Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 8

Nuclear Time Unit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I Wanted To rewrite the article Due to fact that i am not Dave Noble and i consider it to be notable but he speedydelted Under G4 even thogh the orignal circumstances no longer apply Rancalred (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. The only source cited was to an online dictionary anyone can post to without editorial oversight. It meets the defintion of a self published source, whether or not it is the same author who creates the Wikipedia article. No one has yet provided any additional sources that could be considered reliable. Therefore, the original reasons for deletion still apply. Singularity42 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As a physicist myself, I don't mind having more physics articles on Wikipedia. However, as an admin here, I have to admit that the deletion arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear Time Unit still seem to apply — the term is rarely used and doesn't seem to be notable. That discussion is only 1 month old. The new version that I just speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#G4 appeared to be a dictionary definition, and references Webster's dictionary as its only source. Wiktionary is the proper venue to post definitions, but they have their own inclusion criteria over there. I would suggest, if the article is to be re-created, that it be developed in Rancalred's user space, for example User:Rancalred/Nuclear Time Unit, to be worked on at leisure without risk of deletion, until it is developed to the point of being worthy to move into main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD discussion. I think the new one is at least as unsuitable as the one at the AfD, though perhaps not in the strict sense a re-creation. I though SNOW applied then, and I think it probably will now. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Quick google search on this topic returns "About 377,000,000 results " i think you should check it out.--Rancalred (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The correct google search for this topic would be this one, which, interestingly, does give four results. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to examine them and decide whether all the appropriate sources are talking about the same thing.—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Vague waves towards such results suggesting others search though them to see if the subject is notable, oddly enough isn't often entertained. It's for you to work through them and point people to a few significant ones which would overcome the reason for deletion. As it is your google is quite flawed, it seems you just search for the three unquoted words which returns vast numbers of results which don't even contain the three words, yet alone the three words together. Putting quotes around "Nuclear Time Unit" and repeating the search and it says about 32,600 results. Clicking on page 10 of those results actually takes you to page 8, now claiming 77 results. The few I looked at are as problematic as the dictionary one already mentioned. User:S Marshall shows above how to get better quality results by using the scholar section of google, which return fewer still. The nom in the AFD (at least) covers those, they don't seem to be in much agreement as to the subject. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Examined them and found all of them are the correct except for the second one (one citation and two (copyrighted) Scientific Journal's is this sufficient sourcing? --Rancalred (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's sufficient sourcing on which to say that in a paper published in 1976 a nuclear time unit was defined as ħ/mc². What else did you want to say?—S Marshall T/C 22:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (To Rancalred) What do you mean by "correct"? None of them define the term the way either version of the deleted article did (including the version you created). If someone wants to write a properly sourced article, beyond a dictionary definition, where this term is defined as ħ/mc2, that's great (although I would think more than one source is required, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion). But both deleted versions of the Wikipedia article (and, apparantly, what is still being proposed) are defining the term as something else entirely, without the backing of any reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I have particularly strong doubts about the legitimacy of a supposed technical term in physics when no one who espouses it seems to be able to spell "vacuum" correctly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Bachmann submissive controversy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This topic has received a disproportional, and notable amount of coverage. Recent examples include:

• Submission works, even for strong women, Knoxnews
• This Is How Michele Bachmann Will Duck Tough Questions at Tonight’s GOP Debate, New York Magazine

Given the amount of coverage given, this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article. Smallman12q (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the closer's read of the consensus...clearly it's delete/merge. Rather, I'm asking whether the extended coverage makes the topic notable enough for an article...or whether BLP concerns override the notability.Smallman12q (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First, regardless of whether or not this topic meets WP:N, we aren't ever required to have an article about it. I see nothing in those two, or the article pre-AfD, that isn't currently stated in Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012#Gaffes. Second, even if the first were not the case, the two links above do little to provide notability. The first is an opinion piece that only tangentially references Bachmann, and the second is a repost of other reporting. Between the two of these, I see zero reason to overturn an AfD that unanimously showed a lack of support for this article. Endorse. lifebaka++ 14:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own close DRV is not AFD round two. The results of the AFD are pretty obvious, and the incident is covered on Wikipedia, just not in its own article. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, and I agree with Beeblebrox that this was obviously the correct conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse maybe we need a WP#NOT to cover spinout articles on trivial stupidities about political figures (or their spouses, I'm thinking Michelle Obama's arms here) I can't see how you can actually create such an article without violating UNDUE. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Even for the most public of subjects, it's possible to violate BLP by having over-emphasis of minor negative issues. A separate article would be such. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the issue isn't viewed wholly negatively...her response has received praise from various religious groups and the question itself initially received praise for being asked.Smallman12q (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with an objection  The closer erred in asserting that there was consensus that this material was a "gaffe".  Out of all of the comments, there were only two that even mentioned "gaffe".  One of these mentions, associated with BDSM, was refuted.  Comments above also misconstrue Bachmann's support of Pauline Christianity as a "stupidity" or a "negative issue" when Bachmann considers her faith to be a plus.  My main point is that the editors at the article in which this material now appears are not bound by the statement in the AfD closing that the material belongs at "#Gaffes".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Close plainly is an accurate interpretation of community consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Consensus was read correctly. We don't use the Wikipedia as a platform to attack our political opponents. A separate article for every perceived controversy of a political figure is far beyond the bounds of undue weight and pov fork issues. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cage of Eden (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The following article was deleted and was not allowed to be reverted unless there were independent reviews of the official English version. I finally found two independent reviews, one by Katherine Dacey of The Manga Critic and the other by Brigid Alverson of MTV Geek. Will these two reviews be sufficient enough for the Cage of Eden wikipedia page to be reverted?--FonFon Alseif (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what normally counts as significant enough coverage for manga. Certainly things have changed since the AfD, however. I'd suggest working on a userspace draft first, if only to prevent a premature G4. I'd be happy to userfy your previous version of the article for you, as a starting point. Cheers lifebaka++ 00:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how do i do a userspace draft?--FonFon Alseif (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click this link: User:FonFon Alseif/Cage of Eden.—S Marshall T/C 13:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done. Here's the draft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FonFon_Alseif/Cage_of_Eden --FonFon Alseif (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to mainspace. The two independent sources look good to me. Any issues with the userspace draft can be solved by normal editing in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]