Picnic (2004 film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deleted as A7 even though films are expressly ineligible for A7, and even though the article made a clear and credible claim of significance -- the film was created by a notable performer. The deleting admin treated the film as web content, but a film created even before youtube existed does not become web content simply because a copy was later uploaded and made available online. Deleting admin has refused to restore, on the basis that the article "did not have sufficient reliable sources", which is by policy not an acceptable basis for speedy deletion.[1] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn A7 Whether on not this is within A7's scope (though it's unlikely it was), being created by a notable person is a credible claim of significance (note: WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply to A7, before anyone cites that as a reason to endorse). Also, the non-notability and lack of sources reasoning demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of both A7 and CSD in general, for it is explicitly stated that is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Adam9007 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Gonna need a temp undelete to evaluate. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. → AA ^(talk) — 16:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not A7. Both written and directed by two different notable people. Adam9007 (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This was previously deleted also for pretty much the same content. It was mentioned that it's a 15min short documentary but I could not find any significant coverage in searching for sources. → AA ^(talk) — 17:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I was involved. Didn't find anything to indicate that it was anything other than an online video, for whatever that's worth. (TIL YouTube started in 2005.) TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn as 1/ no evidence of being only a you tube video and therefore not unambiguously in scope And 2/ even if it were there is a credible claim to significance. "I don't think it will pass afd" is not a reason for A7. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)`[reply]
• Overturn, what DDG said, not to mention that A7 applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works.. As I've said before in other DRVs, I suspect this won't survive AfD, but AfD is the right place to figure that out, and we should be very conservative about using WP:CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn not an A7 as not clearly in scope and there are assertions of notability. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as clearly not within the scope of A7. A7 does not apply to films. While a film solely distributed via the internet would fall within A7's scope as it's really just a YouTube video I see no indication that is the case here. Even if A7 did apply to films being created by a notable person should constitute an assertion of significance. The deleting admin has argued that the article wasn't adequately sourced, the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines for films and that a previous article was deleted under A7, none of which remotely means the article failed to indicate the significance of the subject. The wording of A7 isn't "stuff I don't think is notable". Hut 8.5 21:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, that's how a lot of people interpret A7. Either that or they think that because something's not notable, it somehow invalidates any claim of significance's credibility. A lot of people also say having a notable creator or founder is not a credible claim of significance per WP:NOTINHERITED, which simply shows lack of understanding. Adam9007 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. CSD taggers and deleters need to read WP:CSD more carefully. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I have more sympathy for how this happened, A7 having apparently rather arbitary exceptions even though they would suffer the same ill and therefore the same rationale for immediate deletion as the other content. I can also see how it would be missed what the claim to significance is (since it isn't actually spelt out to my mind). That said when the error was pointed out the deleter should simply have self overturned. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, a double misapplication of policy; not only are films ineligible, but even if they were there are credible claims of significance here. It might not survive AFD, but that's not what A7 is about. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Pablo Zibes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was nominated for deletion, all within a few days. I was never notified of this discussion and was a couple of days late, when the decision had already been made and the page was already deleted. The reviewers were not given the full picture for the reason to keep the page, and unfortunately it was removed before any arguments to keep it were presented. At a high level, Pablo Zibes is for is internationally renowned, having earned many prestigious awards. The decision to merge the page was made speedily and without the proper arguments to make a more informed decision. This request is to undelete the page either before or after we are able to make edits calling out the group's significance to an audience who may not be as familiar with the genre. Some references included from FAZ, Stuttgarter Zeitung, and more . --Otto-muell (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditionally endorse @Otto-muell: you were the only person who participated in the AfD who argued to keep. You made the assertion that there were sources. You were asked during the AfD to provide those sources, but you didn't do so. As it stands now, no sources were presented, so the delete close seems perfectly reasonable. If you do have sources to present, please do so here. If you can show the existence of a sufficient number of reliable sources to meet our notability guidelines, I'll be happy to change my mind. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• My close said, "If reliable sources arise, take it up with the discussants." The nominator does not appear to have attempted to contact either them or me, despite the Deletion Review directions. czar 13:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Could the nominator here please list the awards and sources they feel are relevant? Hobit (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please clarify, I'm getting confused vibes from the comments here. Manuelle1133, Maus-78, Klaus-Pas: does your "Endorse" comment mean that you endorse Czar's deletion of the article per the AfD or do you endorse Otto-muell's DRV request for page restoration? Thanks for clarifying... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So, it turns out my hunch was spot on, and the DRV nom + their three socks make up most of the conversation. The DRV nom is a confirmed sock of the the three collapsed accounts underneath, including Maus-78 who created Pablo Zibes three times. I strongly recommend speedily closing this DRV. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Checkuser note: Otto-muell, Manuelle1133, and Klaus-Pas are sock puppets of Maus-78. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maus-78.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. clear consensus, clearly stated, AfD nom and User:Bearian were was right, and the nominator here has been blocked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse by default due to nominator's (really terrible) sockery and deception. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]