Space Captain Smith – nomination withdrawn. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Space Captain Smith (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Article was originally deleted for failing to demonstrate notability. It was recreated several days ago by User:Benvaughan who provided adequate and sufficient, reliable, third-party sources. The page was subsequently deleted, however, for supposedly being a mere "recreation" of the previously deleted entry. This was not quite the case. The original reason for deletion (lack of notability) had been addressed. Ottens (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] If the google cache version is anything to go by it does indeed seem to coninute to fail the notability guideline for books. The first criteria of this is about coverage "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial..." and ids qualified with the statement: "The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.". Of the 5 references in the cached version: (1) is a copy of the books blurb, so fails the above (2) and (3) are interviews with the author so again fails the above (4) is a directory entry so fails the non-trivial requirement and (5) is about a literary group conference being organised where the book is mentioned - again this fails the non-trivial requirement it isn't about the book. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The deleted article was substantially the same as the article deleted at AFD. I suggest the user produces a userspace draft with improved sourcing and submits that to DRV for consideration rather then recreating this without debate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] I actually had a version saved in my user space (here) but it was deleted. That's why I'm bringing it up here. There are some other reviews (here, here, here, here, here) but most are from blogs... Ottens (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] If most are from blogs then they are not of much use. Did the version in your userspace link to non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources? If so can you provide the link to those rather than the non-reliable blogs? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] The version I had saved in my user space was the same as the cached version.Ottens (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Deleter's rationale: I compared with the deleted article, the new version was substantially similar and there was no significant improvement in sourcing (so the deletion rationale had not been addressed). An editor requested deletion under WP:CSD#G4 and having reviewed the article, its history and its three previous deletions I agreed with the CSD nominator's rationale. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] I thought the SFX and BBC Three interviews were of note, however I evidently didn't read the rules thoroughly enough, for I missed the part about interviews not being considered notable. This issue may be considered resolved in that case, as far as I'm concerned. Ottens (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Space Captain Smith – nomination withdrawn. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Article was originally deleted for failing to demonstrate notability. It was recreated several days ago by User:Benvaughan who provided adequate and sufficient, reliable, third-party sources. The page was subsequently deleted, however, for supposedly being a mere "recreation" of the previously deleted entry. This was not quite the case. The original reason for deletion (lack of notability) had been addressed. Ottens (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the google cache version is anything to go by it does indeed seem to coninute to fail the notability guideline for books. The first criteria of this is about coverage "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial..." and ids qualified with the statement: "The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.". Of the 5 references in the cached version: (1) is a copy of the books blurb, so fails the above (2) and (3) are interviews with the author so again fails the above (4) is a directory entry so fails the non-trivial requirement and (5) is about a literary group conference being organised where the book is mentioned - again this fails the non-trivial requirement it isn't about the book. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The deleted article was substantially the same as the article deleted at AFD. I suggest the user produces a userspace draft with improved sourcing and submits that to DRV for consideration rather then recreating this without debate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually had a version saved in my user space (here) but it was deleted. That's why I'm bringing it up here.
- There are some other reviews (here, here, here, here, here) but most are from blogs... Ottens (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  If most are from blogs then they are not of much use. Did the version in your userspace link to non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources? If so can you provide the link to those rather than the non-reliable blogs? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The version I had saved in my user space was the same as the cached version.Ottens (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleter's rationale: I compared with the deleted article, the new version was substantially similar and there was no significant improvement in sourcing (so the deletion rationale had not been addressed). An editor requested deletion under WP:CSD#G4 and having reviewed the article, its history and its three previous deletions I agreed with the CSD nominator's rationale. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the SFX and BBC Three interviews were of note, however I evidently didn't read the rules thoroughly enough, for I missed the part about interviews not being considered notable. This issue may be considered resolved in that case, as far as I'm concerned. Ottens (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Pain Hertz – Withdrawn – Stifle (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pain Hertz (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This discussion included attempts at WP:OUTING, repeated accusations of regular wiki users of actually being SPAs, and possible canvassing on the part of the deletion nominator (where in fact the nominator canvassed to delete TWO pages that I was involved in, coincidentally? during the same discussion). The admin admitted that it was a difficult decision which way to go - the KEEPs (IMHO) argued a strong case, but the initial deletes did not (one was in fact convinced eventually, but did not change the vote). The later deletes showed that basically this depends on how you interpret point 6 of WP:MUSIC. Much of the violations have also been reported at [1]. I would have simply left wikipedia at this moment (not over bitterness of this deletion, but because of the attacks and privacy invasions that occurred during it), but since the admin actually suggested this would not be a bad course of action, I'll do it. