Betsy Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I would pretty much go along with Kitia's reason in the previous DRV. I believe that two few people were attracted to the AFD to establish consensus, and i would have had I created an account. Most just followed User:BrownHairedGirl's lead, which claimed that there was nothing to merge except what is already in oldest people, which is false, as demonstrated by User:Kitia/Muzzy Mueller which, if my fuzzy memory is correct, is a copy of the article. It only had two sources, though trivial, yield encyclopedia-worthy information that is currently lost. What a shame. December 21, 2012 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The DRV seems to have been closed properly, considering that the only a single user and his/her sockpuppets seem to have wanted to keep. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not many people voted to delete either. December 21, 2012 (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The close was a reasonable call based on the debate and the state of the article at that time. In order to get the page back you would need to meet WP:BIO which requires multiple reliable sources which don't seem to be available. My suggestion is to add a section for her to List of American supercentenarians, assuming she was a US citizen by the time she died, or the British equivalent if not. BlueValour (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could do that, just don't keep this deleted. December 21, 2012 (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, was well-covered in the DRV discussion five days ago, nominator here has not presented any reason for discussing it again. --Stormie (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion no compelling argument presented that the closing admin failed to use good judgement, just that the participants in the discussion did not say what they should have. The admin can not determine that. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Calcium Claims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Clearly covered under Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV.

• Endorse deletion. AfD was interpreted correctly by the closing admin (though apparently closed early per WP:SNOW). No new information has come to light. DRV is not the forum to continue re-arguing the original issues from the AfD. MastCell ^Talk 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree with you, IF I had had a chance to argue my position in the AFD. I thought I was supposed to have five days to present my arguments. Magnonimous (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Perhaps a bit premature for a WP:SNOW closure, but I doubt that your arguements would have changed consensus. It was previously discussed at another DRV, and barely was restored and listed. If you would like to create a better version of the article, which does not appear to violate WP:OR and WP:CFORK, please do so in your userspace and check with an experienced editor before moving it to article space. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, while I don't think it was particularly wise to snowball-close an AfD after 6 hours when the AfD was itself a result of a DRV discussion, the issue really does seem fairly clear-cut. The Coral calcium article consists of three short paragraphs concerning the substance and the rest is about the health claims. There is no earthly reason for the health claims and counterclaims to be forked off into a separate article. --Stormie (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. While this has not been a model of following the letter of the deletion process, I think it is safe to say the community has spoken. Just for disclosure, I'm the one who originally speedy deleted the article, then restored and listed at AFD per the first DRV.--Isotope23 ^talk 01:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen the AFD. After just having a Deletion Review discussion below about the inappropriateness of the speedy-deletion, it was particularly inappropriate to close this procedural AFD preemptively. Let the AFD run its course. Rossami (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Trout slap the closer for causing needless drama by a premature close, but endorse the closure itself. Another Afd now is simply process wonking gone mad. --Doc^g 16:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and do what Doc said, but use a minnow. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5Rhythms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleated as not notable, without debate, I beg to differ. As well as a worldwide network of practioners, with 93 international classes[1]. I've found 1 PhD's thesis on the topic, 1 MA thesis at least 2 other academic publications:

