Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 25

User:Nixxxi/sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Nixxxi (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have since rewritten this page in a manner that I feel complies with the feedback left by RHaworth at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nixxxi/sandbox and explained in the discussion page that the reason that it goes to a splash screen is that it is involved with a vodka brand and therefore they must verify that users are over 18 years of age. I feel that this article is now neutral and I have removed the Protocol 55 content, as well as the letter to the editor. Nixxxi (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G11 and oppose re-creation. While G11 no longer applies, as the new draft is not promotional, I don't think the article meets the general notability guideline, and it would probably be deleted at AfD. The sources in the article aren't all reliable, and most that are mention the ad campaign only tangentially. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there has never been an AfD on this (at least as far as I can see) and doesn't meet any criteria for a speedy (as far as I can see) shouldn't this _go_ to AfD? Hobit (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose. This will almost certainly be deleted at AfD, and (because Wikipedia's not a bureaucracy) I figured I'd tell the nominator that here rather than allowing them to work hard on something that will likely be deleted rather soon. However, I didn't realize that the title was salted and I do not think a technical restriction on creation is justified. I hope that clarifies my position. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have added the response within New Zealand to show "Notability" 2. Many of the articles are from major New Zealand Newspapers. I have removed the one Wikianswers article and left in the links to New Zealand 3. I could not quote the Nikolai website as the source for 2000+ agents, as your team seems unable to get through the age/location verification screen. Nixxxi (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed with User:RHaworth and I feel I have implemented what they stated was necessary. I have also now taken on feedback from A Stop at Willoughby and I welcome any other feedback. This is my first attempt at an article and I am trying really hard to comply here.Nixxxi (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indecisive and want to hear others' opinions as to the validity of opposing recreation of an article that was CSD'd and apparently no longer is a candidate for CSD with the rationale that it wouldn't pass AfD. I agree with everything that A Stop at Willoughby said above plus I have a problem with the author of the article apparently also writing the 'letter to the editor' that is cited in the article but I'm just not sure if that is enough to prohibit recreation. J04n(talk page) 04:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alow to recreate. Although I have doubts as to the notability of the subject, notability was not why it was speedied. The author has provided enough sources that notability can at least be argued. I reached out to the author advising that the article would not likely survive even if it is allowed to be recreated, but she is persisting. I believe recreation should be allowed and then if it is sent to Afd notability discussed there. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to the editor was removed several days ago. I feel that this is a Notable topic and that is why I have gone to the effort to include this on Wikipedia when I could have given up the first time. I feel that I have jumped through every hoop and done my best to meet the requirements. I may be a noob, but I am trying here and with a little encouragement, I can become an active and productive member of your site.Nixxxi (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and do not re-create. Although I applaud good-faith attempts to improve an article, I just don't think the subject is worthy: a fake "agency" that employs a character used to advertise a brand of vodka in one country? That just isn't article material. I don't even think it warrants a mention in the vodka company's article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have since named and described the references.Nixxxi (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation In fact this didn't need to come to DrV as far as I can tell. (strike, is protected). It no longer meets any speedy criteria. It may or may not make it at AfD, but it certainly deserves a shot at it. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Since it appears that G11 no longer applies, permit recreation without prejudice to a subsequent AfD. The place to discuss notability is AfD, not DRV. Tim Song (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of Legends (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was originally deleted in December due to lack of notability and verifiable sources. In January the game was launched, and as such a large quantity of verifiable sources have been created (Financial Times, USA Today, and a number of gaming press sources to name but a few) which contained notability of the product (first publishing deal for a major games company, moving into micro-transactions). The January article then got deleted, most likely cause people thought it was a repeat of the December one. Please could someone return the January version (ie the one that had all of the verifiable sources and notability in it) or at least let me recreate it without deleting it on the basis of the December decision to delete. The status of sources / notability / verifiability *has* changed. Cheers Wolhound (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indecisive Can an admin confirm that the re-created version did, in fact, contain references to reliable sources as claimed? If the deleting administrator could comment here, that would also be appreciated. Thanks. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were two references in the re-created article, this and this. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is confusing me as I thought I added in more than that, could there be two versions of the article? Either way here are more references that can be added into the article:

http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/241/jagex-talks-war-of-legends http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/jagex-brings-new-browser-game-to-europe-664904 http://www.casualgaming.biz/news/29698/Jagex-enters-publishing-with-call-for-new-product http://www.incgamers.com/News/20574/jagex-wants-to-be-a-developers-publisher http://games.venturebeat.com/2010/01/19/jagex-brings-asian-game-to-western-gamers/ http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/106/1061822p1.html http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/interviews/7047-Crush-Your-Enemies-Even-When-Theyre-Not-Online-in-War-of-Legends http://www.casualgaming.biz/news/29698/Jagex-enters-publishing-with-call-for-new-product http://www.gamersdailynews.com/story-15775-Jagex-Releases-War-of-Legends.html http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=478988 http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/26791/RuneScape_House_Jagex_Enters_ThirdParty_Publishing.php http://www.guiaglobal.com.br/noticia-jogos_online_primeiras_imagens_de_war_of_legends_online-3895 http://www.gry-online.pl/S013.asp?ID=49988 http://www.gamesnation.it/news/4567/aperto-il-sito-ufficiale-di-war-of-legends-nuova-produzione-di-jagex.html

