State of society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

article apparently was deleted in en masse action. obviously without a look at the article. admin when asked gave no reasons for his 'weak keep arguments' opinion. 77.113.46.238 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems in this deletion discussion. The creator of the article was asked for sources and never provided any to the satisfaction of the community. It is unclear whether the opinions of the suspiciously new users were discounted by the closer but it would have been within reasonable discretion if he/she had done so. (Incidentally, I am unclear what the nominator here means by the reference to "en masse action". This appears to be a routine AfD closure to me.) Rossami (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I was not aware of any potential sockpuppetry when I closed this AfD, and it would not have changed the outcome either way. Cheers! lifebaka++ 11:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This discussion, while perhaps contentious, reached a pretty clear consensus. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason why it was deleted was for no 3-rd party referances. I have created a new one at User:Briguy9876/Roblox that address the issue, but I had to sacrafice a full article, because the game is fairly unkown and still in open beta Briguy9876 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry but I don't think it's ready to come out yet. Of the three sources in your draft, the first describes itself as "a user driven internet startups community" and encourages the creators of new ideas to post about themselves. The content itself reads more like a press release than independent commentary. The third is from the company's own website, again failing the independence test required for sources under WP:CORP. That leaves only the second reference, a "Lifestyles" article in Midweek, a small regional newspaper. I don't think that one small reference would be sufficient to keep the page from being re-deleted if you moved it into the main articlespace. This should sit for a while longer still. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. This closure was reasonable, because there was consensus on a number of good reasons for deletion, such as non-notability. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per the analysis by Rossami, there just is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notabiliy at this time. Davewild (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyAnimeList (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD, AfD2)

Asking for a simple history-only undelete for both main article and discussion page. A number of things were discussed in the talk page that I feel could be a good reference for the new article. Kei-clone (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. That seems reasonable, now that the new article is in place and not good only for deletion. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Undelete Reasonable request, can't see any reason not to. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD, AfD2)

reason for deletion was 'weak keep arguments'. i do not get why given references and sources were weak and admin did not answer to it. article during hot disscusion was improved significantly by several users and was nothing like at AfD placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.112.165.230 (talk • contribs)

