Spira (family name) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not sure why this was deleted 3 years ago, but I only noticed now. I couldn't figure out from Wikipedia:SU why a mass revert/deletion was needed, but Spira (family name) is not listed there, nor was the main author of it, User:Spir, linked to User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg. This request also encompasses many redirects to that article, which were the result of many articles I had merged there. Quarl ^(talk) 00:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of the Marshall Islands (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Respectfully- closing admin erred by closing this as keep. The !keep votes were WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments while the !delete vote properly invoked what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Additionally, the Visa requirements for countries change so frequently that it would be nearly impossible ensure the currency and validity of the information being presented. Thus, I respectfully encourage overturning the keep. Basket of Puppies 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is notability an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument?

You've tried various reasons for deleting such articles, but "hard to keep them up to date" is a new one, unfounded in policy, and just as weak as your previous reasons: Individual countries' visa policies don't change so quickly, and wikipedia happily keeps track of much more changeable things - for instance, in sports.

There were three very real keeps. Probably from people who actually read the article, whereas Basket of Puppies did not, judging by the timestamps from the deletion sprees. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobrayner, thank you for affording me a reasonable doubt and your very best faith. /sarcasm I read every article before nominating. Then I nominate. Even when nominating many articles on the same topic. Basket of Puppies

Oh! I'm sorry. When you PRODded at a rate of ten articles per minute, claiming that the content was inaccurate even though a casual read shows that it corresponds with the cited (government) source, and then later the same day AfD'd them all at a similar rate, I mistakenly concluded that you hadn't read the articles. Thanks for setting the record straight; if you'd responded to such questions at the time it might have allayed some concerns. I'll not respond further; don't want to push the issue. bobrayner (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the xfd there were no delete !votes besides the nominator. Worst/best (depending on pov) case would have been a relist or no-consensus IMHO. I'd say endorse. Wouldn't argue with a relist. However I see no consensus to delete.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, could not have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Appropriate close based on unanimous consensus. Cindamuse (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse being unanimous, it couldn't possibly have closed any other way. Also, this feels very much like an "I don't agree with the result" nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unanimous consensus for keep. DRV is not AfD round 2, if you don't like the outcome of the AfD. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, that's my line! But really, I think in this case the nom is trying to get a reconsideration of these witless "keep its' notable!" opinions, rather than an "I don't like it" DRV filing. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Fields (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Back in 2006 this article was part of an AFD mostly likely because the article was in bad shape at the time. Since then, the article has been re-created nine times including by myself, immaturely (so to speak). The reason for all those deletions was because the article was involved in that said AFD and as of right now the nominator (User:Otto4711) is blocked from editing for abusing multiple accounts. I believe that Ms. Fields who is an actress is notable. She has never had an actual starring or co-starring role in a television series but due to her guest and recurring appearances in number of notable television series, I believe falls under the first rule of WP:ENTERTAINER. I am requesting that this article be unprotected from re-creation. So that the work that I did in my userspace (located here) can be moved under the filename. QuasyBoy 19:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What you are lacking is any sourcing that is actually decent enough to count as a reliable secondary source for a biography. Since that is the inclusion criteria I'm afraid I endorse the absence of an article on this individual. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Whilst I share Spartaz' concerns about the state of this proposed article, I also note that it's time that we put a stop to the indefinite extension of that AFD discussion's outcome: not because of its nominator (the status of whom is irrelevant here) but rather because one of the expressed rationales for deletion there (JodyB's) doesn't actually apply to this article as re-created (and didn't apply to several of the preceding re-creations either). I think that a good middle ground, that addresses both concerns, is to permit this to stand in article space, but to allow for an immediate, fresh, discussion of the new content at AFD. In preparation for this, QuasyBoy, I strongly suggest that right now you rustle up a lot more good sources and make every part of this proposed biography of a living person easily, directly, and fully verifiable by the reader. If you're going to re-create a contested BLP, you should definitely attempt to make it of the highest standard that it can possibly be. Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being on Wikipedia for years now, I have always found it difficult to find decent sources for actors if a article was not created for them in the first place. Knowing that Internet Movie Database is not considered reliable here, I cannot find actual biographical information on the person besides news on pregnancy a few years ago, seen here [1], [2] and [3]. This actress isn't exactly well known and out there like other TV actors she has worked with but should not however deter her notability. QuasyBoy 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it should. Notability is very much about whether someone is known. If someone's life and works aren't known, and properly recorded in depth, by identifiable people who've checked their facts, then that person shouldn't get an encyclopaedia biography purporting to document that life and those works. Uncle G (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UncleG, while I would usually give great weight to your arguments, I must comment that given the crackdown on unsourced BLPs it would be absolutely wrong for DRV to restore a deleted BLP where even the nominator agrees there are severe issues with inadequate sources. I'm much rather we had the sources first before any further discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, I share your concerns on this. Hence my strong suggestion and unsubtle italicization. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I see nothing amiss at the original AfD. I'd say begin anew in userspace, i.e. User:Quasyboy/Alexis Fields, and see what you can dig up source-wise. Going by the imdb entry though, her high-water marks are playing secondary characters in Moesha and The Secret World of Alex Mack which I don't think is going to cut it. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been working on it in my userspace: User:QuasyBoy/Alexis Fields. QuasyBoy 20:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and list at WP:DEEPER; the sources just don't seem to exist. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted it seems that if any genuinely good and useful sources exist, they would have been found by now. This appears to be a person who just isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia and barring any truly extraordinary future events, never will be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Doria Pamphilj (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel this article has been unjustly deleted. The proposition was made that the subject failed notability criteria. However, I have prsented evidence that the subject has had substantial coverage in international media. Nor is it clear that notability through inheritance fails to meet the notability criteria. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, you do not appear to have approached the deleting admin prior to lodging this DRV, Please can you explain why you chose to ignore this step. Secondly while this was not a stella discussion, I think we need to see some decent sourcing for this individual before we should consider relisting or undeleting. Please advise exactly what independant secondary reliable sources are available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you are asking whether I approached the administrator who deleted the article, then can I point out that I have and they advised me to go to Deletion Review. In terms of sourcing I have provided about 8 to 10 media sources (mainstream, international press) which range from the Guardian, Independent, Times (UK), Wall Street Journal (US), Corriere and Repubblica (Italian). Incidentally I think you mean to say "stellar" rather than "stella". Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, he and the closer did discuss it on the closer's talk p.; the closer did respond, and advised coming here only after Contaldo remained dis-sartisfied, not suggested coming here instead of discussing it directly. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AFD result was extremely clear, and I don't think extra sources are going to help in this case. The primary argument was that he hasn't done anything notable, and until that changes significantly this won't be a Wikipedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The AFD result was extremely clear" - I'm sorry but it really wasn't. The man is a prince - the heir to one of Italy's most distinguished noble families - how can that not in itself be notable? I simply am not satisfied that anyone is engaging in full and serious debate. The article in my view meets WP:Notability criteria and cites coverage in reliable secondary sources. If others are suggesting that it does not meet the notability criteria then please can we be explicit as to exactly why. I also wouldn't mind a bit of consistency - I'm seeing lots of articles on obscure subjects with not sourcing whatsover. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If in fact the primary argument was that he hasn't done anything notable, then this should really be overturned. We use sources to figure out what's notable, not our own opinions. That said, I think the AfD was a lot more nuanced than that. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we get a temporary undelete for this discussion? The discussion relies on the sources and they were discussed in the AfD without links, making it impossible to evaluate the arguments. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. T. Canens (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a copy of the discussion referred to by DGG above - it includes a breakdown of how I judged the consensus:

