Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 12

< May 11 Deletion review archives: 2008 May May 13 >

12 May 2008

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stardoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm wondering if the community will allow this page to be unprotected so I can move a newly written and far less promotional stub about the Stardoll website into projectspace. The page was recreated multiple times here and at Stardoll.com, but was deleted as G11 or as A7 several times; as indicated in the draft, there has been substantial coverage in major media, and the hit counts adn member list for the site would indicate notability at this point. (Note that I did this responding to a request for assistance from Wikisolipsist (talk · contribs), who identified him/herself as a rep for the site and wanted to avoid conflict issues.) Thoughts on the draft and the opportunity for unprotecting? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion/allow recreation. With the Washington Post source there now, I'm confident this article would pass another AfD, so there is no need to relist.
Comment. The AfDlisted above doesn't make any sense and appears to be spam. MrPrada (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged with a {{db-empty}}. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Operation Bold Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The procedural reason I bring this here is that there the debate was closed as delete, when there was no consensus. It should therefor have ended as no consensus. The closer stated there was clear consensus that the operation was non notable, but half the editors pointed out that military action by a brigade sized unit is inherently notable, which may have been unclear at the time. MrPrada (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The closing admin noted that the original deletion nomination was very weak. There were no real reasons given to delete (NPOV and N), rather guidelines for things that could have been improved.

    These articles that are getting deleted describe activity under the counterinsurgency doctrine, not the force-on-force warfighter doctrine. Their scale is the same, but the motives (finding insurgents, weapons and intelligence as opposed to destroying an enemy army) are different.

    If a division level element says the operation is notable, then it is notable. If an individual company or battalion was asserting notability I would say otherwise, however in this case we have to trust the primary source until the history books are written. As another editor pointed out on a deletion discussion for a different Iraq operation, "I do not agree with this recommendation to delete this article. The fact is this is a named military operation in an recent ongoing conflict and it simply hasn't been going on long enough to hit the history books yet. It is also my opinion that the reference is from a good source so it shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps this is a good example of the WP:IAR policy. Just because the references are scarce does not make it non-notible. I would state that any names military operations is notible and should qualify to have an article on wikipedia even if its only a stub."

    Having been to Iraq, "battles" don't occur in the traditional force on force sense. Anything deemed an "Operation", especially when conducted by an entire BCT (4,000-7,000 men) over a 2-3 day period is notable. I could compile a list of similar actions from nearly ever other war on Wikipedia, but I will spare you the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.

