The word alive (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

decltype (talk · contribs) deleted the page The word alive under G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Word Alive) without discussing on the xfd. I believe thet they are notable enough, the lead singer of the band Tyler "Telle" Smith, already has an individual page, and so does Craig Mabbitt, who started the band. Also one of their songs made an appearance in the Tap Tap Revenge game, which seems notable enough, besides the fact that they are also signed to Fearless Records. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy for Mcrfobrockr, and let's see what he can make of it before moving it to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, but at the moment the mainspace is blocked due to the recreation of the page. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse salting. If you think this band is now notable, write a draft with sources. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion under criterion G4. The article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Word Alive due to an apparent lack of proof of the subject's notability. The recently-recreated version did not address that problem: the only sources used in the article were a MySpace blog posting, an iTunes preview page, and an iLike blog posting. These sources, unfortunately, fail to meet the standard of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works whose source is independent from the subject.
  Although, admittedly, the article does seem to meet two of the alternate criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music)—"is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" (Tyler "Telle" Smith and former member Craig Mabbitt) and "has performed music for a work of media that is notable" (Tap Tap Revenge 3)—I do not think that this can compensate (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence) for a total absence of reliable sources about the subject. If such sources exist, they have yet to come to light, and I have no objection to userfying (if Mcrfobrockr wants that) to allow time to search for sources.
  I also endorse the decision to create-protect, for the time being, The Word Alive and The word alive. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeskAway (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Spartaz (talk · contribs) deleted the page DeskAway citing the reason as:‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: extra source looks like a regurgitated press release, Notability concerns not yet met. please submit draft to DRV if you wish to restore this to mains)

Why should there be notability concerns when we had given links of leading Indian newspapers, TV channel interviews, leading global blogs that have reviewed the software. I looked at the wiki pages of other similar software as this one, you can see them here: list of project management software. I could not find any 'more' credible sources for those softwares either. I think the page needs to be undeleted and please review whether the sources cited are really lacking in notability! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoldee (talk • contribs) 08:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cannot see the second version, so unable to comment on the appropriateness of the second deletion but the request to submit a userfied draft to DRV is appropriate after looking at the concerns raised at the first AfD, thus I endorse that decision. The deleted material should be returned to the editor's userspace if the editor wishes to present it here. J04n(talk page) 10:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  After reading the deleted material I endorse the second deletion as well. Essentially the article is unchanged since the AfD with the only new reference, being a fluff piece about the creator of the subject as opposed to the subject itself. J04n(talk page) 04:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The deleted material is now back at User:Smoldee/DeskAway. This DRV would be better placed to look at whether the article as it now stands has addressed the concerned expressed at the AFD. I personally have no strong opinion in this except that there should be a proper discussion before any restoration. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion upon examination of the deleted material. The few sources provided do not in my view confer notability under WP:WEB, one of the reasons for deletion at AfD. Also, the second article seemed vaguely promotional, as did the first (another reason for deletion at AfD). Because the issues leading to deletion at AfD were not resolved, WP:CSD#G4 was applicable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse continued deletion. Nothing sufficient to overturn the deletion consensus has been presented. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]