Dave Gilbert (game designer) – Keep closures overturned, relisted at AfD – 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dave Gilbert (game designer) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` See Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer) 1, Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer), and User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington#Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer). Essentially, the first AfD was probably a consensus to delete. User:Sir Nicholas closed it as keep, citing new information that had not yet been debated. I asked him about it on his talk page, and, unsatisfied with his response, started a new AfD. For some reason, he believed that the debate had to be had on this page, even though there was new information that had not yet been discussed on AfD. An uninvolved user decided to close the AfD, so I'm going to pick my battles and bring the issue here. I think a new AfD would really be the best solution, but I guess there's some opposition to that for some reason. Andre (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Renominating an article a day after it comes off AfD is never going to result in a productive discussion ending in clear consensus; rightly or wrongly it will always be poisoned by the perception of it being too soon. However, the case for keeping is not as strong as it appears from Nicholas' closing. The 'eight' links he cites in his closing are all the same Reuters article. That article was added after the AfD started, is clearly from a reliable source, and it wasn't discussed by anyone, so I don't believe the first AfD closing should be overturned. A second nomination at some point may be merited. However, I believe that it should wait until editors have had a chance to expand the article on this supposedly notable personage beyond its two lines. If the source (singular) Nicholas produced isn't even in the article by that point then there may be cause to rethink this. My bolded opinion is endorse closure of first AfD, neutral regarding early closure of premature second, but seeing no point in relisting so early. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] I don't know if I understand the nuances of this opinion. You believe there was a consensus to keep in the first AfD? Andre (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Sir, WP:NOT a democracy; and I believe I have provided sufficient reasons as to why not to delete the articles on both the AfDs you started. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] When you argue to delete an article with no reliable sources based on notability concerns, and then someone adds a reliable source, and none of the participants show any sign of having taken note of it, then they've got no reason to complain if the AfD is closed as 'keep' or some variation thereof - especially in a discussion where clearly, there isn't enough participation to call the numbers 'consensus'. Even with Nick mistaking eight identical stripes of blue for a rainbow, closing this AfD as 'keep' or 'no consensus' based on the lack of attention paid to the state of the article is perfectly valid. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] But under WP:BIO, there need to be multiple non-trivial sources to establish notability. The single CNN article was added to the article during the AfD, but it's not in itself sufficient to establish notability. Andre (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] And if anyone had taken the twenty seconds necessary to review the change made to the article and point that out, I'd be arguing to overturn the close. But they didn't. I'm going to say relist since a proper AfD with all information available is obviously needed, and a procedural nominations following DRV shouldn't be shouted down as too early. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Overturn both afds; relist at afd My view is that User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington did not close the first afd properly - merely providing sources is not sufficient proof in itself that an article is keepable, especially if those sources are not properly discussed (and there is consensus to delete based on prior discussion in the afd), and if the 8 sources provided are actually a single, brief news item (the second afd is also tainted with the misimpression that there were 8 sources - and was closed early). On the other hand, User:Andrevan should have taken the first afd to WP:DRV as User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington suggested rather than open a new afd. I recommend that we relist so proper discussion of the single new article reference can take place. This is my view on the process here - as I have met the subject of this article socially, I abstained from these afds themselves and will not take part in any further afds that take place. Bwithh 00:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Why relist, when we can solve it here? And in case you have not noticed, I have provided good sources as to why this article should be kept. His notability is established when he has been mentioned in eight reliable and independent sources, even when the story is Reuters published. Please have a look at both the AfDs and comment. