DES (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Liam Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under

Patent nonsense). It is clearly not patent nonsense -- i have no trouble understanding what the article says and means. (Note that PN is limited to content that "is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.") Liam Hunt is an article about a fictional character. The character might be non-notable, and too much of the article is written in an in-universe style, and there is too little real-world context. Those are all things that could be fixed, or if judged non-fixable, might lead to deletion at an AfD. But none of them, IMO, is a good reason for a speedy deletion. Overturn so that other editors have a chance to improve the article and, if need be, debate its deletion. The deleting admin has been asked to consider undeleting this, and has not responded, although he has responded to later msgs on his talk page. DES (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep deleted, it's one in a series of hoax articles started by a vandal-only account. Yes, it's not patent nonsense, but undeleting it and speedy deleting it later as a g3 would be stupid. - Bobet 08:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - user indefblocked --After Midnight 0001 13:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Obvious hoax/vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax/nonsense related to speedily deleted article Nathan Bragg, see VfD. Keep deleted. - Mike Rosoft 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kim Amidon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted this under

WP:CSD#A7 (No assertion of significance or importance). I think that the text "She and Wallengren both received together a "star" on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for their work on the radio." in the article constitutes an assertion of significance sufficent that it should not be deleted via A7. Whether it would/will survive an AfD is of course another matter. The deleting admin has been asked to reconsider, avd has made no response, although he has responded to later msgs on his talk page. Overturn as invalid A7 speedy delete. DES (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • 23andMe – Undelete endorsed, can be AFDd if anyone wants to... – pgk 13:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
23andMe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

notable but speedy deleted with 150K Ghits, deleted without review. There should be a stub there, this never should have been speedied without review. Please check again under the capitalized spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

  • This was speedy closed as "never anything there to begin with", but there was an article at
    desat 04:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Yes, but when Google invests in a company it gets "multiple, non trivial coverage" which makes it notable. 150K Google hits and stories in Forbes, New York Times and CNN. How does that get a speedy delete without review? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, list at AfD optional. I wouldn't say that Google investing in a company gives it a free pass and a guaranteed article, but I do think it pushes it out of speedy-deletion territory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn improper deletion. For a stub, this was even referenced. A biotech company that gets a multi-million investment from google may not turn out to pass
    WP:CORP. But I think it has enough chance of being notable, just on those facts, that it shouldn't be speedy delted, particualrly not as an A7, but should insted be put though an AfD if soemone thinks it ought to be deleted -- and I'd make a small wager on it surviving AfD. DES (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • overturn per DES. JoshuaZ 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn it needed a bit of help, but a quick search shows some good things to cite, a couple news hits in the last month, etc. Sparse articles should be improved, not deleted. --Thespian 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its a
    Catch 22. I don't want to invest a lot of time in an article that may be deleted, but then people delete it anyway saying its only a stub. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Question: can we see the history here? I'm inclined to say endorse without prejudice against a good re-creation, but some of the comments above make me wonder if it was really as bad as most of these cases usually are. Xtifr tälk 05:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Undeleted so you can see what the article was like previously. I don't think it was even too bad, I sure wouldn't have speedied it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since it was undeleted, and Andrew didn't see fit to use {{
    Tempundelete}}, I have edited this, adding some content and several references, in the way that I might have done had this been listed on AfD. I think these help make the notability of the subject clearer, and there are more out there, lots more. Do a google search on "23andMe". DES (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn/keep undeleted per
    WP:IAR (if nothing else): DES's improvements were arguably out-of-process, but I'm not a policy wonk, and the result is good enough that a speedy is no longer justifiable (assuming it ever was). Listing optional, since I'm only here to judge the deletion, not the article. Xtifr tälk 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Jennifer_Ann_Crecente – Relist at AfD. No objection from the closing admin. – IronGargoyle 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jennifer_Ann_Crecente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

"deleted this article as a recreation."

Overturn

This article has a notable subject that has, amongst other things, been responsible for two legislative changes in Texas as a result of her murder - one of which is named for her.

Follows is the somewhat lengthy precursor to this "speedy delete."