    The list at List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War, where the other Iraqi-related AfDs have gone, fails to include many of the most notable Operations, e.g. Market Garden, Attleboro, Powder River, Ad Duluyah Sunrise, etc. When the history books are written, I'm sure they'll all be FAs by then. However, right now it is too soon to state that any particular operation is or is not notable. However, conducted at the BCT and above, which requites coordination of 4-5 battalions (5k to 7k soldiers) across a wide geographic area or major city, plus Iraqi troops, are inherently notable. If there was consensus that these were not notable operations, myself or the other editor would have conceded the possibility for that to be the case, thus, consensus. However, the opposite occurred, and the delete editors conceded that the operation may in fact be notable. So the consensus would have been that there was no consensus, not to delete. MrPrada (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and history merge. Jonny-mt closed this one well. In response to the delete position that the operation isn't notable, keepers respond that that WP:N isn't policy and can't be citing in deletion discussions. However, this arguement is invalid because WP:N is an inclusion criterion, so an article that fails it shouldn't be included. I suggest a history merge because of the existing redirect, and because it makes the GFDL happy. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closer correctly evaluated that we need to apply WP:N on this case. Even if it's a named operation with many men, we still need some published independient third party sources asserting its notability. You see, this is a one day operation to locate caches of weapons that had no repercusion on the course of the war (didn't locate anything, and didn't cause any death, injury or damage to anything), and we have only one self-published primary source stating that it was important, and it says that it was because of the deterrent aspect. This can perfectly be an exaggeration from the US Army. The Iraq war has a string of non-notable operations, and wikipedia should cover only the ones that become notable. Please, compare to Operation_Attleboro which must have been smaller than this op but was actually bigger, with 16,000 men participating, and was covered several times by TIME magazine. Or Operation_Market_Garden, which was actually important on the war, has been studied extensively, and has been featured on several films and videogames, and meets WP:N by a huge margin. This editor says that List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War has many notable operations, but I say that we consider them non-notable until sources that assert notability are given. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the Market Garden and Attleboro operations that I'm referring to are OIF operations named after the originals. They are among the largest counterinsurgency ops conducted thusfar, for instance, Attleboro was executed by two divisions. However now its only a brief mention in the list article. There were minimal casualties, and the only sources would be from the 1st Cav and 1st ID, and maybe some Iraqi newspapers. Under the lense we're using now, it'd be deleted. However others authors might share the view that these Operations likely have lasting notability that may not be clear so close to the conflict. That is the consensus to keep that was established in the AfD, which was not outweighed by the consensus to delete. Hence, the close should have been no consensus. MrPrada (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I already noticed that you were referring to Iraq war operations with the same name. However, the point here is that those WWII operations are notable, while these operations from Iraq War are not notable for now. If/when they become notable with indepedient sources talking about them, you can ask for re-creation. Until now, I have only seen sources dependient from the US military, which seem to be trying to give publicity to their operations --Enric Naval (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - six deletes and two keeps is enough to delete absent very strong arguments from the keep "voters", which weren't there. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the arguments given above there are thousands of pages that would currently fail the notibility guidlines including a large percentage of the biographies for military figures and famous actors and actresses. Using this logic if a Medal of Honor recipient were input and the only reference was from the Marine Corps Whos Who site then it would fail and would be deleted even though precedence has been set that ANYONE who received a Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross is automatically notible. I still stand behind my earlier comments that these are recent named military operations and the reason there arent,t any additional sources is because there hasn't been time to write it out. After doing a little research I have determined that using the logic given above Operation Bold action passed. When I google this op I get no less than 4 Sources I would consider good. Global Security, MNF-Iraq Website, Defense Link, And the Army webpage. I am sure that with a little more effort I could find more. The point that I am trying to make is instead of sayng it wasn't notible because it only had one reference, someone should have looked for more references rather than delete it. Additionally, what is a non-notible article to you or to a specific country might be completely notible to me or another country. For example if I was from america the David Hasselhoff Rock and roll article wouldn't be interesting but to someone in europe where he was a big rock and roll singer it would be. With the millions of edits and hits that wikipedia gets a day to say the it failed notibility because 6 bothered to stop and cast a vote to me seems like a weak poll.--Kumioko (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as correctly determining consensus of the discussion at hand, which is all an AfD closer is asked to do. DRV is not AFD 2. I agree with the close of jonny-mt, I also have no problem with a histmerge and expansion to the redirected article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Operation United Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The procedural reason I bring this here is that the debate was closed as delete, with no reason given. I assume it was closed for the along the same lines as the above article, as they were nominated at the same time, by the same user, and closed by the same administrator, so I suggest overturning for the reasons listed above and below. MrPrada (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I find the original deletion nomination very weak. There were no real reasons given to delete (NPOV and N), rather guidelines for things that could have been improved.

    These articles that are getting deleted describe activity under the counterinsurgency doctrine, not the force-on-force warfighter doctrine. Their scale is the same, but the motives (finding insurgents, weapons and intelligence as opposed to destroying an enemy army) are different.

    If a division level element says the operation is notable, then it is notable. If an individual company or battalion was asserting notability I would say otherwise, however in this case we have to trust the primary source until the history books are written. As another editor pointed out on a deletion discussion for a different Iraq operation, "I do not agree with this recommendation to delete this article. The fact is this is a named military operation in an recent ongoing conflict and it simply hasn't been going on long enough to hit the history books yet. It is also my opinion that the reference is from a good source so it shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps this is a good example of the WP:IAR policy. Just because the references are scarce does not make it non-notible. I would state that any names military operations is notible and should qualify to have an article on wikipedia even if its only a stub."

