Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive

Shortcuts: WP:DRV WP:DELREV

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review
Deletion policy
Process - log - tools Guide - Admin guide

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here.

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct errors in the deletion process, but that may also involve reviewing content in some cases.

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page — please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD' can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.

Click to create a log page for tomorrow (17 May 2008)

Active discussions

16 May 2008

Adil Najam

Adil Najam (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not a reproduction.And Person IS Notable Pashute (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn (The deleter asked that I post the discussion here, after argument in Conflict of Interest).

I don't understand how my article can be a reproduction, when I never heard of the man before, until reading about Negotiation on wikipedia, and created the article from scratch from the first 100 or so google posts that I found about him, Including the links which are from neutral non controversial sources. I felt its a cultural war to eliminate this person, since my post was very short, and well sourced, with media of all sorts and locations showing credibility to the person AND notability. Still don't understand how it can be NN. In the deleter's talk page, and above I wrote the full scope of notability I found. This article was deleted three times. Once because written by the man himself, and seemed to be self promotion. Second time for NN (non notability). I was not able to see any of the deleted articles - would like to. But according to user:Equazcion the second was deleted because it was a reproduction! My short entry CANNOT be a recreation of the first entry. A few minutes after entering it, it was deleted. I then started searching to understand if there is any controvercy around the person or his sayings. I found that there definitely is, but could not bring any of it to Wikipedia, because it was quickly erased. I proved the man is notable! Over 100 entries on the web from various sources, including books, sayings in his name, by extremely notable sources. Pashute (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• The G4 deleted article, like the AFD'ed article, contained no sources. It also mentioned no new claims of notability. In my opinion a sourced article would be significantly different, but an unsourced article is not viable here. GRBerry 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jersey £1.jpg

Image:Jersey £1.jpg (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a test case (one of many similar images, none of them uploaded by me). This image, of a Jersey coin, was deleted with the note "CSD I7: Bad justification given for fair use and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago". It seems to me that either we do allow images of coins in copyright, or we don't. The justification will essentially be identical for all of them. Assuming we do allow coin images, it is in my view unhelpful to delete them just because the uploader didn't happen to get the exact form of wording that would satisfy a copyright lawyer. Since the deleter knew that that justification was inadequate, presumably he or she also knows the correct form of wording to use. It would be much more helpful, and just as quick (probably quicker), for that person to retain the image and simply copy and paste a standard form of wording into the rationale. I propose therefore that this image (and others similar, which I will identify) are reinstated, and that a standard form of wording is copied and pasted as justification for use. Matt 11:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC).

Well, this particular image was deleted because its fair use rationale didn't provide the name of the article in which fair use was claimed, thus breaching criterion 10c of the fair use rules. It has nothing to do with whether we do or do not allow coin images (as far as I am aware we do). Fair use rationales cannot be boilerplate and must be specific to each use, and it is the responsiblity of the editor claiming fair use to justify it with a rationale, not for those removing invalidly-used images to go and investigate whether there is a possible fair use claim that can be made out. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, if images of coins are in general allowed, and the only problem is with the justification of use in a particular article, then there is no reason to delete the image itself, only the use of the image in that article. I understand what you're saying about the rationale being the original editor's responsibility. However, I personally wouldn't have the vaguest idea how to write such a thing, whereas I assume that copyright patrollers understand all this stuff and know what they're doing. If an image of a coin is used in an article that describes the coin (as was the case here), and we have decided that this type of usage is permissible, then I still maintain that it would be better for the copyright patrollers to help out by fixing the rationale (which should be no more than a copy and paste), rather than taking the nuclear option and deleting. Even more so if it's a trivial matter of an article name being missing from the rationale, which seems to be what you're saying was the case here. The sensible course of action is surely to add the article name, not delete the image. Matt 14:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.212 (talk)

• The article in which it, and several others, was used was Coins of the Jersey pound. See this multi-diff (all intermediate revisions by the bot, it did each image separately). GRBerry 13:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Corey_Worthington (closed)

15 May 2008

User:Commoncase/Bloodstained Memoirs

User:Commoncase/Bloodstained Memoirs (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