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse own Close, after discounting obvious WP:SPAs, this discussion closed at 7-2 in favour of deleting, so I didn't feel that any other response was appropriate. There was a lot of fluff and off-topic content in the discussion, and allegations of canvassing from both sides, which I looked at but didn't feel that they disrupted the discussion in any serious way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply] Endorse. This is a messy AfD, but I think the close was well within the closer's discretion. Tim Song (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, no other reasonable closure was possible. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, the criterion #6 of WP:MUSIC fails since the two people in the band are NN and are going through AfD now. Surely the closing admin has taken this into account. Triplestop x3 17:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] That's a good point, now. Although it only is true of _one_ of the two members, it does no longer apply if that one gets deleted. Luminifer (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, that's an endorse. I agree that the discussion was tainted by accusations of bad faith and genuinely disruptive behaviour, but I don't think the conclusion was in doubt. I want to add that there are times when it's appropriate to write War and Peace in an AfD, and that wasn't one of them.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] endorse I could see myself arguing for weak keep or keep if I had voiced an opinion in this discussion but it looks like this is a reasonable close. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Closure with delete was reasonable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, the only strong objection hinged on WP:MUSIC #6, which seems to be ruled out by the fact that Nick Wolven has since been deemed not-notable here leaving only Carmine Guida, who as far as I can see guested on a single jam session with the band ([2]) - WP:MUSIC calls for "an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians," and I don't see how Pain Hertz can claim Carmine Guida as a member - the band is not mentioned anywhere on the bio or music sections of his website, for instance. --Stormie (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] At this point, I agree that there's no argument for not deleting this, with the removal of Nick Wolven's article, so we can end this debate unless someone sees a point in not doing so. Luminifer (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Pain Hertz – Withdrawn – Stifle (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This discussion included attempts at WP:OUTING, repeated accusations of regular wiki users of actually being SPAs, and possible canvassing on the part of the deletion nominator (where in fact the nominator canvassed to delete TWO pages that I was involved in, coincidentally? during the same discussion). The admin admitted that it was a difficult decision which way to go - the KEEPs (IMHO) argued a strong case, but the initial deletes did not (one was in fact convinced eventually, but did not change the vote). The later deletes showed that basically this depends on how you interpret point 6 of WP:MUSIC. Much of the violations have also been reported at [1]. I would have simply left wikipedia at this moment (not over bitterness of this deletion, but because of the attacks and privacy invasions that occurred during it), but since the admin actually suggested this would not be a bad course of action, I'll do it. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own Close, after discounting obvious WP:SPAs, this discussion closed at 7-2 in favour of deleting, so I didn't feel that any other response was appropriate. There was a lot of fluff and off-topic content in the discussion, and allegations of canvassing from both sides, which I looked at but didn't feel that they disrupted the discussion in any serious way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse. This is a messy AfD, but I think the close was well within the closer's discretion. Tim Song (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, no other reasonable closure was possible. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the criterion #6 of WP:MUSIC fails since the two people in the band are NN and are going through AfD now. Surely the closing admin has taken this into account. Triplestop x3 17:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point, now. Although it only is true of _one_ of the two members, it does no longer apply if that one gets deleted. Luminifer (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's an endorse. I agree that the discussion was tainted by accusations of bad faith and genuinely disruptive behaviour, but I don't think the conclusion was in doubt.
I want to add that there are times when it's appropriate to write War and Peace in an AfD, and that wasn't one of them.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse I could see myself arguing for weak keep or keep if I had voiced an opinion in this discussion but it looks like this is a reasonable close. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure with delete was reasonable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the only strong objection hinged on WP:MUSIC #6, which seems to be ruled out by the fact that Nick Wolven has since been deemed not-notable here leaving only Carmine Guida, who as far as I can see guested on a single jam session with the band ([2]) - WP:MUSIC calls for "an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians," and I don't see how Pain Hertz can claim Carmine Guida as a member - the band is not mentioned anywhere on the bio or music sections of his website, for instance. --Stormie (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, I agree that there's no argument for not deleting this, with the removal of Nick Wolven's article, so we can end this debate unless someone sees a point in not doing so. Luminifer (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.