    Having been to Iraq, "battles" don't occur in the traditional force on force sense. Anything deemed an "Operation", especially when conducted by an entire BCT (4,000-7,000 men) over a 2-3 day period is notable. I could compile a list of similar actions from nearly ever other war on Wikipedia, but I will spare you the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. MrPrada (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and merge histories. There wasn't anything wrong with the closure of the AfD. Jonny-mt may have not included a reason, but I don't think one was necessary. You presented the only keep arguement, and it doesn't outweigh the delete ones. Now, since there's an existing redirect, I suggest we merge the histories under it, have GFDL be happy and generally everything's good. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion fails WP:N, should be expanded inside of List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War where it belongs. See my comment on related DRV above --Enric Naval (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, consensus was clear and correctly interpreted. DRV is not AFD round 2. No problem having it in the list mentioned above. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as correctly determining consensus of the discussion at hand, which is all an AfD closer is asked to do. DRV is not AFD 2. I agree with the close of jonny-mt, I also have no problem with a histmerge and expansion to the redirected article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Las_Vegas_Reservation_Bureau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

revised article in my sandbox - I'm very new to this and caused the page to be deleted. Not a spammer. Datado (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. Hmmm... I'm not really sure yet. The proposed version (located here) isn't speedy-able, but I'm not sure it'd survive an AfD. My guess is that it'd be a valid stub, but I'm not confident enough to !vote here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Per Lifebaka I don't think this page would survive an AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Undelete. Please allow my revised article to reside on the page. The original article was the cause for deletion. I inadvertantly removed an important tag, which apparantly expedited the page removal. I am confident that the current article (located here) would survive an AFD if given the chance. Datado (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The sandbox version still reads a little advertising-like, and the sourcing is very weak. Only the Travel Nevada '98 article is really an independent, notable source and that's just a passing mention of the award received. There's just not enough here to keep it. -- Kesh (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source is strong, actually. The other sources provided are to the Nevada Commission on Tourism and Nevada Magazine, a division of the commission. They are the original source. they do not archive their back issues but they can be contacted to verify the information. Furthermore, the Nevada Magazine back issues are available in the periodical section of libraries. Perhaps verification is not easy, but difinitely verifiable. Datado (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing from the references section can be verified, they need to more specific. MrPrada (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references have been edited. The references can be verified in two ways. 1. Visit a library and refer to the periodical. 2. Call Nevada Magazine, ask for an editor and request verification. Datado (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I wrote that, it did not list a specific article. It only said "Nevada Magazine". However, now that you've fixed it, I'm still not sure that the detail on the websites achievements ("oldest", primary source, and "Best in 1998 and 2002", from the Nevada Magazine guide) is enough, and the impact and historical significance is negligible, which likely means the original Speedy was correct. I'm struggling to convince myself how this passes WP:WEB, but I find it more in the realm of WP:NOT#INTERNET.
        • May I suggest a very similar article, VEGAS.com, a company owned by a major multi-media corporation, whose references are mostly provided by their own sister companies. This article's only real achievements are receiving awards for their own ad campaign. If this article passes WP:WEB then so should mine. Additionally, the annual "Best Of" editions of Nevada Magazine, a bi-monthly periodical, lists the "Best Of" many things, which is chosen by the readers. I referenced only the "Best Reservation Service" in Nevada for 1998 and 2002. This is notable and verifiable. The company is the oldest continually operating reservation service in Las Vegas. It began in 1973. I understand that verifying this is difficult but it is a fact and also notable.Datado (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That article uses the Las Vegas Review Journal, New York Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. If your site is as notable as Vegas.com, why aren't there similar second party sources available?
            • Because my site is not owned by a major multi-media corporation (newspapers, tv stations, major cable provider, etc.) with sister companies providing most of the sources. The company that owns my site is very small, which is notable because it still exists. Datado (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but unprotect after a period of time, say, 30 days. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Tobasco Donkeys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer --evrik (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note for admins viewing deleted text: another version of this article has since been deleted that was a stright copyvio from the band's website; for the article deleted at AfD you need to go back at least one revision. Black Kite 06:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wijikipeddia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

and the other redirects. deleted out of process, these are real languages and Wikipedia is being very discriminatory in deleting. Thefurryman (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion and possibly speedy close - nom seems to be a troll [see contribs], and these 'languages' have 0 google hits, as do the 'Wikipedia' translations. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:53, May 12, 2008 (UTC)
I'd personally go with "very confused". Let's not bite the newbies. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't seem to be a newbie. I think that he knows what he's doing and is not at all confused. The bad faith is clear. Cenarium (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Google Me: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