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] It's a single source - one Reuters wire story republished 8 times with varying levels of cropping. The only thing the non-Reuters channels did were to select the story from their Reuters newswire feed and crop the text; its not their own journalism. And his mention in the full Reuters story is a secondary one. That's not a solid indication of encyclopedic notability. And I did look at both AfDs already, thanks - please don't assume that my opinion is based on negligence simply because you don't agree with it. Bwithh 18:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure spent a long time looking at this. I see no benefit for bringing this for a third AfD in a week. As Sam suggested, I'd agree with expansion with sources, seeing what we have, and reconsidering the article then -- Samir धर्म 09:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] I'd say that perhaps it was closed too soon, but maybe it should be relisted in a month or so. In a month, we should have seen whether The Blackwell Legacy has also established itself as notable. I believe there is also going to be an article on Dave and The Shivah in the January issue of Wired. --Amaccormack 12:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Uh... what's your speculation based on? Bwithh 19:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] If you mean Wired, then Mr Gilbert himself told me that the article will be happening. If you mean a month for notability, then the game has just been released so I'd expect reviews to come out soon, plus the comments of user Perel in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_16#The_Blackwell_Legacy Oh, we share common acquaintances of acquaintances then. Anyway, the expected future Wired article doesnt bear much on the matter at hand Bwithh 09:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] If the article and reviews above aren't out yet, that doesn't mean the AfD was closed too soon, it means the article was created too early. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We're here to document what is already notable, not that which someone thinks is going to become notable in the future. 67.117.130.181 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist A closing admin's job is to evaluate whether or not consensus has been reached, now whether or not an article is worthy of inclusion. Overturn this heavy handed admin action by Mimsy. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Overturn first "keep" closure and delete Nick's closure of "keep" in AFD 1 was absolutely wrong. He gave 8 links of which two (now) don't work; the other 6 are copies of one Reuters wire story that mentions Dave Gilbert's name in passing. I'm somewhat ok with the idea of a closer finding new documentation of notability that wasn't in the AfD, but this doesn't come close. WP:BIO says "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works". 6 copies of the same wire story is not multiple works, and getting mentioned in one sentence of an article about a different subject does not make the person the primary subject of the work (even if the article is about a game written by David Gilbert, it is not about David Gilbert himself). Documentation for an against-consensus closure like this should be extremely substantial, like finding a three volume biography of the person. Otherwise, at most, note the new cites as a normal vote within the AfD and propose keeping the AfD open for an extra day or two. 67.117.130.181 07:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure - most of the comments here appear to be about content and quality of sources, which is specifically what a deletion review is not. I don't see anything wrong with the process used to close this case. By continuing to harp on arguments regarding the quality of a particular source, it is merely a continuation of the arguments already presented during AfD and therefore unproductive. Tarinth 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] The contention we are making about the process is that it was contrary to consensus. Andre (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Dave Gilbert (game designer) – Keep closures overturned, relisted at AfD – 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

See Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer) 1, Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer), and User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington#Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer). Essentially, the first AfD was probably a consensus to delete. User:Sir Nicholas closed it as keep, citing new information that had not yet been debated. I asked him about it on his talk page, and, unsatisfied with his response, started a new AfD. For some reason, he believed that the debate had to be had on this page, even though there was new information that had not yet been discussed on AfD. An uninvolved user decided to close the AfD, so I'm going to pick my battles and bring the issue here. I think a new AfD would really be the best solution, but I guess there's some opposition to that for some reason. Andre (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating an article a day after it comes off AfD is never going to result in a productive discussion ending in clear consensus; rightly or wrongly it will always be poisoned by the perception of it being too soon. However, the case for keeping is not as strong as it appears from Nicholas' closing. The 'eight' links he cites in his closing are all the same Reuters article. That article was added after the AfD started, is clearly from a reliable source, and it wasn't discussed by anyone, so I don't believe the first AfD closing should be overturned. A second nomination at some point may be merited. However, I believe that it should wait until editors have had a chance to expand the article on this supposedly notable personage beyond its two lines. If the source (singular) Nicholas produced isn't even in the article by that point then there may be cause to rethink this.

