Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 6

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

The article was non-bias and described the service very well and was in my opinion a non-criteria for a speedy deletion. Ke5crz 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy endorse, more Megatechtronium cruft. Corvus cornix 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, meets A7 (non-notable web content) and probably G11 (spam) as well. The article was indeed non-biased and described the service adequately, but that doesn't qualify it for inclusion. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: nominator's arguments completely fail to address the reason for deletion; there is, effectively, nothing to review here. Xtifr _tälk 21:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this DRV discussion was ongoing, the article was recreated. I have listed it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pownce. Corvus cornix 20:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuked again, and salted. Endorse as valid A7/G11. >Radiant< 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - it's not a speedy in the spirit of CSD - but seriously, re-write it a bit to remove the adwords. We have an article for Digg and Revision3 - we have an article on Kevin Rose - there is no real harm in a neutral article - we're not paper and it has been attracting enough blog-o-sphere attention as of late. People will look for the Wikipedia article from the blog links, and guess what, we can source it. -- Tawker 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, notable, reliable sources. Andre (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted several times because the content was spam (see here). However, a user recently created the article Benjamin 'Ben' Stewart about a television character, and I wasn't able to move it to this title, which I think would be a better page name for it. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 18:58, July 6, 2007 (UTC)

• This should go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Corvus cornix 02:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Diablo Swing Orchestra (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Diablo Swing Orchestra|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Orphaned talk page not actually orphaned... or maybe it was before, but it no longer is. Please undelete the talk page; it will be mighty useful in improving article content. Thanks! 65.112.197.16 18:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walk Away (Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedied in the middle of a deletion discussion for CSD:A7, but movies are not currently included under A7. Request restoration pending a full AFD. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Absent of sourced media coverage, the main claim of notability for an upcoming film would be the involvement of notable people or studios, but the article was nothing but redlinks until the soundtrack section, which was unsourced. If reliable evidence can be presented that "Poe, Imogen Heap and Alanis Morissette" are recording tracks for the soundtrack, then I could see sending it back to AFD as there'd be a reasonable chance of the article being kept. But otherwise it would just be a pointless reversal so I'd endorse the deletion without sources.--W.marsh 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon closer inspection the wording of the soundtrack suggestion is vague with respect to the notable singers, and might just be saying the movie will play already-recorded songs by them. Unless some third party sources are I found, I think NawlinWiki made the right call. --W.marsh 18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as the admin who speedy-deleted. The article, created by User:Joshuastallings, was about a film directed by, written by, and starring Joshua Stallings, that won't be "released" until November 2007, which had no sources other than the film's "official site" on a free webhosting page, and which had absolutely no indication of notability. At the time I speedied, there were nine votes for deletion (counting mine) and zero to keep. Maybe I should have specifically cited WP:SNOW when I deleted -- I am certainly citing it now. On a broader note, we get dozens of articles a day about people's nonnotable homemade Youtube films. Stifle, are you saying that all of those must go to prod or AFD and cannot be speedied? NawlinWiki 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect some could be deleted for G11 or A1, but until A7 is amended there is lamentably no case for speedying the pages. WP:PII. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. As Stifle says, A7 does not apply to films (nor software applications, nor schools, all of which i have seen tagged for deletion or actually deleted under A7) Unlike Stifle, I don't regard this as unfortunate -- at the moment I would oppose any further expansion of A7. In some cases db-spam will apply, but for most, prod is probably the proper tool. If this was being closed as a SNOW of the AfD that is a bit different, but I don't generally think that closing an AfD after less than 24 hours is helpful -- it only tends to produce resentment and DRV discussions. Its not as if there aren't lots of AfDs more than 5 days old waiting to be closed -- why rush this one. DES ^(talk) 06:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist: I'm not a policy wonk, but I've also seen what I would have thought were unsalvageable articles saved at AfD. If it's not spam or an attack piece or something similar, I see no reason to hurry the process. A7 is as limited as it is for a reason, and, while I can think of one or two things I might add to A7, works (in general) are not one. This had a perfectly good AfD running, and speedying it out-of-process really didn't benefit anyone, and may possibly have harmed Wikipedia slightly (unlikely, but not impossible). Xtifr _tälk 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist: As the original nominating editor for the AfD, I certainly did appreciate NawlinWiki's help with the AfD. But at the same time, this entire process has given me a greater appreciation for the WP:PII policy. In this case, I think that WP:SNOW certainly applies. However, while there is nothing in this article that a logical argument to keep can be constructed from, it is still never a bad thing to let the process tend to itself. Trusilver 18:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Though the speedy was arguably out of the realm of A7, it's still unsourced and obviously self-promotional. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It's not an A7, but it is advertising (G11). >Radiant< 10:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was deleted (by User:Renata3) as non-notable and copyright violation. Creating user claims to be the original author, so copyright issue is negligible but replaced by conflict-of-interest question. ;-) Have requested confirmation of identity from the editor in question (update: confirmed, see below), and am personally prepared to work with him to take care over COI.

User recreated page after its (speedy) deletion, appears to have taken due care to present only factual information. "Juce C++" gets about 52,200 results on google, and there is a favourable review by The Register (that's a well-known UK technology site, for you lot on the wrong side of the Atlantic ;-P). In my opinion, this makes for significant independent coverage.

Pending confirmation of User:Julianstorer's identity, I therefore argue in favour of Keep current version, undelete history.

NB: As discussed on WP:COI, a COI is not grounds for deletion in itself. _{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by Grey Knight, I've posted a confirmation of my identity, at http://www.rawmaterialsoftware.com/juce/yes-its-me.txt Hope that helps in some way... --JulianStorer

• The current version looks fine to me, and that pretty much confirms that they are the copyright owner (so the text is under the GFDL and can be undeleted). --- RockMFR 03:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete history as per Grey Knight and ockMFR. DES ^(talk) 06:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's been recreated and the current version seems fine, so undelete history and let it carry on, while fully endorsing the original admin's decision. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]