As a representative of the producers of this film, I'd like to have a Wikipedia page up for the viewers and buyers of the DVD. I have been discussing the notability of the film with the administrator. Having a wiki page would help answer the many general questions that we get on a regular basis. Please let me know what I can do to get the page active. Thank you. Googlemethemovie (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • List. Best way to deal with a contested speedy or ProD. Furthermore, this seems to be a close case, which would be resolved better through an Afd. I strongly recommend listing it there. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Although there are obvious serious COI issues and other problems the movie maybe be notable enough for inclusion. See [1] [2] which may meet WP:N. If there are concerns about the COI I'll be happy to help out and keep a close eye on the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd have to say that the above puts it beyond speedy-able territory, but not out of the woods yet. I'd suggest the nom work on it on a subpage in someone's userspace (but not his own, since the username is advertising itself and should probably be blocked). Userfy the old content if he wants a starting point. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a userspace draft first Ooops, I hadn't noticed what the author intends the article to be. I would like to see a draft of what I'm !voting about. Relist Speedy was correct for the information an that time. Now we know that there are some sources like Washington Post[3] that could maybe stablish enough notability. This is not a clear case, and border cases should just go directly back to AfD instead of discussing at DRV --Enric Naval (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The purpose of the request for recreation is completely at odds with Wikipedia's purpose. If the user wants a page to answer general questions, etc., it should be on his own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite in User space - As Stifle says, the request is rather improper. Given the sources that are being found, a new version could be written from scratch that would properly satisfy WP:V and WP:N, provided WP:COI is kept in mind. I'd want to see the rewrite before it gets moved to article space, though. We aren't here to provide a FAQ for the company. -- Kesh (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The speedy was correct in this instance. MrPrada (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of lifestyles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|2)

Propose making a list or other for specific subcategories of lifestyle. E.g. lifestyles that doctors consider unhealthy (smoking, alcohol, caffeine) or sexual identity lifestyles (gay, transgender, nudism, but not foot fetish or any particular practice--the lifestyle must be a sexual identity). Bejjinks (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. AfD consensus was clear, and nom's suggested categorization does nothing to address the problems of definition and indiscriminateness noted in that discussion. When, exactly, did "smoking" and "caffeine" become "lifestyles" rather than a minor personal activity and a chemical substance, respectively? Deor (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, DRV is the wrong venue for this proposal. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but DRV is the right venue for this proposal. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really isn't. The nom doesn't object to the deletion, and DRV isn't meant for doin' anything else. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Nothing we can do here. Nom isn't advocating undeletion or overturing the close, so any other decisions can be handled editorially. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree with the redirect to List of subcultures Speedy close as malformed, nom isn't addressing any closing reasons, arguments on the AfD, or giving new sources. This is not AfD 2.1 --Enric Naval (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new. After I wrote this I found list of subcultures. Perhaps all we need is to redirect all searches for a list of lifestyles to the list of subcultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejjinks (talk • contribs) 06:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Sigma Technology – While not strictly meeting the G4 criterion, the deletion is being endorsed for the other identified problems. Noting that meanwhile an article on the related IOSO technology has been created, I'll redirect there for now. The mentioned deletion discussion can still be invoked by interested editors if the article is expanded. – Tikiwont (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sigma Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