References Added Commoncase (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Members, I have done a lot of work on this article over the last week, and I believe it is now up to standard to be put back in the main Wiki, as simply "Bloodstained Memoirs". I have included references to many, varied third party and reliable news sources, stated reasons for notability, and generally tidies up the article to a more polished standard. There are no instances of Crystal Ball knowledge, as all items stated in the article have been referenced either from the official site, or third party news sites (with interviews from the producer).
• Overturn. I'm not all together convinced that the references there now constitute reliable sources, but certainly all the WP:CRYSTAL concerns are addressed, and I'm certain reliable sources will be available in the very near future. MrPrada (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and tag it with {{Current}} or with similar tag that indicates that the information may change a lot when the documentary is released --Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Aset Ka

Aset Ka (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm filing this request for GustavusPrimus. She claims the article was incorrectly deleted; the original AfD closed as delete, as it was an unreferenced hoax, however, the article was rewritten with more references and images, but similar information. The article was then speedied under WP:CSD#G4, something the author disagrees with. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (as closing admin) The only new source offered in the recent draft is a self-published book on Aset Ka that contains much of the same unreliable and unreferenced material that was used to substantiate the outrageous claims made in the previously deleted article. As such, I consider the original consensus to still apply and have therefore speedied the new version per G4. It is worth noting that no draft of the article ever offered any record of physical evidence for the historicity of the order or any published criticism of the research that led to uncovering its existence.
• Trusilver put it best in the deletion debate, "It's a hoax, and not even that good of a hoax. Every source I have found on Aset Ka cross references each other in a way that looks legitimate until you see that it's nothing but a house of cards - each source relying on each other for notability except that none of them provide any true references. There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago which as far as I'm concerned put this clearly in opposition of WP:NOT#OR." ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn (Endorse Restore) "There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago" - Although this is not true, it is not even a valid argument, because even if the organization is 3 years old, it still is a valid organization. We are not here to discuss its age. The Wikipedia article does not endorse any of the order's ideals or belief system, it works only as a reference to an occult tradition. The article offers more than 1 source: It refers TV documentaries and other books. The last book added as reference is an international publication, with an official ISBN number, readily available on Amazon and countless other bookstores worldwide. No matter how much we may disagree from the contents of the book or question the truth of their beliefs, as we can do with any other religion or new age tradition, it still deserves respect as such. And the existence of the tradition is verifiable. It is throughfully documented in an international published book, and addressed in several other books not published and nor endorsed by the organization.
• The reason for deletion simply that the organization does not exist, being a hoax. And that is easily proven false. The verifiability of the organization's existence is easy to research and prove, only their beliefs are not and are not even the subject of this debate. The Aset Ka is an officially licensed publisher from Portugal, with the tile granted by APEL, the Portuguese government institution responsible to legislate those organizations. They even have their own ISBN prefixes and ISBN gamma intervals that can only be used exclusively by their organization, marked as an "Occult Order" on APEL's databases, which I verified myself with a phone call, which any of you can also make to verify it.
• The article that was deleted one year ago had several misconceptions in the terms of their theology and even nomenclature, all of that was corrected in the new article. Just the former writer of the old article probably did not cared about it and did not even defended his writings upon deletion request in the last time. The new book added as a reference and source was even already available as of last year, and it was simply did not mentioned, which proves how the former writer was not knowledgeable and misinformed, compared to the new one.
• On the top of that, 2 images were deleted and marked as copy of previously deleted material (CSD G4), which is clearly inaccurate, since none of those images were ever present on Wikipedia, or anything close to it, which can easily be verified by any admin. Also, both images were presented with full information, as well as copyright and under fair use, meeting all of Wikipedia requirements and the United States law.
• So I really hope this review for deletion can be seen with new eyes and more of an open mind, instead of a biased opinion based on the author's claims. GustavusPrimus (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there any information on the order that is not published by the order itself? Every claim about the order comes from either its website, self-published book about a bible of dubious authenticity, or (apparently) its sole founder/historian. Wikipedia articles may not rely entirely on primary sources. BTW, the two images were deleted simply because they appeared in the article. Their copyright information and fair use claims were indeed in order. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The "bible" is not of dubious authenticity, you are interpreting it wrong. It is never said, in any place, that the "bible" is an old book. It is merely a book name, Asetian Bible. The book is said as written recently, that is even explained on the book's introduction, that is freely available, without the need of buying the book. So there are no false claims in there, the book is merely a work that describes their religion, tradition, beliefs and tenets. It is not supposed to be any ancient work now finally published, and therefore having a "dubious authenticity" as you stated. As for the self-publishing, the book was first even announced as from other independent publisher, but in the end it was published under Aset Ka's name, I believe that it was because of a copyright issue that arose, according to my resources. But personally I don't even believe this is the point, considering all the other arguments that I have used. As for other information available that is not created by the order, there are several things, that if properly researched can be used to validate it, as the TV documentary for example. GustavusPrimus (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The bible purports an "Asetian tradition" that clearly does not exist. It discusses lineages and hierarchies and quasi-historical connections to ancient Egypt without any shred of proof. This can be said without even delving into the various nutball claims about vampirism made in the source text and its analysis. Aset Ka appears to be a ready-made movement, except it has no verifiable history or constituency of followers, and it promotes itself as a "secret order" (note the logical inconsistency of that last part). In that sense, it is a hoax. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Again, very wrong argument, ultimately mistaken and biased. The tradition does exist and is fully explained in the published book. Their reference to Lineages, is explained in the book that it is NOT a hierarchy or ANY historical connection. It is not related with like our concept of a bloodline, or any genetic connection to people in Ancient Egypt. They explain it, that in their tradition, the term refers exclusively to an esoteric concept, a definition that is connected to 3 archetypes! Archetypes! No real connections or any quasi-historical thing, as you referred. So it needs no proof, since there is no claim! All these arguments are being made up upon comments made by vandalism and misinterpretations on the old article. This is what I should call as full misinformation or ignorance on the debated subject. You just stated something that clearly the referenced books state otherwise, so it should be better if the material was consulted before making arguments on it. This is ultimately nefast to Wikipedia and knowledge, since arguments are being made with no foundation and by people that don't even know what are they commenting upon. So first read the mentioned work, then comment please. Thank you. GustavusPrimus (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not think that I can form a fair opinion of this without seeing the content that was deleted. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Temp restored. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Endorse deletion. If I disregard the two votes in the afd that claim it is a hoax, we would get 1 vote for deletion and 1 undecided, but that 1 vote for deletion contains an argument sufficient, in my opinion, to determine the outcome. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn: (Changed !vote to Endorse after seeing the deleted text) Apparently, in the year since the AfD, there's been a TV documentary and books (fully catalogued) published. The only arguments in the AfD were a lack of sources, which made it look like a hoax, but these new sources destroy those arguments...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Book - singular, self-published. The whole point is that the sources used were much the same in the new draft and shared the same flaws. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In publishing lango, self-published is a synonymous for vanity publishing, which means that the author is the publisher of the work. Even on the Wikipedia definition clearly states that self-publishing is the publishing of a book or other media by the author of those works, instead of third-party publishers. Which is precisely the case. The book was published by the Aset Ka, not by Luis Marques, who is the author. This is NOT a self-published work, but actually a work published by a Portuguese publisher that has released a book written by one of their most respected experts in the Asetian tradition. Again I see no problems in the validity of the organization. The problem here is residing in belief. But belief is not in case. They can believe whatever they desire, as an encyclopedia, we are merely showing information related to their tradition that can be useful as reference to anyone interested in the subject! Plain and simple. GustavusPrimus (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible for me to see the deleted article text, that could affect my !vote, I am simply going on what I have been told about the subject...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The documentary was in the version of the article deleted at afd (diff). The only newly-cited source is the Asetian Bible. Endorse. —Cryptic 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Changed from Overturn after seeing the deleted text. All sources are published by the organisation...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing to neutral after a more thorough examination...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn (Endorse Restore)
  The problem here seems to lie in belief. If this organization actually exists (which it appears to do), it has the right to claim whatever they believe in. The article just needs to give a definition of the concept of the Order, what they claim to be, what they believe in, and other good info to give on the organization. There is no way calling it a "hoax" will be an argument to delete it. We shouldn't focus on the tradition itself, since it's a matter of belief; we should aim to inform the people about what this organization claims to be, their beliefs and tradition. We are not evaluating their traditions.
  This organization, which shows itself behind the name "Order of Aset Ka", officially exists as, at least, a publisher. If they exist as a publisher, they are an organization. Since the organization "Aset Ka" publishes books about itself regarding religion and metaphysics, we are not here to judge their knowledge and the authenticity of their beliefs. Their book is legal, which makes it legal to quote it as a reference. Even it if it's published by the organization.
  People may see this organization as new-age, since it showed itself not long ago. What existed before it appeared doesn't matter. But it's legal to claim that existed for thousands of years, since it's based on belief. They believe they existed for thousands of years, and they justify it through religion and belief: Fine!, they have that right. People don't have to believe it.
  Selthius (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This user has no other edits outside this topic. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral: Changed from Overturn to Endorse to Neutral. After a more thorough examination of the text, the article looks like it would be OK with a bit of cleanup (sorry for being so indecisive)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn (Endorse Restore) The article seems to be quite revamped from the version it was deleted last year, made more clear and verifiable. The new book provided as reference is a published work. Verifiable enough. The article complies to Wikipedia standards and it is not a hoax. Period. Cristina Torres (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC) — Cristina Torres (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Endorse deletion The book is WP:SELFPUBlished by a member of Aset ka, see this forum discussion[1], so it's not an independient source. The book appears to be a fluff job to make the order look important, so it's probably not reliable for notability and for antiguity of the order. If you look at their website, you will see that the whole site is based on the contents of the book. This is either a hoax or an attempt to give a patina of respectability to a recently created non-notable order. The only reliable source that we have is one mention on a TV program, wich probably makes only a passing mention. This article is not verifiable because we have no reliable independient sources to check anything that their book is claiming, and almost fails WP:N because we have only one independient source asserting its notability, and we are not sure of just how much notability it's asserting. Notice that we have absolutely no confirmation that the order actually exists out of the book and the website and there are 99% chances that it's an elaborate hoax by the book's author and a few friend. It isn't even a notable hoax, since it hasn't been covered anywhere as a successful hoax, so we can't base the article on that. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn (Endorse Restore) 1 "The book appears to be a fluff job to make the order look important" - A fluff job to make the order look important? The book does not even talk about the order, but merely describes a spiritual tradition in terms of beliefs, dogmas, ritual symbolism and theology. I am starting to repeat myself, but I ask again that nonsense comments are not made by people that have not read the book or at least have no clue of what they are talking about. Otherwise clearly misinformed comments like this one would not happen.
    