I will monitor this discussion, but I don't expect to need to contribute again - however, I will happily do so if required -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Having reviewed the sources in the article, I cannot find any coverage that does not stem from the court case. This rationale for deletion was voiced by Favonian (talk · contribs), and I do not see a rebuttal to that argument. PhantomSteve (talk · contribs) correctly closed this debate as delete. Cunard (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a simple once-and-done; I'd like to have the titles JME (rapper) and Jamie Adenuga unprotected and redirected to JME Adenuga, which has been substantiated as notable according to WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Chubbles (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemechanica (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedily deleted per CSD A7

Hello deletion review! I am petitioning for the wikipedia entry for Athens, Ga band Cinemechanica be taken off protected status. The page was deleted, unbeknownst to us or our record label, on August 28th due to a lack of asserted notability. In reviewing the article, we concur that it lacked sufficient documentation ... however this has more to do with the fact that we had little input into aforementioned article and were unaware of the critera. Considering we have eight years of positive press from notable outlets, such as Spin, Pitchfork, CMJ Magazine and a host of internationally recognized blogs ... have toured three continents and are consistently listed in the top 20 "mathrock" bands of all time by multiple web radio entities (lastfm, pandora, etc.) we are confident that our notability itself is not an issue. At some point around september 11, a fan seems to have reposted the page multiple time without contributing any real content to it, causing original deleter SchuminWeb to lock the page down for "repeated creations". Speaking as a representative of our label and band, we would very much like to put up a detailed page now that we understand the criteria of notability, but need this lockdown removed before we can proceed. Attempts to reach SchuminWeb have been unsuccessful.

Thanks for your time!

• Unprotect Cinemechanica likely passes WP:MUSIC; I know this genre well, and the petitioner's claims of reviews in SPIN, Pitchfork, and CMJ would certainly substantiate that. There's a risk here of WP:COI as the petitioner is clearly associated with the band, but since the topic is notable, it should be unprotected. I'm willing to keep an eye for WP:NPOV issues in the restored article. Chubbles (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - Mike here again, 9/27. Sorry if this is against protocol to respond. We'll gladly have a highly literate, certifiably knowledgeable-in-the-genre 3rd party write the article and be diligent about not letting bias dictate our significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikekanica (talk • contribs) 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about you simply stay away and let someone uninvolved (*cough* Chubbles?? *Cough*) write the article? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if he's already got issue and page numbers for articles on the band, that saves a lot of time and might actually make it a better article, since I don't necessarily have access to back issues of CMJ and so forth. Chubbles (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a fair point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation per Chubbles. If he thinks it's doable, it's probably doable. Hobit (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]