• Open Floor: Dance, Therapy, and Transformation through the 5Rhythms, PhD Thesis [2]
• 5Rhythms in the Workplace: Exploring Movement as a Corporate Training Approach, MA Thesis [3]
• Cook, S., Ledger, K., Scott, N. (2003) ‘Women’s experience of 5 Rhythms dance and the effects on their emotional wellbeing’ (Book) Pubs U.K. Advocacy Network, Sheffield[4]
• Pract Midwife. 2007 Mar;10(3):20, 22-3. The ecstasy of spirit: five rhythms for healing. Henley-Einion A. University of the West of England.[5] Salix alba (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Wolverton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article's deletion has been already overturned by Shimeru on 00:46, 27 December 2006 on the grounds that '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.' Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_24 Additionally, in the intervening time since the overturned deletion the subject's name has appeared three times in movie theaters (in the credits of 'Spider-Man 3' & 'Ghost Rider' for effects work and for voice acting in another theatrically released ChubbChubbs short.) Additionally subject's name appeared in both Variety and Hollywood Reporter during that time. Seems unlikely this would make him LESS notable than when the deletion for WP:BIO was originally overturned. 74.222.153.11 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I don't see that anything was done improperly in the AfD. However, this does not mean you cannot recreate the article, assuming he passes WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and other relevant policy. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I don't have access to the deleted page but the AfD consensus was entirely clear and the AfD properly closed. Our role is to check the procedures not to substitute our judgement for that of the Community as expressed in the AfD. I suggest the way forward is to create a new page in user space with additional sources that clearly meet WP:BIO and then ask for recreation. BlueValour (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - this page not only ensures procedure is followed, but checks whether policy-based deletions are appropriate. The AfD nominator and voters all invoked "notability" as their reason for deletion. The subject of this article clearly and easily passes Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. In terms of something a little subjective than notability, the subject has many different reliable sources. --Oldak Quill 06:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse We don't restore unsourced articles that are deleted by consensus unless someone offers sources. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of reliable sources out there! IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, his homepage and a whole bunch of other movie sites. So the automatic assumption is that an article is bad/unverifiable and the burden of demonstrating the article is good/verifiable isn't on those voting to delete the article, but on a random someone to go looking for them and post them to Wikipedia? That's absurd. To vote "delete" is to make a positive assertion that the article is unfixable or unwanted and the burden to prove that is on the voter. --Oldak Quill 01:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the sources you list are considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. Also to establish notability, sources must be both reliable and independent. Also, while you are free to consider it absurd, it is in fact, standard operating procedure, to require evidence, in the form of sources, that an article subject is notable if it has been challenged. Otherwise nothing could be deleted under WP:N as it is virtually impossible to definitively prove a negative. This may seem to tilt the scales heavily towards deletion (though five days isn't really that short of a time to locate sources), but many people, both outsider reviewers and Wikipedians, feel that Wikipedia's biggest problem is its lack of reliability. One of the best ways to combat that is to require that articles cite reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment effects work credits makes somebody notable? What about the caterer and the limo driver? JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Akurang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedy deleted per (CSD A7), was an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject. Cg29692 (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC) -->[reply]

• Endorse deletion - which could also have been deleted as a repost pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Akurang. The established standard is that a footballer should either be a full international or have played league football (WP:BIO says "competed in a fully professional league") which he hasn't - see here. BlueValour (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this, however he has just agreed to sign for League 2 side Barnet and will be playing in the Football League in the very near future. Thus, I don't see any real point in deleting as it will be recreated soon. Cg29692 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As a BTW the deal has not yet been agreed - see here. We have these debates quite often and the position is clear - when he débuts for Barnet he gets a page. Deals fall through and players signed do get injured in training and never play for their new clubs, so we can't crystal-ball. BlueValour (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion recreated content from AfD, and does not meet criteria that has become standard for notability of soccer players. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ford VIN codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

1 article went through AfD remainder are associated Prod articles already deleted, conflict of interest from nominator. Gnangarra 06:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deleted article by that name. I assume you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIN Codes, but what is it you are asking for? --B (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The affected articles are ;

1. prod - Ferrari VIN Code‎
2. prod - Volvo VIN Numbers‎
3. prod - Toyota VIN codes‎
4. prod - Lamborghini VIN code‎
5. prod - Land Rover VIN codes‎
6. prod - Mercedes-Benz VIN codes‎
7. prod - Maserati VIN code‎
8. prod - List of GM VIN codes‎
9. prod - Honda Automotive VIN codes‎
10. prod - Subaru VIN codes‎
11. afd - List of Ford VIN codes

• Nominator was EvanCarroll (talk · contribs · count) who has an acknowledged association with DealerMade a company he implies has spent considerable sums of money("largest operating expendature") to obtain this information.[6] This editor was not the only person with a COI to participate, Corey Salzano (talk · contribs) works for a competitor recommending the article be retained.

I closed the AfD as no consensus and have raised this DRV as the status of the articles should have been addressed as a group, IMHO they should all be restored and sent to afd as a group with the COI clearly identified prior to discussion commencing Gnangarra 06:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all of these were deleted as uncontested prods, so if you contest their deletion, you can restore them. I flipped a few of them and unless I'm missing something, the whole thing is one big pile of original research and the deleted articles should stay deleted and the Ford article should join them. --B (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. Firstly,the motives of the nominator are irrelevant here. These were prod deletions, so they can be overturned simply on request. There's no need for this DRV. However, any admin that undeletes them should send them straight to AfD, where they will most certainly be deleted. I'm not going to undelete myself because it is a waste of time. Sorry.--Doc^g 09:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only one of these which did go to afd was kept. It doesn't look substantially different from the others. Certainly none of them even pretend to be encyclopedia articles; b:Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN codes) looks like a much better home for them. —Cryptic 17:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as no DRV action is called for. The nominator can undelete and AfD the prodded pages if he wishes without further authority from here. BlueValour (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Close They're prods, just undelete them and send them to AfD. east.718 at 21:43, December 21, 2007