Basically I'm not saying that the original was perfect but that a new version falls with the realms of Wikipedia and that it should be given the chance to be developed rather than getting removed for the prelaunch version. Ta Wolhound (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• allow re-creation, as there seem to be enough refernces. That the game is released would often change the circumstances sufficiently top justify this. A new AfD would be optional. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 due to the lack of sources in the actual deleted article (thanks, Jayjg, for the info) but permit re-creation given the sources provided above. Depending on how the new article turns out, this might end up at AfD; however, I don't think a version with all these sources added would be eligible for speedy deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow recreation per A Stop at Willoughby. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation. I see enough sources after the game's launch that a properly recreated version would not be speediable. Tim Song (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a week of review and noone is objecting to letting the new version be made/not auto deleted/Endorse but allow recreation, what's the next step of getting this approved and letting the new article live?Wolhound (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't object to straight-out restoring the last version and allowing it to be built by the abovementioned sources. –MuZemike 06:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be ideal outcome as otherwise I'll have to try and recreate from memory.Wolhound (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the deleted article to mainspace so that Wolhound will not need to start from scratch. Cunard (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Goode (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

If you'll look in the AfD, many SPAs !voted on the discussion. The closing administrator said, "none of the newbies have come up with sources or a compelling policy based reason to keep this". That is correct; none of the newbies did, but I did. I added multiple sources to the article during the AfD. The closing admin also said, "the delete side was established editors with sound policy based arguments". If you look through the actually number of !votes (not counting SPAs), there are 4 votes for delete and 4 keep. Is this enough consensus to delete, especially considering one of the deletes was made before the improvements? I doubt it. The person is notable per both WP:GNG and WP:ENT. American Eagle (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• gee, thanks for discussing this with me first and giving me a chance to fix this myself if it was a mistake. :rolleyes: Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, now I have that off my chest I have looked at the sources in the article at the time of deletion

1. CBN.com No article at that link and no result for a search on Tracey Goode on the side.
2. Church production references the film and Tracey Goode is mentioned once as part of the staff of the film - associate media director as it happens
3. DVD Town Fleeting mention as a cast member in a film review
4. WALB.com Fleeting mention as provided a quotation about the film
5. Some random masters thesis Tracy Goode is not mentioned here.
6. Ealb again Being quoted in the context of a discussion of a film
7. Baptist press Being quoted again in the context of an article about a film
8. St Petersburg Times This one actually says something about Goode, i.e. that he is bringing comic relief to an emotional film.

• So what we actually have here with the sources is precisely zero significant independent coverage of Tracy Goode, that meets WP:RS. What we have are a lot of tangential mentions in the context of other subjects. Nothing about them at all except that they bring comic relief to an emotional film and that does not equal a blp. Sorry but the deletion arguments were clearly the policy based arguments in this discussion and I therefore Endorse own deletion. I'm willing to userfy this if you want to work on it in userspace but we simply cannot host this in mainspace until the subject becomes notable or proper sourcing becomes available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch... I didn't read the section under "Steps to list a new deletion review" that mentioned discussing first with the closing admin. I figured this was just the place to discuss it, and you simply notify the admin with the template. I entirely admit my fault on that. This discussion should remain open, though. You've given your comment (saying it wasn't a mistake, which was expected), so let's treat it as if I did notify you, and now I'm taking it to DRV. ;) Thanks for posting the sources. Could you also copy/paste the content into User:American Eagle/Tracy Goode for me to look over? I'll do a full reply, source-by-source, tomorrow, but I must be going to bed now. Thanks. American Eagle (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. No harm done. I have userfied the article at the above address as I have been told off previously for doing cut and paste userfications for attribution purposes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse correct decision , with the keep SPAs properly discounted, along with absurd claims of anti-christian bias. Being a bit actor in three films is not notability regardless of genre. Unless there is considerable new material to be added, there is not sufficient notability, not even enough to justify continuing it in user space after this discussion. The best of the references listed above says about him only "Chris Willis and Tracy Goode play the assistant coaches, bringing some comic relief to the emotional film" , which I do not consider substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously, as nominator, I !vote the decision be Oveturned, for the following reasons. Here is my breakdown of the article. I removed the first sources because it was unneeded, and somehow doesn't exist anymore.