My bolded opinion is endorse closure of first AfD, neutral regarding early closure of premature second, but seeing no point in relisting so early. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I understand the nuances of this opinion. You believe there was a consensus to keep in the first AfD? Andre (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, WP:NOT a democracy; and I believe I have provided sufficient reasons as to why not to delete the articles on both the AfDs you started. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you argue to delete an article with no reliable sources based on notability concerns, and then someone adds a reliable source, and none of the participants show any sign of having taken note of it, then they've got no reason to complain if the AfD is closed as 'keep' or some variation thereof - especially in a discussion where clearly, there isn't enough participation to call the numbers 'consensus'. Even with Nick mistaking eight identical stripes of blue for a rainbow, closing this AfD as 'keep' or 'no consensus' based on the lack of attention paid to the state of the article is perfectly valid. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But under WP:BIO, there need to be multiple non-trivial sources to establish notability. The single CNN article was added to the article during the AfD, but it's not in itself sufficient to establish notability. Andre (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if anyone had taken the twenty seconds necessary to review the change made to the article and point that out, I'd be arguing to overturn the close. But they didn't. I'm going to say relist since a proper AfD with all information available is obviously needed, and a procedural nominations following DRV shouldn't be shouted down as too early. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn both afds; relist at afd My view is that User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington did not close the first afd properly - merely providing sources is not sufficient proof in itself that an article is keepable, especially if those sources are not properly discussed (and there is consensus to delete based on prior discussion in the afd), and if the 8 sources provided are actually a single, brief news item (the second afd is also tainted with the misimpression that there were 8 sources - and was closed early). On the other hand, User:Andrevan should have taken the first afd to WP:DRV as User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington suggested rather than open a new afd. I recommend that we relist so proper discussion of the single new article reference can take place. This is my view on the process here - as I have met the subject of this article socially, I abstained from these afds themselves and will not take part in any further afds that take place. Bwithh 00:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why relist, when we can solve it here? And in case you have not noticed, I have provided good sources as to why this article should be kept. His notability is established when he has been mentioned in eight reliable and independent sources, even when the story is Reuters published. Please have a look at both the AfDs and comment. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a single source - one Reuters wire story republished 8 times with varying levels of cropping. The only thing the non-Reuters channels did were to select the story from their Reuters newswire feed and crop the text; its not their own journalism. And his mention in the full Reuters story is a secondary one. That's not a solid indication of encyclopedic notability. And I did look at both AfDs already, thanks - please don't assume that my opinion is based on negligence simply because you don't agree with it. Bwithh 18:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure spent a long time looking at this. I see no benefit for bringing this for a third AfD in a week. As Sam suggested, I'd agree with expansion with sources, seeing what we have, and reconsidering the article then -- Samir धर्म 09:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that perhaps it was closed too soon, but maybe it should be relisted in a month or so. In a month, we should have seen whether The Blackwell Legacy has also established itself as notable. I believe there is also going to be an article on Dave and The Shivah in the January issue of Wired. --Amaccormack 12:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... what's your speculation based on? Bwithh 19:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Wired, then Mr Gilbert himself told me that the article will be happening. If you mean a month for notability, then the game has just been released so I'd expect reviews to come out soon, plus the comments of user Perel in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_16#The_Blackwell_Legacy

Oh, we share common acquaintances of acquaintances then. Anyway, the expected future Wired article doesnt bear much on the matter at hand Bwithh 09:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article and reviews above aren't out yet, that doesn't mean the AfD was closed too soon, it means the article was created too early. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We're here to document what is already notable, not that which someone thinks is going to become notable in the future. 67.117.130.181 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist A closing admin's job is to evaluate whether or not consensus has been reached, now whether or not an article is worthy of inclusion. Overturn this heavy handed admin action by Mimsy. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn first "keep" closure and delete Nick's closure of "keep" in AFD 1 was absolutely wrong. He gave 8 links of which two (now) don't work; the other 6 are copies of one Reuters wire story that mentions Dave Gilbert's name in passing. I'm somewhat ok with the idea of a closer finding new documentation of notability that wasn't in the AfD, but this doesn't come close. WP:BIO says "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works". 