• Relist As far as I can see it, there was no real consensus, even if the sockpuppets (alleged) are removed from the tally. Unfortunately I cannot view the article in question as the cache is from July 28th. I have no idea if the claim is true that improvement was made, so an admin might want to review that. But as said, I think 4 deletes and 3 keeps (one delete was conditional only if the article was copyvio) are no real consensus and it might need a new discussion to be decided. So#Why ^{review me!} 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just so ya' know, it's usually better to notify the deleting admin in these cases. Luckily for you (I guess), I'm already a DRV regular. lifebaka++ 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: admin did not notify author about deletion. --77.114.227.188 (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified of both AfDs when they began. There is no requirement for closing admins to notify the authors again of the result. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that might not make sense to others. It appears that this and the nominator are User:Discourseur, who has a frequently changing dynamic IP around the ranges 77.112-115.*.* and keeps forgetting to sign in. I'm working under that assumption, at least. lifebaka++ 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems in the first AFD discussion. The second discussion was held because at least one user thought that the recreated version was not sufficiently similar to the deleted version to qualify under CSD criterion G4 however based upon my own review of the deleted content, the recreated version suffered from the same lack of sourcing as the initially deleted version. This conclusion was endorsed in the Aug AfD discussion where sources were again requested but were not provided to the satisfaction of the community. No new evidence was presented in the recreated content or in the second discussion or here that would support the reconsideration of the previous two decisions. Rossami (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. There was no consensus in the second AfD. A lack of sources isn't in and of itself a good reason to delete. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted by myself (and then redirected) after this AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Manion. I have just been approached on my talk page about this deletion and new sources have been provided there - see User talk:Davewild#Tom Manion, some of which are quite good. I am unsure myself, but am leaning towards relisting at AFD to get more opinions as the concerns raised in the first AFD included the weakness of the sourcing and the AFD had a quite thin participation. I would appreciate more opinions on the correct course of action rather than acting unilaterally, thanks. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm neutral on the quality of the sources themselves, but I'd support a relist. Would likely to be useful to undelete and unredirect the article going into it, and maybe give a little time for improvement—two days seems good to me, but I admit arbitrary selection. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are two standard times: 5 days for prod, 7 for a Underconstruction tag. DGG (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This debate was closed one hour after opening by a non-admin who is an active memeber of the wikiproject that maintains these articles. There was insuficient time to discuss the matter, and the closing admin was not in a position to act from a point of objectivity Fasach Nua (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closure - the nominator didn't even look at the articles before nominating them, instead doing so en-masse. Several articles did cite third-party sources, and one was even a GA. En-masse nominations usually fail because of the wide disparity of article quality, and this is no exception. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh, I'm waffling between endorsing and reopening; I think I'll go with reopen, simply due to the short time between the nomination and closure. Two hours isn't enough time to build a proper consensus for WP:SNOWing, IMO. Nothing really wrong with it otherwise, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No matter how long this went, two closures were possible: 1) trainwreck, nominate individually where appropriate or 2) keep, nominate individually where appropriate. There is no point to reopening a mass nomination. GRBerry 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; five keeps over a collection of articles that includes a GA. No chance of this closing as a mass delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This was a pointless train-wreck waiting to happen, come hell or high water there's no way that the GA article would be deleted, Donna Noble shouldn't be in an AFD either if these are anything to go by. There's no way so many character articles could realistically be discussed properly in a single AFD, and since it seems a bunch of them were just picked up and flung in the bucket I see no reason why anyone should have to slog through them just to prevent their deletion. Someoneanother 16:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Without any opinion as to the content or discussion, the manner of closure as described by Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) is wholly inappropriate. I suggest either overturning as out of course, or re-opening and re-publishing the AFD to allow either (a) further community discussion or (b) unbiased administrative closure without any possible overtures of impropriety. Regardless of projected outcome, the closure was bad in the face of openness and objectivity and should not be allowed to set a worrisome precedent. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it's the best closure in the world, but it's a valid speedy keep, no matter who did it. The precedence that mass AfDs that include GA-class articles can be speedy kept by anyone after five keep votes (with no deletes besides the nominator) doesn't strike me as a bad one; this really was an awful AfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Nominating user has not really looked at the articles he nominated. As pointed out above, there were several B- and even a GA-class article amongst them, all sourced and thus not failing WP:V or WP:RS as claimed by the nominator. And WP:CRUFT, even if often claimed, is not a valid reason for deletion but a interpretation of WP:NOT and is not a policy or guideline and there is no broad consensus over it. So the AfD was not within any reason and as for example GAs are almost never deleted there was not a valid reason to assume it would be different here. The nominator has failed to specify reasons for the articles themselves, instead trying to delete a dozen articles with claims that are only partly true for some of the articles and are completely wrong for others. If I went and picked a dozen articles from the main page and list them for deletion claiming they all fail WP:V and WP:RS and are fancruft, such an AfD would be SNOWed within minutes and that would be correct. The situation is the same here. So#Why ^{review me!} 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural point, no opinion on the deletion review. If the decision is to relist it would be better to list one or two of the nominated articles individually rather than the mass nomination. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, I don't think anyone objects to individual articles being relisted. That can be done without this DRV. This DRV is about the mass AfD as it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure No possiblity that debate was going to end in all the articles being deleted (or almost certainly any of them in my opinion), it would either be a trainwreck or keep all. Regardless of who actually closed the debate the decision itself was correct. Cannot recommend renominating seperately either in view of the sourcing that seems to be available on the ones I looked at. Davewild (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Sceptre probably should have left the close to somebody totally uninvolved with all things Dr. Who related. This kind of mass nomination of articles of assorted notability is never a good idea. Some of those listed probably should be renominated individually. RMHED (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure. That has to be the most unnecessary AfD I've seen. I'm shocked that it would go to DRV. Many of the articles in question are well written, well referenced, and far to long to have the material go back to Doctor Who which is already too long as it is. Perhaps nominator should follow guidelines and nominate a single article, rather than all. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure. Textbook WP:SNOWBALL case; this was an indiscriminate mass-nomination which featured well-sourced articles and a GA-class article. Such nomnation deserve to be speedy closed, no matter by whom. — Edokter • Talk • 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, clearly obvious WP:SNOWBALL keep, combined with allegations of WP:POINT violations by the nominator. Nothing useful or good could possibly have come out of that AfD discussion. --Stormie (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, many of the articles in question do need work to include more/any reliable citations. However, their content is largely well-written and editors are aware these articles need improving thanks to the assessments visable on their talk pages. Also, I think strong arguments would have been made that would have resulted in keeping each individual article. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original Trip Lee page was unsourced and not notable. I have created a new version with some sources (independent). The artist is musically notable having now broken into the Billboard Top 200 Album sales and the Billboard Christian Top 10, both of which I have external documentation listed. My new version is at User:Dimsim da man/Trip Lee, where User:TexasAndroid was kind enough to restore/merge the old articles history. The last version of this article before deletion is here. Thank you for your time and attention. Aquatiki (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. The artist's album reaching the Billboard charts certainly provides notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to mainspace Nice work, userspace version much improved on former deleted version, with notability now established. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the above copy to mainspace, seems to at least criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC with multiple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - Good work, & glad to see you brought this here per my suggestion at RFPP. VegaDark (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - Great improvement on the deleted version, good work. Wiw8 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As an admin who over a year ago G4 speedied a recreation of this article, I was not certain if the new information was enough to overturn the original AFD, and felt that a DRV would be best to get consensous on that overturn. I suggested this to the author of the new version, and directed him to DRV. DRV having shown a fairly unambiguous overturn of the original AFD, based on the new information, I have now moved the article back into place, including all it's history, and undone the salting in the process. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kulim (Malaysia) Berhad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm still new and probably make mistake in update article in wikipedia. I really hope that you can unblock this page so I can update information about Kulim' plantation company so can be share with all people about it. Thank You Kulim (Malaysia) Berhad (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note, but I deleted the above user's userpage as the content was nearly identical to the deleted version. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I deleted this, it was pure spam, looked like a copyright violation too although i didn't check, unprotected now jimfbleak (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Article title is now unprotected so you can create a new article there. However would suggest following the Wikipedia:Amnesia test and paying particular attention on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before rewriting an article. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]