well, i just can't understand why this one exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esteco ? BTW if i began with software being produced (i mean not company page but explanation of the IOSO technology>other article name) the result would be different, won't it? Xevilgeniusx 04:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and list at AfD. Incorrect WP:CSD#G4 deletion; this content has not been subject to a XfD discussion. Not spammy enough for WP:CSD#G11, but likely not notable, so AfD is the best place to discuss this. Incidentally, I deleted Esteco as WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking Jc37 just pushed the wrong button; the article was tagged {{db-inc}} and the closest I see the article coming to asserting notability for the company, as opposed to the techniques it uses, is "The core development team has about 20 highly qualified employees, somу [sic] of them are well-known scientists in the world(5 Doctors of science(engineering) and 8 PhDs)". Endorse. —Cryptic 10:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - while not a valid G4 deletion, G11 and/or A7 could have applied. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List at afd There are enough people who want to list it that we might as well get a community decision there. *endorse deletion A7 and G11 are so close that listing one for the other does not necessarily amount to a reversible error. DGG (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) my meaning was not that it was a mistake but that the two are often equivalent or almost so--if the only claims are advertisement, there's often no actual claim for notability, and vice versa. DGG (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    No, I didn't accidentally hit the wrong button. Though I would welcome discussion concerning my evaluation of the page. I also have no problem with this going to AFD, though I doubt that further process will "save" this content.
    First, I'd like to note that it was created with the hangon tag in place before it was even listed for speedy this time. (link to deleted text) First indicator (to me) of recreation.
    Second:
    "The algorithm allows us to reach the speed-up parameter value that equals the total number of operational CPUs. For example, when using 20 processors we can speed-up the optimization process 40 and more times."
    Note the use of "us" and "we". And that's just one example. This is clearly promotional material, and quite possibly a copyvio.
    Note also that all 4 references go to the iosotech website. (Which may possibly be the "source" of at least the brochure part of this advertising/spam. Though I'll admit I didn't search through the site's pdfs for it.)
    The rest was nearly duplicate of the previous speedied article. So this, to me, was a combination of G4/G11 (A7 being a lesser concern at this point), and I attempted to note that in the edit summary. My apologies if that wasn't clear enough. - jc37 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand G4; it requires a previous XfD to be aplicable. Previous speedy deletions don't cut it for that one, I'm afraid. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. In reading it over, I see the CSD page says that. I had thought, since it met the CSD (G11 et al) requirements the last time, and since little had changed (except adding a possible copyvio) that G4 applied this time. Definitely worth discussing "somewhere", though not here, obviously. In any case, G11, and A7 (and probably G12) all apply. So I'll still endorse the deletion. Thanks for the heads up : ) - jc37 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G11 is about advertising, not spam. I believe you are mixing this up with G12. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it meets G12 but may or may not meet G11. Different reasons, same result. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Broadmoor (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article deletion was based on WP:MUSIC. On the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadmoor (album) was explained that on WP:MUSIC is nothing that says that the article should be deleted. No policy-based neutral argument was for the deletion. User:Neil suddenly deleted the page although the deletion nomination was wrong. The admin already deleted a page wrongly: User talk:Neil#AfD on Navneet Singh Khadian.  LYKANTROP  10:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, there was a consensus to delete the page. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak relist to allow for the development of a broader consensus. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There's nothing wrong with the close, looking at the AfD. Disagreeing with it isn't a reason to overturn. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Assesment of was correct. The consensus was that the album didn't really have enough notability by Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums standards. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:The reasoning for the deletion was "Per WP:MUSIC, this album and its constituent songs never charted, therefore this album is not notable." But according to WP:MUSIC the constituent songs do not have to chart to make the article about the album notable. Nothing like that is written in WP:MUSIC. That rule is valid for articles about songs only. I actually do not care anymore, but the deletion is against the policy, because the album is notable per WP:MUSIC. The reasoning was not correct and was not per WP:MUSIC. It is not my disagreement. It is matter of braking the rules of Wikipedia. And now it is your decision if you ignore it or not...cheers. --  LYKANTROP  10:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The majority of sources presented in the AfD are simply track listings, which are not reliable sources for notability. The Prosthetic Records link is a press release, so that's out. The Metal Observer article is a band write-up, and the album's entire mention is: "The band’s thoughtful song structures stung the ears of LAMB OF GOD’s Chris Adler with last year’s six-song “Broadmoor” demo, six songs appropriately recorded at Broadmoor Studios in Huntington, WV…". That's it, just a passing reference. There's just nothing here to satisfy WP:N itself, much less WP:MUSIC. -- Kesh (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure by User:Neil as an accurate interpretation of the discussion at hand. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The deleted votes were making a correct interpretation of WP:MUSIC. If an album has no notability of itself, and neither have of its songs, then it's non-notable. The sources for notability were not independient coverage --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Notability is not inherited, we have far too many directory-style entries on albums that have zero independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and let's see it more often, it's about time unexpandable album stubs quit getting a free pass because the band is notable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_12