6 copies of the same wire story is not multiple works, and getting mentioned in one sentence of an article about a different subject does not make the person the primary subject of the work (even if the article is about a game written by David Gilbert, it is not about David Gilbert himself). Documentation for an against-consensus closure like this should be extremely substantial, like finding a three volume biography of the person. Otherwise, at most, note the new cites as a normal vote within the AfD and propose keeping the AfD open for an extra day or two. 67.117.130.181 07:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - most of the comments here appear to be about content and quality of sources, which is specifically what a deletion review is not. I don't see anything wrong with the process used to close this case. By continuing to harp on arguments regarding the quality of a particular source, it is merely a continuation of the arguments already presented during AfD and therefore unproductive. Tarinth 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The contention we are making about the process is that it was contrary to consensus. Andre (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Mayj.jpg – Deletion endorsed – 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Mayj.jpg (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`IfD`)` As a recently debuted artist who does not hold publicized promotional events nor concerts, the only available images of May J. are the ones from magazines or from her official site and hence, only images which are not 'Free Licence' are available. Therefore, this image should be allowed under Fair Use. Taskinlude 08:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Consensus was delete (Image talk:Mayj.jpg). The image was deleted and subsequently uploaded again under the same name (log). --Oden 08:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Second upload has been deleted as a G4. According to the article May J., "May J. performed as the opening act for Cassie along side Rōma Tanaka at her concert at Shibuya O-EAST on 28 November 2006." In other words, she does perform in public. In addition to the possibility of a member of the general public taking her picture, her agent could be contacted with a request to release a promotional image under the terms of the GFDL and/or CC-BY(-SA). There's no reason to use an unfree image of her. —An gr 12:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, replacable fair use (i.e. not fair use). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, valid deletion (replaceable fair use). --Core desat 04:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion and I'm also unclear why there's separate articles about May J. and her album, and why the album cover photo is in the biography article. We're not a publicity outlet and we should have fewer articles like this. 67.117.130.181 09:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Mayj.jpg – Deletion endorsed – 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

As a recently debuted artist who does not hold publicized promotional events nor concerts, the only available images of May J. are the ones from magazines or from her official site and hence, only images which are not 'Free Licence' are available. Therefore, this image should be allowed under Fair Use. Taskinlude 08:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was delete (Image talk:Mayj.jpg). The image was deleted and subsequently uploaded again under the same name (log). --Oden 08:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second upload has been deleted as a G4. According to the article May J., "May J. performed as the opening act for Cassie along side Rōma Tanaka at her concert at Shibuya O-EAST on 28 November 2006." In other words, she does perform in public. In addition to the possibility of a member of the general public taking her picture, her agent could be contacted with a request to release a promotional image under the terms of the GFDL and/or CC-BY(-SA). There's no reason to use an unfree image of her. —An gr 12:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, replacable fair use (i.e. not fair use). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid deletion (replaceable fair use). --Core desat 04:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and I'm also unclear why there's separate articles about May J. and her album, and why the album cover photo is in the biography article. We're not a publicity outlet and we should have fewer articles like this. 67.117.130.181 09:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jesse Samek – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 01:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jesse Samek (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` I believe this article should be undeleted. It is apart of Air Force history, there is a base named after him in Afghanistan and I believe that with this deletion of this article we cannot expand the military history for wikipedia. I know there may have not been much information on the page, but I was quietly working on it. This article was deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather for not being a notable person. Of course he may not be a notable person for people not in the military but he is in our PFE (Air Force Pamphlet 36-2241). If this page could be undeleted, I would work on expanding the article. Thanks. DJREJECTED 06:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Is this Air Force Pamphlet publicly available? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] If there was a base named after him, that's an assertion of notability. Undelete and possibly list at AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Sam Blanning; in reference to your question, i actually looked back in that publication and he is not noted in the Air Force History chapter and you actually have to order a copy, it is only distributed among military personnel, though I'm sure if you look around you might be able to get a copy. Badlydrawnjeff; yes there is a air force base/camp in Kandahar, Afghanistan named after the individual at the NATO/ISAF controlled Kandahar Airfield. -- DJREJECTED 15:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list at AFD I think the claim that a base is named after this individual is sufficient to pass speedy deletion criteria and require an article for deletion discussion. I feel an afd is still required to properly evaluate the claims made and sources referenced and any other questions that may arise (e.g. what kind of base is it - is it a large, long-term base or a small, short-term one? is the naming informal or official? Is having this base named after a person sufficient for an article on the person or is it more to the point to have an article on the base which explains in a subsection where the name comes from? etc.) Bwithh 17:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and AfD: I will argue for deletion unless the thing about having a camp named after him is verified. I tried Factiva and Google and got nothing - if it isn't verified in a mainstream source that anyone can reasonably access (which is not true of something distributed among military personnel) then it isn't significant enough. However, I believe that AfD should be the forum to decide whether the claim has any merit. Factiva turned up other news articles, but none that give any more claim to notability than that he was a pilot who died in Iraq. (And no, I don't like living in a world where I can say 'not significant enough, all he did was fight and die for his country', but Wikipedia is not a memorial.