< August 14 Deletion review archives: 2008 August August 16 >

15 August 2008

  • Skank – Recreated with ((Wi)); Wiktionary now contains a definition of the word. – Sceptre (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Tagged as WP:CSD#A5 but I could not find the deletion debate. It was deleted while I was checking it out. There are a number of links, so I think we should review this and if we do think it was a dicdef (likely, IMO) then I guess we need to fix the redlinks to point to wikt:Skank. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a bit odd, but have you asked the deleting admin? He might be able to shed more information on why it was deleted as such. Shereth 22:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was an error on my part. It was supposed to be a dicdef. Sorry.
In doing my post-error homework, it appears that it's been AfD'd twice:
Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly it has not been transwiki'd to wikt:Skank. Should it have been? Or should it not have been deleted? --Stormie (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crap. I was going to simply restore the thing and be done since this was obviously a mistake but since there have been wholesale surgery of the article as a result of an OTRS ticket I'm not really in the mood to research the whole thing again. This clearly needs a further debate. My suggestion is to restore the last version and list at AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 19:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Talk:Ontario Freeway – Talk page restored as was deleted under G8 and is no longer orphaned. Seems non-controversial but contact me if there are any issues. – Stifle (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Ontario Freeway (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Ontario Freeway|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Talkpage restore requested. --75.47.152.157 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jews in the history of business – Non-admin closure of AFD rescinded and AFD reopened. – Stifle (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jews in the history of business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AFD was closed as a withdrawal, but there is no explicit withdrawal, nor should AFDs be withdrawn when an early consensus even says it should be deleted. Sceptre (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wasn't nominated for deletion at the time - the nominator withdrew the AfD tag. There's no use in a DRV because anyone can re-list at any time. Before doing that, though, I'd suggest taking a look at some of the discussion here and here. Wikidemo (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he just forgot to put it back? I've done it sometimes. Sceptre (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the AFD was closed by the articles creator, and given that the nominator had only advised that user of the AFD a few minutes before removing the AFD tag, with an edit summary suggesting they were restoring the article to it's original form for the deletion discussion, this close does indeed seem somewhat questionable. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed that - please re-nominate if you wish. But this is completely out of process - the AfD and the DRV. The article was renamed to favor deletion, then nominated for deletion under a misleading name, then the the nomination withdrawn. Start fresh perhaps, but don't reinstate bad process - which would be invalid whatever the result. I'll add, this was an out-of-process DRV closure too. Instead of going nuts on procedure, please simply start over if you still think the article is worthy of deltion and allow a proper AfD. Wikidemo (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Thomas Wm. Hamilton – AfD deletion endorsed – RMHED (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Thomas Wm. Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I cannot understand why this entry was deleted, and cannot find the listing for whomever did the deletion, so I cannot argue it with him/her. This person was in the list of "former child actors", having performed in at least three shows which are themselves listed in wikipedia (Barnaby, Mr. I-Magination, and Miracle on 34th Street), as well has having authored three books, many articles, etc etc. including being the first to suggest use of a manned spacecraft to visit a Near Earth Asteroid, and working on the Apollo Project. He should be listed in your list of American Astronomers (if you have such) rather than being deleted. He also ran for public office at least twice, and was for 8 years County Chair of a political party itself listed in wikipedia. I'm very uninformed as to how this works, so I have probably wasted my effort writing this here, and spent half an hour just finding this place to complain. Instead of posting a response here, where I probably couldn't find it, how about sending it to my email, anitalerman@yahoo.com.

  • Endorse deletion. The deletion discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wm. Hamilton, where the unanimous decision of the people contributing was to delete the article. I may be persuaded otherwise by citations from reliable sources which indicate that he meets the inclusion criteria at WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Process met. MBisanz talk 11:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. About as straightforward of a deletion as you can get. --SmashvilleBONK! 13:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like the article(s) included no reliable sources. It's not enough for information to be true, the means of verification must be provided. If Anitalerman seriously wants to work though this, then userfy. Anitalerman would need to express clear intention.. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not forget this has already been deleted twice at AfD. Even if the information given above was verifiable, it would not be enough to be kept at an AfD. --SmashvilleBONK! 14:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. If userfied, improvement would be needed, starting with proper sources as per WP:N.
  • Endorse: Being the one who closed the AfD discussion, there was a consensus to delete it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, seriously lacking in credible independent sources, a fact correctly reflected by a properly closed AfD. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'endorse' Clear consensus to delete. and the correct decision. DGG (talk)
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.
Scour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not blatant advertising — company originally documented was significant, and had not been in existence. Article existed for years, with a lot of editors reviewing it, and would need deletion review instead of speedy deletion. IlyaHaykinson (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. I disagree that Scour was blatant advertising qualified for speedy deletion. It was the history of a company which was arguably notable (see CNet results with Scour Exchange), with a recently created search company at that same site. It had been recently edited with advertising language solely about the latter company, but I reverted it. If it was reverted back, it would seem like an ad, but the article's history should have shown it could be reverted to a non-advert version.
  • I wouldn't have had an issue with removing information about the recently created search company, or reducing it to an acknowledgement that the domain has been redeveloped by an unrelated search company. If the deleting admin only saw this ("How is Scour different? Scour differentiates itself from other social search, ratings and community sites in that it..."), I can understand how he saw it as an advertisement of a newly created, non-notable company. However, until very recently, it was more like this, which is not written like an advertisement and provides claims of notability. Galatee (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The wrong reason was selected as the article was not advertising, but the deletion still meets the requirements of CSD:A7 (which in fact is the criterion under which it was tagged) as it was an article about a company/web content which did not indicate any notability or importance. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about an undeletion to Scour (P2P) instead of to Scour? The company was significant enough at the time (1998-2000): LA Times, Wired articles, ZDNet, CNET, as well as front page business section mentions in the LA Times and Wall Street Journal. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Looks like advertising, which means that independent sources *must* be provided. Undelete or userfy if reliable independent sources are identified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • List at AfD or Userfy. Looking again, I seemed to have overlooked that this was an possibly zealous speedie. Would need improvement (especially sources) to survive AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, userfy for rework if wanted but this was poorly sourced, promotional in tone and failed to make any credible assertion of notability, so was a valid speedy. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If it was deleted as A7, it made reasonable claims to notability as a company; if it was as G11, it eas vn as it stood possibly encyclopedic. Send to AfD ifnecessary, but, looking at the article, I think it would quite possibly stand there.Retitle however appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Link above shows that it was clearly quite notable. Given the comments above that the article had been non-spammy quite recently, I don't see how it qualifies as a speedy. Do we delete for vandalism or even good faith poor edits? Hobit (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, upon reading the cached version, it asserted all sorts of notability. Being sued by the big boys, having big name acquire 25% interest in you, etc. are all assertions of notability. Hobit (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I can only assume that the deletion was based on the version written by User:George1221 on August 8. Until that edit, the article was clearly not a G11 - it did not "exclusively promote some entity" nor would it "need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Nor was it an an A7 - at Hobit says above, assertions of notability, at least, were present. Additionally, I think it is seldom a good idea to "speedy" delete an article which has existed on Wikipedia for more than four years, as this one had. --Stormie (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse either as A7 (the non-spammy version by Galatee does not assert notability) or G11 (the earlier, shorter version by George1221 is written in the tone of a press release).  Sandstein  15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone do a history undelete? It's pretty hard to discuss something that I can't see. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
More