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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I noticed this article was deleted; was curious; did a google search on her -- and found that she was a published author, whose book was reviewed in multiple publications, and who was interviewd at least twice. She was prominent enough to be mentioned as a guest in society gossip columns. I am going to ask for userification of Joan Sinclair to User:Geo Swan/review/Joan Sinclair. I'd like to look at the deleted article, and then decide how much effort would be required to put the article into shape to be restored to article space, and then decide if I am interested in doing so. FWIW, I played no role in the earlier article. FWIW, the deleting admin claimed A7. Geo Swan (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The only stable version of the article consisted of "Joan Sinclair is the author of Pink Box." and a stub tag. I'm happy to userfy, but I think you're about as good off starting from scratch on this one. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, Lifebaka's got it in one. Nothing else in the article history passes BLP. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Progressive Majority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

You deleted this page calling it blatant advertising. There is a serious controversy involved in California right now between two organizations operating under the initials YPM. Young Progressive Majority, an offshoot of Progressive Majority (which has a page) is a legitimate non-profit with chapters around the county. Young Political Majors founder has been accused of voter fraud, with its founder being arrested this past weekend. It's important for people to be informed on these two organizations. We recently (and legally) registered over 500 new voters in the LA area. These people, watching the news, may be concerned that it was the other YPM who registered them and will look to find out if they'll be able to vote on November 4th. Topdown5 (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:SOAPBOX? Stifle (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three separate admins deleted it as either non-notable organization or blatant advertising. I would have deleted also, and either reason will do, as the article meets both criteria for speedy. DGG (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion all three versions read like advertisements or didn't assert any sort of significance. If you are associated with this group then Wikipedia recommends you don't write an article about it. Hut 8.5 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Accepting above view of advertising speedy delete. You also might want to read WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Comment Young Progressive Majority and California Young Progressive Majority lacks sufficient reliable source material and will not find a place on Wikipedia until it does. However, Minnesota Young Progressive Majority in the news[1][2][3], so there may be room for an article on Minnesota Young Progressive Majority. As for the competitors, there is plenty of reliable source material to maintain a Wikipedia article on Young Political Majors. -- Suntag ☼ 06:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I live in California, and I've never heard of this organization or its controversy, and I read newspapers and news sites daily, so I went looking on news.google and can find only three hits for this name. That doesn't give me any particular good feeling about the organization's notability, nor about its controversy. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I kind of feel like this should go to AfD, but at the same time it might be best for Topdown to try to make this a section at Young Political Majors and grow it from there. According to the Google cache version, the one cited source was an LA Times article from a few days ago, so maybe we'll be seeing more sources for this. With that in mind, I'd support allowing this as a user draft with {{NOINDEX}} on the draft to prevent search indexing. I can't say I feel strongly about this, though. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Topdown5 presents himself as someone with a real-world agenda. This is not the purpose of wikipedia. Wait for the controversy to be history before writing this article. Support a {{NOINDEX}}ed (wikipedia is not for advertising) userspace version, as per Ned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bulk AFD Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) was closed as no consensus yet article was still deleted and re-directed. Deleting editor participated in discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, I did not delete this page, merely redirected it, which any editor can do. The redirect can be reverted if required. Not a DRV issue. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment except that all of the information on this page was deleted, and the re-direct went only to the first college college where he coached. I contend that "deleting all of the information" is technically a "delete" -- if the information had been edited into other article then maybe that would make sense, but no effort was done to do so. Instead, the article was wiped and replaced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot As Stifle says, any editor can revert, and I have just done exactly that. There was a relevant discussion , which showed noconsensus against keeping as a separate article. I suppose it can be discussed further through WP:DR. DGG (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think WP:DR isn't necessary; the talk pages will do for that. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I was invoking WP:BRD. Stifle (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was including discussion on the talk page as a way of starting resolving the dispute, in the non-technical sense. Sorry if there was any confusion. Incidentally, I think starting BRD is very poor judgment if there is known to be objections, as there certainly was in this case from the AfD. A less overbold redirect would have at least put the name in the target article. DGG (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comments 1) Cheers to Stifle for being WP:BOLD even though I disagree with the action, 2) WP:BRD states "If an issue is already under discussion or was recently discussed, people may take offense if you boldly ignore the discussion..." While this was a case of "no consensus" there was indeed a discussion and there might have been a better approach...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Lee (college football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Bulk AFD Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) was closed as no consensus yet article was still deleted and re-directed. Deleting editor participated in discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, I did not delete this page, merely redirected it, which any editor can do. The redirect can be reverted if required. Not a DRV issue. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment except that all of the information on this page was deleted. I contend that "deleting all of the information" is technically a "delete" -- if the information had been edited into other article then maybe that would make sense, but no effort was done to do so. Instead, the article was wiped and replaced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot As Stifle says, any editor can revert, and I have just done exactly that. There was a relevant discussion , which showed noconsensus against keeping as a separate article. I suppose it can be discussed further through WP:DR. DGG (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think WP:DR isn't necessary; the talk pages will do for that. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bulk AFD Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) was closed as no consensus yet article was still deleted and re-directed. Deleting editor participated in discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, I did not delete this page, merely redirected it, which any editor can do. The redirect can be reverted if required. Not a DRV issue. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment except that all of the information on this page was deleted. I contend that "deleting all of the information" is technically a "delete" -- if the information had been edited into other article then maybe that would make sense, but no effort was done to do so. Instead, the article was wiped and replaced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information has not been deleted; you'll find it in the article history. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot As Stifle says, any editor can revert, and I have just done exactly that. There was a relevant discussion , which showed no consensus against keeping as a separate article. I suppose it can be discussed further through WP:DR. It does have the effect of a delete but is a separate process--which fortunately can be dealt with outside of Deletion Review. There is more than one way of removing article content, and each method has its own assigned way of restoring it. I would not have reverted a true merge, though of course anyone could have done so in that case also. DGG (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think WP:DR isn't necessary; the talk pages will do for that. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suite101logo.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|article)

This image was deleted per CSD I5, but this policy permits exceptions for articles that are still in development. the admin that tagged this for deletion never responded to my inquiries, and it took well over seven days for me to find the actual policy in my spare time. Having the article in my userspace seems to have broken the template, and for that I apologize.--otherlleft (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you can always just request the image be restored when you copy the article into mainspace. I'm sure nobody will mind. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Stifle's solution sounds good to me. Feel free to just ask me when you do, and I'll restore it then for you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing the link, and that sounds like a good option to me as well.--otherlleft (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this can be closed now. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The article was deleted after this afd. But was recreated today by Giano. I am asking that the recreation be endorsed, and that the original edit history be restored to comply with the GFDL. My reasons are threefold:

1. Technically, there appears to have been some type of glitch that meant the AfD nomination did not show up on the watchlists of experienced users who had an interest in the article. (Risker[4] and Giano [5] If there's to be a deletion, we really want these people to be able to participate in the debate. A "retrial" would thus be appropriate.
2. Procedurally, only 3 delete votes and 1 redirect is a pretty shaky consensus. The closing admin's comment "delete. unsourced" is strange since the article was sourced, and lack of sourcing in not a deletion criterion on a non-BLP. Perhaps redirection is merited here, but there's no grounds to delete.
