Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 3

Template:Blunt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

I do not think that defaulting to keep after a “no consensus” close was appropriate in this situation. If the discussion does show no consensus then it is no consensus over whether to delete or userfy . Keeping the template as it is would seem to be the solution that the least number of people are happy with. Guest9999 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reopen if you like, but the properly solution is probably to overturn and userfy. To where I'm not sure, but you can always fall back on User:Lifebaka/Blunt if all else fails; it wouldn't bother me much to have this in my userspace. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, inappropriate for template namespace. Userfy if you must. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, delete. Template space is not really for jokes, and jokes about drug culture are a bit sensitive anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and userfy (deleting from template namespace) both past wikipedia practice and the consensus of the TfD support removing this from Template space. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and userfy, you could certainly argue that there was no consensus to delete in that TfD discussion, but only one person actually called for a keep, all the other non-delete votes were to userfy it, consensus is definitely there that it is inappropriate for the template namespace. --Stormie (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and userfy. I'd personally prefer outright deletion, but the TfD didn't produce a consensus for that... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tracy Price-Thompson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page for a novelist, listing four of the books she has written, was speedy deleted even though I placed the hangon template in the page, without response to my contesting comment. As I noted in that comment, if books themselves aren't eligible for speedy deletion it doesn't make sense that the author of four books be speedy deleted.

This article needs to be undeleted and put through the normal deletion process. This individual was called upon by the U.S. Air Force as an authority to speak at a Black History Month event so I'm sure with a little research I can fulfill the criteria for notability in the article (if having written four novels and being considered an authority by the Air Force really isn't enough.)

Based upon WP:BIO I would have to prove that "significant libraries" have copies of at least one of these books, I guess? Is that something you'd really put in the article itself anyways? I had already put the actual ISBNs of the books in the article and I suspect that the administrator did not do his two clicks of homework and check WorldCat. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion do not have a section for non-notable books. The article was tagged with "This article lacks information on the notability of the subject matter." Since the article was deleted within one minute after the hangon tag was submitted, it is only fair to allow the author to be given the chance to provide the proper sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Tony but I must reiterate that per WP:BIO the book listings already in the article fulfill notability. I'll add more information if people want but this was a trip-up on Toddst1's part, not mine. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the article. Please continue discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that having had four books published should be regarded as an assertion of notability, even if it's not immediately obvious that they were bestsellers, or in however many libraries WP:BK insists on. After all, to avoid A7 an article doesn't have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication that it might be notable. But anyway, in this case there seems to be more than ample press coverage to establish that this is a notable author, and to improve the article with. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Iain. I agree that there's lots of material around to improve the article. But I spent quite a while already tracking down the photos and bibliographic information. I think the issue of notability is already settled. Either the ISBN numbers and associated Wikipedia lookup mechanisms prove notability on account of the stated criterion of presences of works in libraries, or there's a bigger problem going on in that there's an unprovable criterion in WP:BIO. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Leira (goddess) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article appeared to have been speedily deleted by Deb in January. I'm concerned about how this deletion was handled, as the deletion log indicates it was an "Article about a web site that does not assert significance"; however, to the best of my recollection this article was not about a website.  :) This may merit a restoration of the article. If not, I would like to seek a restoration of the edit history, with a merge and/or redirect of the article to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think I see how this happened. Deletion text reads "website" in one place and "web content" in another. I was under the impression that people played this Forgotten Realms thing on-line. If that's not the case, then I suppose speedy deletion was not valid. Deb (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem then - a simple misunderstanding.  :) While there probably is some sort of online gaming content related to Leira and/or the Forgotten Realms, these concepts originated in print, have had far more exposure in print media, and continue to be featured in printed publications. So, if the speedy is to be overturned and the article restored, this is fine; however, if this is just likely to result in a different sort of deletion, I'd prefer a restore and redirect as detailed above.  :) BOZ (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not a very good article. If it was restored - which I will do - I'd still be tempted to nominate it for deletion. Redirect or merge would be better. I'll restore it now and leave it to you for a bit. Deb (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - if you ever give in to your temptations, just PROD it and I'll redirect it.  :) I'll see what I want to do with it in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

GONG (online game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Gong is an immensely popular game in China, Singapore, Philippines, and Malaysia. Just because the Western world hasn't heard of it before doesn't mean it is INSIGNIFICANT to the rest of the world. PLEASE consider restoring the wiki entry I created for GONG, an online game loved by hundreds of thousands of people in Asia. Thanks! Have a great day!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Extasiege (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion - Was mostly a lengthy and spammish description of gameplay without any indication of importance. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (as deleting admin). The deleted article whilst verbose contained no assertion of notability and I wholeheartedly stand by my original decision which I believe to have been within both the letter and the spirit of WP:CSD#A7. There may well be a place on Wikipedia for a properly sourced and referenced article on GONG (and I would have no problem with such an article being created) but that was not what I deleted. nancy ^(talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The deleted text was not an encyclopedia article, it was a mix of advertising and game guide. If the game is indeed popular, then there should be independent sources available to allow an actual encyclopedia article to be written. GRBerry 20:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Though I can't see the deleted article, the easiest solution to these sorts of speedies is nearly always to recreate the article so that it no longer makes the WP:CSD used to previously delete it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This one is in the cache. BlueValour (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - the problems with the page, game guide material etc, are not of course grounds for deletion. However, the lack of an indication of importance is. To be recreatable it needs a secondary source to back up the statement in the nomination "an immensely popular game in China, Singapore, Philippines, and Malaysia". BlueValour (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but permit userfication if anyone is interested in improving it userspace. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

mobiusgames is a popular games publisher in the Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia. Check out their website at http://www.mobiusgames.net. I suspect their competitor deleted the wiki entry created to inform people about mobiusgames on purpose. The deletion is malicious, and uncalled for. Please look into this very important matter. Thank you! Have a great day!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Extasiege (talk • contribs)

• Comment - Beyond bad faith accusations, the requester offers little substantial arguments for contesting the speedy deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

what is really needed is at least one outside reference to give us some evidence that the site is in fact notable. DGG (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The deleted text offers no indication that an encyclopedia article on the subject is possible. DGG has already indicated what is needed. GRBerry 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Other issues aside I would question the stated deletion rationale of "A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance". Guest9999 (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a disadvantage of the default descriptions in the drop down list. A7 includes people, but is broader: "about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content". A7 is correct, the rest of the default description is wrong for this case. GRBerry 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Not really sure if it makes A7. They worked on EVE Online? Might be important. Still, easiest solution is to recreate it with more indications of notability and to always assume good faith. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Another Comment - I agree with Lifebaka that the page could probably be rewritten as something that would not be an A7 candidate and that any user should be free to do so. I'm not sure if the sevice is notable - the only independent source (which isn't trivial, conflicted or an abvious obviously blog) that I can find seems a bit questionable ([1]) and more would be required to establish significant coverage. The parent company - Digital Media Exchange inc. - could be notable. Guest9999 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Appeal - If so, then I'm appealing for a reinstatement of the article to provide us time to edit it to make it more suitable for the wiki project, and to comply with the necessary requirements. Allow us some time to correct the mistakes. Thank you. --Extasiege (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy - there is clear advice above as to what is required so the way forward, in view of the sentiments in 'Appeal', is to userfy to allow the article to be sourced. BlueValour (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy per BlueValour. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)