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

This article on a footballer was deleted by AfD on the grounds that he had not played professionally, however he made his professional debut today ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• can we just make a rule that a player who has made his début can just be recreated/undeleted by private request? There has been a purge on marginal players over the summer and we will be swamped with straightforward requests like this if we don't. Its not like I even like football but I'm happy to do it if people leave me a note. Oh and allow recreation/undelete etc. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm an admin so could have done it myself but figured it would be best to do things "by the book"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yeah, that wasn't adig at you simply a desire to get an agreed consensus on how to deal with the inevitable flood of débuts. Doing it by the book is cool. Shredding the book where possible is even better. ;) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy Keep, now meets WP:ATHLETE. BTW, I've got another admin telling me that I should be DRVing rather than asking to restore. Perhaps we simply deal with the root cause, and should not be so quick to delete players that are likely to be part of the first team when the season resumes, or who are on the first team, but only as substitutes. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article was first deleted over a year ago - waiting a year for him to make his debut is hardly constructive. The root problem is people creating the articles before the players meet the criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Restore the deleted version to mainspace and add a reference about this player having played a professional match. I don't think this is really a case for DRV. The AfD was closed appropriately at the time, yet the circumstances have clearly changed now. In a situation like this one should probably simply contact the closing admin directly and ask for the article to be undeleted. It would probably help if in AfDs of this sort the closing admins made allow recreation/undelete in case of future professional appearances a part of the closing summary. There are quite a few other AfDs in the same category, where new players have been signed up by professional clubs but have not made actual game appearances yet. E.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waide Fairhurst is a recent one of this sort. Nsk92 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Player passed earlier DRV of August 9. In the meantime, as fully expected he started today for Arsenal F.C.. The previous DRV should have passed on WP:N alone because of the massive international media coverage this player has had. Could an Admin please restore the article ASAP so as to not waste someone who knows no better's time starting to write a new article from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - according to the link he is listed under "subs not used". PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - oops - to be honest, I hadn't noticed that - and had I, I would have handled differently. (in particular I wouldn't have said he had started!), and I apologize for starting this debate in this manner. However, now that we are down this road, this clearly demonstrates he is an important part of the first team. And surely even sitting on the bench of one of the top 4 football teams on what is arguably the best league in the planet, is notable - particularly compounded with the massive media coverage he has received. I'm completely confounded that with the international media coverage he has received in the last few weeks that anyone is arguing that he doesn't meet WP:N - typically the argument against WP:N for a football player goes along the lines that "the Wessex Evening News is a local rag, and he needs national coverage" ... yet this time we have significant international coverage. Nfitz (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy close as deletion endorsed Nothing new here. Player has still not played for first team (reason article was deleted in first place) and last DRV closed as deletion endorsed earlier today. No need to re-discuss. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Under the circumstances, because I have made an error, I don't have any objections if User:Chick Bowen wants to speedy close - but I ask that he reconsiders his notability under WP:N as per my comments yesterday on his talk page after he closed it. Nfitz (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

My biographical entry was deleted. I was a prominent journalist in Chicago before leaving to join the Chicago Symphony Orchestra to manage its record label, CSO Resound. This is similar to running a music label in any other genre, and is therefore prominent and of interest to people who follow the classical-recording industry. My blog is also one of the top 25 most popular classical-music blogs. I feel this meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, which I have read. The admin who deleted my entry states on his (or her) page that they are not to contacted about why an article was deleted. For this reason, I am not going to notify him of this request. Thank you, and please restore my article. 75.21.84.5 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This was deleted as the result of a community dicussion, accessble via the AfD link above and from the deletion summary which the deleting admins talk page directs you to. The basic standard for notability for biographies such as yours is listed at WP:BIO. It would be helpful if you could state why you believe you are notable relative to the standards outlined there. On the basic criteria, which is essentially to have non-trivial coverage about you, written by independant third parties in reliable sources from the article as written doesn't appear to have been met, there were lots of references to places you have worked or to articles you have written, but none to articles about you. Even for the other criteria within WP:BIO such assertions would need to be backed up by similar independant reliable sources. Someone here may come and try and search them out for you, but they may not or may not be able to find them, so if you have such references you can add them here. (Additionally if you can demonstrate that you meet the norbaility standards there is the other issue of the content of the article needing to be verifiable that is it needs to reference the sources for where the facts come from, you knowing it to be correct is not enough, other readers need to be able to follow up on the sources to verify what they read) --82.7.39.174 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Also you may wish to see our conflict of interest guideline. In general, writing about yourself is not such a great idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse deletion per AfD. Userfication might be a reasonable next step but should probably wait until the author gets an account or someone else expresses interest. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse - No problem with AfD, no substantive new arguments brought up.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse closure per default, because no argument is made that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or that significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article (see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates, above).  Sandstein  15:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dance Gavin Dance (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

The article was deleted because it was lacking in sources, but there are now several reliable sources talking about the album. ([1][2][3]) It is also confirmed to be a self-titled album on each of those sources. One of the sources is even from Alternative Press, so there should be no question of reliability. I'd say more but I don't know what more there is to say; I'll let the sources do the talking. — ^FatalError 07:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not sure any of those satisfy WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I don't believe the first two meet RS. The third appears to be the website of a music magazine. If it was published in the mag then it counts but I'm not sure that a purely online article would count. Can the nominator confirm whether this was a mag or website story? They may also wish to bear in mind that meeting our guidelines on reliable sourcing generally requires material from mainstream quality publications or books. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I don't believe it was published in the actual magazine, no. I didn't think about that. I just figured, since it was published by one of the largest music magazines in the world, it should be reliable enough. In that case, how about a source from the band's record label? — ^FatalError 07:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nope. primary sources do not establish notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Wait, never mind, for some reason I thought I was trying to find a source proving the album name, not notability. Never mind then, I guess I'll wait for more sources. — ^FatalError 08:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Article, present for quite some time, speedily deleted by User:Alexf on CSD#A7 grounds (no assertion of notability). Davis is a NAACP-award winning (Best Supporting Actress) television and cinema actress, and the last time I saw the article a day or so ago I believe it both asserted notability and passed the notability guidelines, and the cached Google copy does the same as well. I would request, at least, that the article be restored to my userspace if it is determined that it needs additional work. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It appears that that article has been recreated. Under the assumption that either the article will stay or be sent to AFD, then I guess this should be closed for now. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• When I saw the db-bio notice the article only contained the following text: "Cassi Davis is a Christian singer and actress." That's it. Nothing more. I was doing more than one vandal reversion and some CSD at the time and this obviously looked like a clear db-bio case. Upon looking again (after I was notified) I see the article was recreated and indeed it shows notability now. Studying the log on this page I see now that on 15 Aug 17:36 User talk:209.215.62.10 practically deleted all the important text for whatever reason (vandalism it seems). Apologies then for my deletion. -- Alexf⁴² 01:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]