Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 14

Image:Munch_vampire.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was either the deleting admin or the person who moved this to Commons even literate? Did they even look at the talk page? This file is not legal for Commons but is here. -Nard 00:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support undeletion, but the hostility is not necessary or productive. Superm401 - Talk 09:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oceaneering International Services (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Its an NYSE traded company that should have an article, if the content was poor, that could have been fixed as a surmountable problem--Tbmorgan74 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion but allow recreation. Not sure that the latter part is really needed though. The article is not salted, so there's nothing really preventing the creation of a new, well sourced, non-spammy article at the location. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• This article needs some cleanup but never should have been deleted... "component of the S&P 600 stock market index", traded on NYSE, etc. Have we stopped reading articles before deleting them? --Rividian (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• History merge. The deleting admin restored one revision, and I don't see any reason (besides possible copyvios in some revisions of the current article) why the old revisions shouldn't be in the history. Of course, if for any reason that isn't possible/realistic, the article currently exists and doesn't need a DRV. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anastasis Michael (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

An article about a Cypriot politician, candidate for the Cypriot Presintentship. It was in Wikipedia for some time and at least 2 editors have contributed for it. I think the person is more important than many footballers, but the article was not very good. Article deleted by User:Seicer with A7. I requested undeletion so an Afd to be made and see if the article can be improved. Seicer agreed with me but within 20 minutes, User:Cobaltbluetony deleted again and refused to undelete it. Check the deletion log as well. I request once more undeletion so the article has the chance to go though an AfD. Note, that the creator who is not me, wasn't never warned for that and that the article was link in four different articles in Wikipedia and none went to fix the red links at least. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Magioladitis (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: per WP:BIO#Politicians, failed candidates are not automatically eligible. The article text stated that this candidate only got 0.03% of the voate, making him highly unnotable. No other information about this guy was presented; it would horribly fail an AFD. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Restore and optionally send to AfD. That it would probably fail Afd is not the criterion for speedy. Being on the ballott for president of a country is a claim to notability. That a prev. admin undeleted it is something one can miss when doing a speedy, but to refuse to undelete it after one is told that is very close to wheel-warring. DGG (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Nothing more need be said; DGG has said it all. GRBerry 20:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Outcast (Warriors) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted a couple months ago and is a protected redirect. The article was deleted mainly because of the lack of evidence of notability and the fact it hadn't been released yet. However, Outcast will be released in only eight days, and new information has surfaced that, I think, establish notability. What the article would look like can be seen here. Obviously, some sections can't be filled in until the release, but I'll complete them when the information becomes available. Thanks, Shrewpelt (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - undoubtedly, when the book is published, it will be notable since all the other books in the series have articles. Having said that there really is very little in the userspace version that constitutes notability. However, when this DRV is closed there will be just 3 days to go to publication. At that point it would come back here. It seems rather policy wonkish to decline recreation only for it to be recreated 3 days later. BlueValour (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• So then, what do you want to do? Shrewpelt (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Actions per TexasAndroid looks the way to go. BlueValour (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Unsalt redirect, Restore history, and History merge the user page version over the old page. The user page version looks good, and much better sourced than the versions in the deleted history. And once the article legitimately exists and has gotten past the notability and WP:CRYSTAL reasons for it's deletion, which the user page version appears to do, then there is no reason IMHO to keep the older stuff deleted. And finally, a move/history merge of the user space version woulf allow Shrewpelt to get credit in the page history for his nice new version. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Endorse all previous actions. My above opinions in no way should be taken to mean that I think the earlier actions were incorrect. I believe that they were perfectly correct at the time. But the situation has changed, and we have a nice version presented in user space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)