3. Content. It is verifiable (see the new source I've added from Bill Bryson's book) and neutral. If there is unverifiable or unencyclopedic material on it, then we can deal with that by normal editing or merging. In any case, that Giano has indicated a willingness to work on this, leads me to the thought that we'll end up with a great short article. Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's an interesting page about a British eccentricity, I have heard of this man numerous times and was fascinated to read about the man behind the name. If he was not notable I would not have heard about him - even Bill Bryson talks of him. Wikipedia is not short of space so this article should be kept. Giano (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn without prejudice - Giano's argument is more suited to the deletion debate itself; I believe the discussion should be re-opened because of the apparent lack of notification, and the narrowness of the margin of the !votes. It's nevertheless worth noting that AfD is not a poll, so the nearness of the Keep and Delete entries is not in itself an argument. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - it does seem that something happened such that the placing of the AFD notice on the article did not register in watchlists and that therefore the subsequent discussion may not reflect a true consensus of interested parties. Nancy ^talk 11:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever. The deletion rational was "unsourced", which it patently is not. Addressing some of the the concerns raised at the AFD: Leone's "magniloquent name" is confirmed by the ODNB entry on his father; he could (probably should) be added to List of unusual personal names. He is included in Wikipedia:Unusual articles, and his name has been mentioned on the Wikipedia:Reference desk several times. He was mentioned in the Guinness Book of Records until fairly recently, although the nature of the record is debateable; and there are several hundred Google hits for his name. He is about as notable as A. E. J. Collins, a proper world record holder and another captain killed in the First World War (and a featured article, incidentally). -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm hardly the most die-hard admin when it comes to reconsidering my AFD closes so its extremely disappointing that no-one bothered to draw my attention to the further sourcing that came available after the deletion. In the AFD only one voice was raised in support of keeping the article and that statement was credibily challenged in the debate. At the end of the day DRV is to check the process of deletion not to discuss new evidence so the obvious solution here is to relist the article at AFD. The sourcing looks a little iffy to me so further discussion of their weight is clearly required. DRV is not the place to do that - its too technical an area and this discussion needs to go to a wider section of the community. So, if anyone cares what I would have done, I would have overturned the AFD and relisted for the necessary discussion but since no-one actually bothered to talk to me we can waste 5 days gazing at our navals and then doing something I would have happily done from the outset. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry for not contacting you. However the issue is NOT new sourcing - but rather that AfD got it wrong. "No sources" is NOT a deletion criterion - although inability to source would be (unverifiable). However, this topic (although not necessarily all the content) is certainly verifiable ("the Guinness Books of Records 1974" was mentioned in the debate). Anyway, the closing admin is supposed to look for consensus, not count sources. Arithmetically, there was a majority here. But the majority consisted of 3 voters and their arguments were incredibly weak. The nominator states "The person himself is not notable, the story behind his name IS" - well for goodness sake can't we then have an article on the notable name and story behind it? Perhaps that needs a merge somewhere, but it is no grounds for deletion. As for the correct venue, you can relist this at AfD if you want, but there's little doubt that with sourcing from the Guiness Book of Records and Bryson, it will be kept or merged, so what would the point be?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The conclusion of the AfD was unfortunate. If I'd known of the AfD, I'd have voted keep, because I'd most certainly heard of him and I could well want to look him up. (Indeed it's not long since I did look him up -- via a search for "Tollemache" -- and was deleted to find out about him.) I'd grant that he seems utterly unnotable other than for his name, but then tens of thousands of people are utterly unnotable other than for kicking or throwing a ball around within some rectangle, and this is even before we get to pokemon and such juvenilia. If William Jefferson Clinton is "Bill Clinton", perhaps this article should be "Leone Sextus Tollemache"; though then again, as his name is his significance, perhaps it shouldn't. -- Hoary (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I was going to say "speedy delete the article per G4, then look at reviewing the deletion", but I'm not in the mood to generate drama. I strongly encourage users not to take the out-of-process path of baldly recreating the article because they disagree with the AFD result again; as Spartaz said, just asking him would have obtained the desired result. This discussion may as well be closed as moot. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consider an overturn of the deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Creekwater (2nd nomination). I've discussed it with the deleting admin (see the discussion) and with one of the commenters in the AfD, who suggested I come to DRV. I provided new sources for the article, and a keep rationale, and all the previous commenters in the AfD had made their comments prior to me adding sources. I was not convinced that they reviewed the new sources, as they did not provide any follow-up discussion prior to the close. