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

I located several news articles about the man, not his Vice Presidential candidate wife, Sarah Palin. Mrs. Biden has a Wikipedia article. Mrs. Biden's claim to be in an encyclopedia is exactly the same as Mr. Palin as both have some sources on them, just not a whole lot. Let's immediately recreate this article as a stub and let it grow. Let's not wikilawyer to stall the article or kill it prematurely. I came here at the request of Sandstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.20.2 (talk • contribs)

Sam Wood (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This article was deleted because the player in question had not played a competitive first team match. Now he has done (see http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=49537), therefore the article should be restored. Steve1986 uk (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The sport notability guideline is an indication of the kinds of people who will achieve multiple non-trivial independent coverage. Wikipedia policy does not allow articles on living individuals without credible sourcing, simply running out for a professional match does not actually have any relevance to that policy. Please cite the non-trivial reliable independent sources form which you wish to draw the article. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the special guidelines for athletes supersede the general guidelines, which are just the default in case there is nothing more specific. Even if Guy thinks otherwise, it is still a claim to notability fully sufficient to pass speedy. I'm glad the editor used any of the available channels. Some people prefer to come to an open forum. DGG (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you amended WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT to reflect the fact that unsourced articles are permitted in the case of fulfilling the aim of being a directory of every footballer who ever played a single league match? That's kind of an inportant policy change to be made via a notability guideline which specifically states that it's only a guideline not a policy. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Either this is contesting the original prod deletion in whish case an automatic restoration is necessary (and the reason for the prod has been addressed - which was "no evidence of first team appearances in a fully professional league") or the speedy has been contested and an assertion of importance has been made (and sourced) namely that he has played in a fully professional league. In either case the article should be restored and updated. If anyone then wants to take it to AFD they can do but I doubt it would be deleted there. Davewild (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per above. Meets WP:BIO. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

(This concerns only the first deletion.) The article was deleted for lacking sources, however this person is probably notable, it's quite linked in the article space, concerns about notability and research of sources where needed can be handled by an afd. There are problems with articles related to Tag Entertainment due to editors with disruptive/tendentious editing. However, this article can be easily organized into a stub and the unsourced content removed. I'd recommend this to be undeleted and possibly sent to AFD. Cenarium ^Talk 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no objection to restoring it and sending to afd, but given that she seems from IMdB to have had only a succession of very minor roles, what's the point? I'd encourage editors to go any route they prefer with their requests--some may feel more comfortable coming here, tho probably most will want to go directly to the admin involved. DGG (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who deleted the article is on indefinite wikibreak and unlikely to respond to any message. Cenarium ^Talk 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refer only to the first deletion, the second deletion was justified. Here's the diff with the state of the article before the first deletion and the recreation. Note that I prefer discuss with the admin before, but in this situation I think DelRev is the only way. Cenarium ^Talk 15:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion to avoid the pointless bureaucracy of an AFD that would almost certainly end in a delete result. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course if I thought that the afd result would be almost certainly delete, I wouldn't have asked a DR. Alana Austin has played a major role in A Simple Twist of Fate, see [1]. You can verify the basic biographical data here. Allmovie lists 5 "starring role" [2]. For example in Motocrossed, which is documented in medias [3]. There's already enough sources for a biography with basic personal data and documentation for her major roles. Cenarium ^Talk 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- a bare lack of sources does not constitute legitimate grounds for speedy deletion, except under certain narrowly defined circumstances described in our biographies of living persons policy, which are not present here. Given the sources provided by Cenarium above, and the reasonable prospect of AFD discussion participants finding additional sources if they were able to read the text of the article (which, at present, is accessible only to administrators), we should not prejudge the outcome of an AFD discussion by assuming that "an AFD... would almost certainly end in a delete result", but should instead allow the discussion to actually occur. John254 15:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Cat Radio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

no consensus was achieved in the latest AFD. Numerous 3rd party references were located and about half of the editors believe the article met WP:N and were proposing rewriting the article with these references yet the result was delete for some reason. Rtphokie (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Relist - Looks like this could have used another 5 days to me. Oh, here's the AFD in question. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist If someone feels more comfortable asking here, nothing wrong with doing that and getting a variety of opinions. There was clearly no consensus reached in the AfD. DGG (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really care one way or the other, relist it if you guys desire. I'm disappointed that the nom didn't come to me first though, I likely would've undid my close had he asked. Wizardman 02:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And that is exactly why people should be requesting the deleting admin to take a second look rather than opening a process here for five days. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Seems to meet WP:N and I didn't see consensus here. I'd have suggested a close of no-consensus or a relist rather than the delete close. Hobit (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was the first deletion review that I've requested and I missed the step of contacting the deleting admin first. I apologize for the concern it has caused a couple of admins but would like to see this review acted on since there seems to be a consensus that it be overturned and relisted.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per above. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt For Ida Wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

page met music criteria and was deleted not long after having been proven. Winter.skin (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What was the reasonable indication that the article gave as to why its subject was notable? As far as I can see it's one of a million bands with an EP and a MySpace page, which shares a couple of members with other bands of no great notability. --Stormie (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the hunt for ida wave meet the following;

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.

- both current members are in Eternal Lord, the vocalist is an ex-member of a highly popular group, I Killed The Prom Queen, he has done world tours with them as well and is fairly well known / respected in the scene for that music.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability

- before the band split they were known in their local scene for their fierce live presence and shows.

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

- band has released two cds with a third to be released at the end of this year, also they have signed to several record labels which are owned by larger companies / are establish labels for distribution. Winter.skin (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No such discussion took place. Had it done so, I would remain pretty unconvinced by any of the above arguments, which ignore all the important qualifiers such as "a major label or one of the more important indie labels" and "most prominent representative... of the local scene of a city"! This is pretty much "side projects, early bands and such" with a side of WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Only one test matters a damn to me: has this person been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. No evidence is provided to suggest that this is the case. Notability is not inherited or contagious. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that may be the only thing that matters to you, but I prefer to follow the WP policy, where the entire notability requirements are guidelines, requiring us to consider the possibility of exceptions, and the actual WP:N guideline is accompanied by a variety of specific other considerations. I don't make the rules, but in evaluating other people's

s work, i do follow them. 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

it was started on the discussion page of the article like the deletion notice informed me to do, sorry i don't write anymore at the moment, i buggered my neck at a concert last night. Winter.skin (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that is the WP policy. Check WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don't they only have to meet one requirment? Winter.skin (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per JzG. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]