• Just mentioned as a media director
• Goode is discussed both as an actor and as a character
• Mentioned a Cameraman and quoted
• This is perhaps the best source. You have to search the PDF. Page 67 has an entire paragraph on Goode. He's mentioned elsewhere as well. This is a scholarly article by Liberty University.
• Goode's roles are again discussed and he's quoted twice.
• Goode is quoted three times.
• This has been discussed. Goode and another actor are stated as bring comic relief to the film.

• All those sources just mention his acting career (note: this clearly passes the WP:GNG). Also look at his resume. He has been a principle or supporting actor in at least 10 theatre performances (including A Christmas Carol, My Fair Lady and Scrooge). He's been a stadium announcer, a play-by-play broadcaster for ESPN Radio (among other broadcasts), and has produced/directed more than a dozen TV shows/direct-to-video films. All these things clearly pass #1 of WP:ENT: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. I have proved all four of these. American Eagle (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The consensus established that the coverage was incidental at best: see in particular the rationale for Glenfarclas' vote that went unchallenged. An appropriate close. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Is DRV simply to decide if the close was appropriate? (For example, does it not matter if the film is notable, as long as consensus was to delete it?) Should I have taken it to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion? I don't really care about the close; I'm trying to, basically, reopen the AfD and prove the actor is notable. Is this the wrong place? American Eagle (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the appropriate place to have an AfD-deleted article restored. I suggest working on a draft in your userspace to enable people here to determine whether it warrants restoration. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please look again at User:American Eagle/Tracy Goode. If that does not establish notability, I don't know what will. American Eagle (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure While I appreciate the effort American Eagle has put into finding sources for this article, I don't think the article met our notability standards at the time of deletion, so earlier votes to delete should not be discounted on that basis. Those arguing for deletion made a strong case that significant coverage of the subject could not be found, and the assessment of the sources during this DRV does not convince me otherwise. Most keep voters merely asserted notability without evidence or made other invalid arguments. There were exceptions, like American Eagle, obviously – but I don't think he has shown that WP:ENT criterion #1 was met. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable close in light of the SPAs and likely offsite canvassing. Also, I know that I'm not too off the mark when DGG agrees with me that an article needs to be deleted... Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse looks like the close was reasonable and correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Shot (JLS song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I was told to bring this hear by an admin because they won't help. The page was deleted a while ago which was fine because it has no noteable and hasn'[t charted. But now it has somebody re-created the page. I began to edit that page and spend alot of time bringing it up to par. An admin has deleted it because it was deleted before, without checking if the circumstances have changed. I request it be restored and all my edits restored too if that's possible. The song is Top 10 in the UK and Top 20 in Ireland and confirmed for Release officially in Feb. Extremely noteable. Jayy008 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you clarify how this is in the top 10 if it's not set to be released until February? I don't understand? --Stormie (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is the third single which means you can buy it off the album individually from iTunes. When a song charts it meets noteabilty guildlines, so none of the reasons for deletion stand. Jayy008 (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn most recent speedy deletion as it does appear to have charted, although the reference given for it reaching the UK top 10 actually shows it to have reached only number 32 after 5 weeks in the charts. However this is still within the top 40 (which is what is most commonly meant by "in the charts" in the UK). This means there is additional information to the version that was deleted at the original AfD, at least the first of the speedy deletions was valid though. AfD at editorial discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn there is now additional sourced information that did not exist at time of previous AfD. J04n(talk page) 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The archive will not be updated until late Monday. However the unstable source from the Official Charts Company changes early Monday and the chart show reveals it late Sunday which was postion #10. But yes I agree even if it reaches low top 40 it meets noteable guidlines. Can one of you restore the page please? I'm not an admin so I can't do it. Is it possible to restore it with my edits intact? Jayy008 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it is possible to restore your edits, but it would be premature to restore the article at this point as the deletion review is still ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jayy008 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion. The consensus to delete at AfD was based on WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS, primarily. Because the song has charted, and because the single's imminent release is verifiable, the reasons for deletion no longer apply. As such, G4 is not applicable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Check this link and go down to 10. Proof - anyway, I am going to make this again. I am experienced in wikis and I can complete the Infobox single and write atleast a paragraph more after the introduction. Releases Feb 22. -- Ninjinian 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, with the option to send to another full AfD if desired. There appear to be sources here with which to have a good discussion; speedy is no longer applicable. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per above. I can't see the previously deleted version so I won't comment on the speedy. Tim Song (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]