Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 25

Egersund IK (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted per CSD#A7. I have asked the deleting administrator to reconsider, a request that was declined. The article created by a new editor and included a long history section that clearly showed that the club have been active for more than 90 years in Norway, and have made a not insignificant impact. The article needed work with references and wikification, but it was a great start and it certainly did not meet WP:CSD#A7. For the non-admins here, the article is cached at Google. Rettetast (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Not speedy material to me. Although it's in the 4th division nowadays, the article indicates that the club was in the 2nd division in the 1940s and 50s. Too many itchy admins lately... Time to instate a speedy desysop procedure for stuff like this. That'll show'em! Pcap ping 09:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyvio? if the cached version is the same one it appears to be a more or less straight cut and paste from here --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and then delete again as a copyvio; 82.7.40.7's hunch is correct. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. The closing admin would not restore it because it lacked any sources. Why bother with all this? Just speedy close this. Pcap ping 11:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree with the above comment, by admin Stifle (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, delete as copyvio, and permission to create a proper article My experience is that a not insignificant percentage of articles , including blp, proposed for deletion as lacking any sources, do in fact have an obvious copyvio source. Time to require WP:BEFORE, both to get keepable articles kept, and more easily dispose of the others. As a general matter, an admin asked to restore as not meeting A7, who agrees it has a claim to importance, but refuses to restore because of not lacking sources, is essentially doing a speedy on the basis of not having sources --which is not a speedy criterion. I usually respond to such requests like: Yes I will restore it if you insist , but it would be better to improve it first and then just resubmit it, or it will not stand at a regular deletion process. People generally take that advice. . DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion because another speedy deletion criterion - G12 - applies. It therefore doesn't really matter that A7 doesn't. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, delete as copyvio; article included credible enough assertions of significance; may be process wonkery, but leaves clear enough signals for anyone interested in writing a legit article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A7 for a software article. This was raised during the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFA (file format). I've notified the admin who deleted this, but he isn't around. Pcap ping 05:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it was closer to a G11 really. Any sources, perchance? Guy (Help!) 10:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't ask me. Since I take it had no sources, I've included it in that AfD, just in case. Some editors there think it's necessary to see the article to decide, but I don't. A temporary restoration might appease them. Pcap ping 10:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary restoration would be necessary if you want to go that route.--we cannot afd an invisible article. Without seeing it, how will people be able to look for sources?. 16:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

By searching for its name, which apparently was invented for this software, so not used for anything else? Anyway, since you're an admin, you could do a temp restore instead of asking this rhetorical question. Feel free to restart the 7 day clock on the AfD once you do so, just so shameless self-promoters get the benefit of the doubt in triplicate on Wikipedia. Pcap ping 23:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As I remember, I was the (non-admin) user that added the speedy tag on this. It strongly appeared to be WP:Autobiography and, if I recall, its only sources were ones that lead back to Matabyte the owner/software author/whatever he is, and his company Fantiusen. As mentioned above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFA (file format) has more about this. --Closeapple (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporarily undeleted for DRV per request here and on my talk. Tim Song (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I've added the article on the software to its file format AfD, this request can be speedily closed now. The (rather predictable) fate of both articles will be determined in the usual manner. Thanks Pcap ping 05:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Clouser (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

• There has been some recent debate on the AfD for other Survivor contestants; these can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin "Coach" Wade and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol. Clearly, Brett Clouser was written in a much better way than Tyson Apostol (grammar, organization, etc.), and Clouser was also probably more notable than Apostol. Please review the deletion and restore the well-written article. —Untitledmind⁷² (let's talk + contribs) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Looking at the arguments at the AfD, I see a lot of detailed and policy-based arguments on the delete side and little more than "I like it" and "I just know he's notable" on the keep side. For the closing admin to not to find a consensus to delete would have been the worst kind of snout-counting. Correct close. Reyk _YO! 08:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Most of the keep arguments revolved around personal opinion of how pivotal he was to show. Not compelling towards showing he met WP:ENT. Pcap ping 08:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. And the AFD was nearly three months ago. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just feel that the AfD for Brett Clouser got less attention—and, thankfully, more policy-following Wikipedians—and therefore the two AfD discussions are not consistent. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Clouser received all of the attention, while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol will unfairly pass the deletion process. —Untitledmind⁷² (let's talk + contribs) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So effectively you are trying to "appeal" the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol before its finished, by highlighting it here you hope more will join that discussion? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Worked for me. Pcap ping 07:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia == fat tail (or law of the jungle if you prefer a more prosaic but less accurate description). Non-policy compliant shit happens all the time. Pcap ping 07:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]