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I was away for a couple days, so I couldn't change my !vote. Had I known sooner, I would have changed my !vote to "keep" per Paul Erik's sources. I did find one source and was already on the fence, but the fact that he's found more has me convinced that the singer meets WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I was the closing admin and I closed based on the consensus I saw at the time, as later facts from TPH that I should not have counted his comments as strongly as I did have come to light, I have no objection to this DRV. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also neutral. I reviewed the new sources and should have left a note saying I'd done so. That said, I have a higher inclusion threshold than most. MBisanz's closure was correct based on what he saw at the time though. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The consensus was correct at the time but the new sources provide enough I think to pass WP:MUSIC. Why not simply userfy to Paul Erik's sandbox, tweak it minorly and move it back to mainspace? TravellingCari 11:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse since the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. New York Times is a trivial mention. Allmusic website was created in 1995 as a place for music fans to indulge their passion,[6] so it is not clear that it meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria as a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Newsweek article appears to be about the recording, not Bobby Creekwater. The Regina Leader-Post reference is about Eminem and has only trivia about Bobby Creekwater. The Creekwater interview was by "Ryan" whose link leads to his Myspace page. The AfD was open long enought to allow all who wanted to comment to do so. The keep arguments were weak and the delete arguments were stronger than the delete arguments. The closer weighted all the information and interpreted the debate correctly. As for substantial new information presented at DRV, I only found is trivial mentions about Bobby Creekwater: Bobby Creekwater, formerly of the slick, sports impressive verses by Bobby Creekwater, finds Bobby Creekwater doing the solo thing, and Atlanta's Bobby Creekwater is likely the rookie of the year in Shadyland. None listed his age or any biographical information about him from which a Wikipedia article could be written. If there is substantial new information about Bobby Creekwater, please list the URL here for review. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 06:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion decision; No prejudice with regard to recreation and/or restoration. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not sure yet on what I am going to support here, but just to throw it out, how about userfying if the deletion is not overturned completely? From what I've read so far, I think a user draft would be more than reasonable at this point. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist In general if sources are provided at the end of the AfD and those sources look reasonable, a relist is probably in order rather than a delete. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – On the question of userfying, I am reluctant. I would rather not put time into the working on the article if it is likely that it would be deleted. I appreciate Suntag's efforts to provide detailed comments above. Can I ask, though, if those points do reflect community consensus?
  • Allmusic is not a reliable source? My impression is that in general it has been treated as sufficiently reliable, especially for non-contentious information, as their writers are paid and there is some editorial oversight. I've found that people generally have not tried to discredit it when it comes up in AfD discussions.
  • A review in Newsweek of one of Creekwater's recordings (Anthem to the Streets) does not help build the case for Creekwater's own notability because it is about the recording, not about him? I thought such reviews did help.
  • Brief mentions are trivial mentions? Most of the other sources I found that mention Creekwater are about Eminem Presents: the Re-Up. But if (for example) the New York Times mention does allow for some verifiable content to be added to the article ("Creekwater previously was part of the band Jatis"), how is this trivial? The examples of "trivial mentions" in WP:MUSIC are things like listings of performance dates. My impression from past AfD discussions is that brief mentions, especially if there are many of them, can help build a case for notability. "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive".

I'd appreciate any comments about these items, as it would help me to figure out if it is worth working on this article in userspace or not. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think userfying would be easier for all involved, including yourself. You can make some simple changes, rather than talk about making simple changes. Other’s can look at those simple changes, and not have to guess at what the result would look at. Any subsequent discussion will be concrete, not hypothetical. You’ve already made significant points suggesting that this article can be returned to mainspace. If userfied, moving to mainspace is much less a hurdle than achieving a consensus overturn at DRV. “Userfy” here is definitely a step forward, is not a “brash aside”, and I think you should take this option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a helpful perspective to take. Thanks, and sorry if I sounded a little defensive with my previous comment. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy seems like the most equitable course here. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]