2 "The only reliable source that we have is one mention on a TV program, wich probably makes only a passing mention." - One hour is not only a passing mention. So again, these comments would classify as lack of research or direct unilateral speculation.
3 "Notice that we have absolutely no confirmation that the order actually exists out of the book and the website" - This argument was already addressed for several times in this discussion as being wrong. There is no way to contest the existence of the order as an organization, that is even registered officially.
I am sorry if I start sounding too harsh, but it gets really hard to deal when we see so many misinformed arguments and claims out of the lack of research, and constantly see people doing comments running in circles, which is clearly against the purpose of this review. GustavusPrimus (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - perhaps a strange article but certainly not cruft or non-notable. COI issues maybe a concern but with diligent cleanup and proper use of verifiable sources, I can't see an issue with a very strange but interesting article. Restore last sourced version. -- EhsanQ ^(talk) 16:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Quantifica

Quantifica (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No conflict of interest. Thanks for your answer Stifle. But can you tell me why in what way my article was advertisement? What should I change? I used articles made for competitors and nobody seem to think their articles were advertisement: Gartner, Forrester Research, Informa... Check these out. Bebeagrafe (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, the page was deleted because it was an advertizement, not because of any conflict of interest. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: there were, as I recall, 3 sources in French. Are the sources neutral and verifiable, and do they support the content of the article as written? If yes, then I would vote to list; otherwise, endorse deletion. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Advert and COI apply. Bebeagrafe, stop trying to deny COI - unless I mis-read you, you admit it here. Your original user name was Quantichristo. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse: Advert and COI...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Jacobs