Yes it's me, the anon user who nominated Brian Crecente for deletion. I was debating on nominating her (ed. note: referring to Jennifer Ann Crecete) article as well, but I figured since you added alot to it, I would run it by you first. I feel neither her article or the charity are really notable so I've been thinking about a possible merge of her article and the charity based on her, what are your thoughts? I know you are probably angry about the comments I made in the Brian Crecente afd, so I don't expect your words to be sugar coated. Please speak your mind.64.231.250.116 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still consulting with a few other users about the pages we are questioning, we are currently looking for sources. Going to give it another week or two and then a possible rewrite or afd will be dealt. 64.231.250.169 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted this article as a recreation. I saw that you used the legislation as a justification for moving it back out of User space, but I do not agree that that is enough to overcome the reasoning given at the AFD debate. At this point, as I'm pretty sure you will disagree with my actions, I encourage you to contest this at WP:DRV. Deletion Review is the proper place to try to overturn AFD deletions if the circustances have changed. - [User:TexasAndroid] 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Drew30319 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Was the article that was moved from Userspace to Mainspace relatively unaltered? If so, then Endorse as recreation of previously deleted material. The entire point of userfying is to allow folks to improve the article first and make sure it is up to Wikipedia's standards before moving it back to mainspace. -- Kesh 04:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here are the two pieces of legislation added to the userfied article. Both were entered into legislation and then passed as law since userfying the article. The first legislation requires every school district within Texas to adopt policies regarding Teen Dating Violence. The second legislation (called "Jennifer's Law") is to award posthumous diplomas. Refer to the deleted article to follow the relevant references and are fully cited in newspapers.
  • On February 5, 2007, the Texas Legislature's State Representative Dawnna Dukes entered a bill to require school districts in Texas to create policies regarding Teen Dating Violence. This bill was created in memory of Jennifer Ann Crecente[13] and Ortralla Mosley.[14] Jennifer Ann's Group provided testimony on February 8, 2007 to the legislature in support of this bill. Governor Rick Perry signed the bill into law on May 18, 2007 and it immediately went into effect. [15]
  • On February 15, 2007, on the the one-year anniversary of Jennifer's murder, Senator Eliot Shapleigh entered a bill to grant posthumous diplomas to students that have been murdered during their Senior year of high school. The bill is named "Jennifer's Law".[16] On May 28, 2007 the bill was signed in the Senate and passed to the Governor Rick Perry for signing. It will go into effect upon being signed or September 1, 2007, whichever occurs first. [17]

Drew30319 14:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse AFD For the sake of this discussion, I have placed back in Drew30319's user space both a copy of the version that was originally deleted by AFD, and the version that I deleted as a recreation. As far as I can see, the main thing that has changed since the original AFD is that the Texas legislature acted in the just finished session to pass some Teen Violence legislation that has emerged from the murder. But I just do not see that as being enough to fulfill notability, sorry. So I have to stay on the side of endorsing the AFD at this point. - TexasAndroid 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist at AfD - The article has changed enough to not be a direct recreation of the original, and Drew30319 has gone to the effort to cite the article well. However, I agree with TexasAndroid that the subject is likely not notable enough outside her local area to have a Wikipedia article. There's enough of an assertion in the rewritten article, though, that I think it deserves another shot at AfD to reach a consensus. The issue for DRV is, did this qualify as a simple repost of previously deleted material? I believe the content has changed & improved enough that this is not the case, so deleting as such does not appear correct. Given the notability issue, though, it should go through another AfD process. If the AfD again shows she is not notable enough, it should remain deleted. -- Kesh 16:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On February 5, 2007, the Texas Legislature's State Representative Dawnna Dukes entered a bill to require school districts in Texas to create policies regarding Teen Dating Violence. This bill was created in memory of Jennifer Ann Crecente[13] and Ortralla Mosley.[14] Jennifer Ann's Group provided testimony on February 8, 2007 to the legislature in support of this bill. Governor Rick Perry signed the bill into law on May 18, 2007 and it immediately went into effect. (emphasis added) [15]
  • On February 15, 2007, on the the one-year anniversary of Jennifer's murder, Senator Eliot Shapleigh entered a bill to grant posthumous diplomas to students that have been murdered during their Senior year of high school. The bill is named "Jennifer's Law".[16] On May 28, 2007 the bill was signed in the Senate and passed to the Governor Rick Perry for signing. It will go into effect upon being signed or September 1, 2007, whichever occurs first. (emphasis added) [17]
As to your comment about "Here we go again." it's difficult for me to respond without more specifics. My understanding is that this is a forum to discuss not the merits of the article but instead the unilateral "speedy delete" by User Talk:TexasAndroid. Drew30319 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Pizza Corner – Deletion endorsed, nomination appears to be an attempt at AFD part 2 rather than any process issues – pgk 13:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pizza Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The following are the arguments I have made for the undeletion of this article on Encephalon's talk page more than two months ago. I have not received any response from him since making those arguments, and so I must add this deletion review.

The former Pizza Corner article, about the landmark in Halifax, Nova Scotia was created by myself, and as I was not active on wikipedia last september when it was deleted, I did not have the opportunity to defend it. The current Pizza Corner article is about a pizza chain in India. While I do agree that this chain deserves its own article, I do not see any reason there should not be a disambiguation page leading to both that and the landmark in Halifax.

I have read the

Barrington Street, Bud the Spud or The Dingle
- all of which undisputedly deserve their own articles.

I would therefore like to ask that the article be reinstated, in the location Pizza Corner, Halifax, and that the present Pizza Corner page be changed to a disambiguation page, with the article presently there being moved to Pizza Corner (food chain) Uniqueuponhim 00:29, 26 June 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_26&oldid=1144732425"