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Well in response, I was deployed there last year and know of someone who just came back from there in September. I have googled around and used other search enginesd to try and prove that this is a camp in Afghanistan but everything that was up a couple of months ago is gone. Sorry for bothering everyong on this matter. The only reason why the article was started was because there was an Air Force camp/base named after him. Sorry again. DJREJECTED 02:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] No reason to apologize - we're happy to look at good faith requests for review. By the way, you realize that both Sam and I are arguing basically in favour of your request (not 100% - we're not recommending a full overturn, but rather, a hearing at AfD, where its possible that someone else will show up with solid references for the article) Bwithh 05:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Bwithh for clarifying what you are stating. I understand what this process is now. Thanks! I guess i was getting a little disgruntled on an article i created just automatically getting deleted. --DJREJECTED 05:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Um, it's not a bvase as such, it's a camp in Afghanistan. The guy reached the dizzy rank of Aircraftman 1st Class. But it's not a crap article, so let it have its day. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jesse Samek – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 01:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I believe this article should be undeleted. It is apart of Air Force history, there is a base named after him in Afghanistan and I believe that with this deletion of this article we cannot expand the military history for wikipedia. I know there may have not been much information on the page, but I was quietly working on it. This article was deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather for not being a notable person. Of course he may not be a notable person for people not in the military but he is in our PFE (Air Force Pamphlet 36-2241). If this page could be undeleted, I would work on expanding the article. Thanks. DJREJECTED 06:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Air Force Pamphlet publicly available? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a base named after him, that's an assertion of notability. Undelete and possibly list at AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blanning; in reference to your question, i actually looked back in that publication and he is not noted in the Air Force History chapter and you actually have to order a copy, it is only distributed among military personnel, though I'm sure if you look around you might be able to get a copy.

Badlydrawnjeff; yes there is a air force base/camp in Kandahar, Afghanistan named after the individual at the NATO/ISAF controlled Kandahar Airfield. -- DJREJECTED 15:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AFD I think the claim that a base is named after this individual is sufficient to pass speedy deletion criteria and require an article for deletion discussion. I feel an afd is still required to properly evaluate the claims made and sources referenced and any other questions that may arise (e.g. what kind of base is it - is it a large, long-term base or a small, short-term one? is the naming informal or official? Is having this base named after a person sufficient for an article on the person or is it more to the point to have an article on the base which explains in a subsection where the name comes from? etc.) Bwithh 17:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and AfD: I will argue for deletion unless the thing about having a camp named after him is verified. I tried Factiva and Google and got nothing - if it isn't verified in a mainstream source that anyone can reasonably access (which is not true of something distributed among military personnel) then it isn't significant enough. However, I believe that AfD should be the forum to decide whether the claim has any merit. Factiva turned up other news articles, but none that give any more claim to notability than that he was a pilot who died in Iraq. (And no, I don't like living in a world where I can say 'not significant enough, all he did was fight and die for his country', but Wikipedia is not a memorial.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well in response, I was deployed there last year and know of someone who just came back from there in September. I have googled around and used other search enginesd to try and prove that this is a camp in Afghanistan but everything that was up a couple of months ago is gone. Sorry for bothering everyong on this matter. The only reason why the article was started was because there was an Air Force camp/base named after him. Sorry again. DJREJECTED 02:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to apologize - we're happy to look at good faith requests for review. By the way, you realize that both Sam and I are arguing basically in favour of your request (not 100% - we're not recommending a full overturn, but rather, a hearing at AfD, where its possible that someone else will show up with solid references for the article) Bwithh 05:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bwithh for clarifying what you are stating. I understand what this process is now. Thanks! I guess i was getting a little disgruntled on an article i created just automatically getting deleted. --DJREJECTED 05:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's not a bvase as such, it's a camp in Afghanistan. The guy reached the dizzy rank of Aircraftman 1st Class. But it's not a crap article, so let it have its day. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Pile-on - Prodded deletion overturned, listed at AFD – 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pile-on (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` This was at least referenced from Snipe_hunt. I was about to add a link to it from List_of_school_pranks (it's too long to embed). Frotz661 06:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Prod contested after the fact is still a contested prod, eh? ;) Since I did, after all, only delete it under prod, and this seems to be a request made in good faith, I've gone ahead and restored the article. If somebody wants to (re)list it, that's fine by me. Um, unfortunately I happen not to know the fancy templates used to close these, these days; if somebody wants to do that, thanks, or if it should stay open for a bit, also fine. Cheers. Luna Santin 09:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Archived. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Pile-on - Prodded deletion overturned, listed at AFD – 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This was at least referenced from Snipe_hunt. I was about to add a link to it from List_of_school_pranks (it's too long to embed). Frotz661 06:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod contested after the fact is still a contested prod, eh? ;) Since I did, after all, only delete it under prod, and this seems to be a request made in good faith, I've gone ahead and restored the article. If somebody wants to (re)list it, that's fine by me. Um, unfortunately I happen not to know the fancy templates used to close these, these days; if somebody wants to do that, thanks, or if it should stay open for a bit, also fine. Cheers. Luna Santin 09:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jeff Wolverton – Deletion overturned, article restored, AfD optional – 06:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeff Wolverton (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`deleted history`\|`AfD`)` R2 inaccurate 75.42.2.74 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, R2 accurate. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Comment The article under discussion is currently at User:Jwolverton/Jeff Wolverton. I assume what's contested here is the userfication, not the deletion of the redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 07:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 03:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Restore article Userfication does not appear to have been necessary. Article needs a fair amount of cleanup but I don't see any major issues besides the conflict of interest. It looks like a fine firs draft of a wikipedia article of a filmmaker who likely passes WP:BIO and so should be kept and improved. Eluchil404 05:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Restore. Although WP:COI is worrisome, it's not official policy, and the guy does seem notable enough for an article. User:Zoe\|(talk) 22:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Overturn He's credited with writing (and voice acting in) an Oscar-winning animated short. That's sufficient notability, despite the CoI. Article isn't so hot, but he should meet WP:BIO. Shimeru 00:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jeff Wolverton – Deletion overturned, article restored, AfD optional – 06:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

R2 inaccurate 75.42.2.74 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, R2 accurate. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article under discussion is currently at User:Jwolverton/Jeff Wolverton. I assume what's contested here is the userfication, not the deletion of the redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 07:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 03:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article Userfication does not appear to have been necessary. Article needs a fair amount of cleanup but I don't see any major issues besides the conflict of interest. It looks like a fine firs draft of a wikipedia article of a filmmaker who likely passes WP:BIO and so should be kept and improved. Eluchil404 05:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. Although WP:COI is worrisome, it's not official policy, and the guy does seem notable enough for an article. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn He's credited with writing (and voice acting in) an Oscar-winning animated short. That's sufficient notability, despite the CoI. Article isn't so hot, but he should meet WP:BIO. Shimeru 00:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Orchestra Right Records – Deletion endorsed – 06:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Orchestra Right Records (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Record Label from Spokane Washington, has 7 releases already, and 2 albums on itunes in january. Also i quickly made the page and then went on vacation and didnt get back intime to see the deletion discussion. I have recreated the page and put more work into it. SpokaneWilly 03:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpokaneWilly (talk • contribs) 03:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply] Endorse deletion. Valid AfD, no new arguments for notability presented. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 03:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchestra Right Records. Eluchil404 05:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, I added the AfD above. ~ trialsanderrors 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, perfectly normal and non-controversial AfD, and concensus was quite clear, and no further evidence of notability has been presented (which wouldn't be relevant, but might justify re-creation). Xtifr _tälk 00:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Wikipedia is not Myspace. Number of cd's published is irrelevant; anyone with a PC and a credit card can become a CD publisher and that doesn't make them encyclopedic. If this label gets some significant chart placement and/or professional reviews in non-specialist media sometime then we can revisit. 67.117.130.181 00:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Orchestra Right Records – Deletion endorsed – 06:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Record Label from Spokane Washington, has 7 releases already, and 2 albums on itunes in january. Also i quickly made the page and then went on vacation and didnt get back intime to see the deletion discussion. I have recreated the page and put more work into it. SpokaneWilly 03:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpokaneWilly (talk • contribs) 03:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse deletion. Valid AfD, no new arguments for notability presented. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 03:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchestra Right Records. Eluchil404 05:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I added the AfD above. ~ trialsanderrors 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, perfectly normal and non-controversial AfD, and concensus was quite clear, and no further evidence of notability has been presented (which wouldn't be relevant, but might justify re-creation). Xtifr _tälk 00:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Wikipedia is not Myspace. Number of cd's published is irrelevant; anyone with a PC and a credit card can become a CD publisher and that doesn't make them encyclopedic. If this label gets some significant chart placement and/or professional reviews in non-specialist media sometime then we can revisit. 67.117.130.181 00:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.