Bruce Jacobs (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted last year because he was just a "Local radio talk show host in Phoenix". But actually hes also a national sports anchor on Fox Sports Radio.[2] Im guessing the article didn't mention this. A few people in the AFD mentioned this but as the admin put it "I found some sources but don't care enough to provide them" is not a winning argument. As for notability I think hosting a show on a major sports network with 300+ affiliates across the US is notable. Just like the other Fox hosts:Andrew Siciliano, Ben Maller, and J. T. the Brick-- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Relist. Someone should have at least checked the sources, even if the one editor did not care to provide them. We do not automatically default to delete. MrPrada (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless the sources (plural) are actually found and cited, rather than talked about. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist the article did mention it: "and a syndicated weekend sports talk show on Fox Sports Radio." The article as deleted was extremely promotional in tone, and I'd suggest improving it with a more encyclopedic way -- and with sources DGG (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist: Seems notable-ish, but relisting would be best...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as not notable. That's a source from Fox itself, so that's not independient coverage. Looking at WP:PEOPLE, I can't see that he has made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", and I don't think that being a radio host on a pair of shows qualifies, so he is still non-notable and the deletion was correct. The decision was based on the sources currently available, it's not the closing admin's fault if nobody wants to provide the sources that *could* save the article from deletion. As for now, the only new source given still doesn't assert enoguh notability, so the closure should still stand. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve Beren

Steve Beren (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON Steveberen (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC) I'd like to draw attention to the deletion of this article. The article, which has been on Wikipedia since 2006, was previously (back in 2006, I believe) suggested for removal because of non-neutrality. This was early in its existence, and was resolved quickly, and the article remained up through 2006, 2007, and until earlier today. I'm the subject of the article, and the original author, but the accuracy and neutrality of the article was not questioned further. I believe the decision to delete was wrong. There are a multiplicity of factors applying to this biographical article. In the proposed-deletion discussion, some of these were dismissed to one extent or another, in my opinion inappropriately when considered against existing guidelines. Moreover, even if one factor (failed former candidacy) is not notable in and of itself, and even if another factor (former communist/aheist turned motivational speaker and born-again Christian) is not notable in and of itself, the totality of these and several other factors equals sufficient notability. A more careful reading of my part of the proposed-delete discussion would lead to a different conclusion, I believe. Please review carefully and consider the above rationale for undeletion - Steve Beren, 5/14/08, 8:44 pm PDT

• Overturn. I find the lack of a closing rationale rationale troubling. The main argument seems to have been that he failed WP:POLITICIAN, but as Les Grand pointed out, he met WP:BIO, with numerous verified second and third party sources[3], such as: Canada Free Press[4], Conservative Voice[5], Seattle Times[6], Seattle Post Intelligencer[7], New York Times[8], Seattle Times[9], Seattle Times[10], Seattle Post Intelligencer[11], Seattle Post Intelligencer[12], Seattle Times[13], Seattle Post-Intelligencer[14], NEws Tribune[15], Seattle Times[16], Seattle Post Intelligencer[17], Seattle Times[18], Seattle Times[19], Seattle Times[20], Crosscut Seattle[21]. This is more then enough to meet WP:BIO, even if he has never been a successful candidate. MrPrada (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• The New York Times link above is broken, which is problematic, because a full-length New York Times article that has somebody as its primary subject would be prima facie evidence of notability. Also, many of the above sources only display the first part of the story, not enough for a reader to determine the nature of the coverage (unless one were to register on their website); if an article merely describes the campaign or the results of the election, this would only establish notability if the candidate won or came close to winning. Unless I can get more info., I would relist to get a broader consensus. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per 69.140, but Steve, please bear in mind the autobiography rules. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist but write carefully. The NYT article is a short 491 word article from 1970, about his success in suing for free radio time back when he was running on the Socialist Workers Party ticket for State Assembly in NY, long before he became a conservative Republican in Seattle. Paywall,but still a usable reference. DGG (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist: The sources seem good enough, asserting notability...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist While some of the sources give trivial coverage[22][23], others give actual coverage of the subject [24][25][26]. The NYT source[27] seems to assert that he is notable in spite of being a minor candidate. Basically, he presents himself again and again, and gets resources and attention despite failing to be elected. See also DGG's comment on this source. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per MrPrada and because the bio subject was a major party's nominee for Congress, not just a contender for the nomination. JamesMLane t c 12:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Kremlin (bar)

Kremlin (bar) (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'd like to bring to your attention the deletion of an article I created. I created the article Kremlin (bar) was was nominated for deletion after having undergone some revisions (the addition of two other identically-named bars to the article, as far as I remember). This is despite the Kremlin in Northern Ireland being notable as Northern Ireland's first gay bar. Unfortunately I knew very little of its history or anything else about the bar, and I had hoped other editors might be able to expand it from being merely a stub.

Excuse me for not following normal procedure here - I am in between Wikipedia user accounts, and I'm not sure what editing powers an IP-assigned editor has in this regard. Please feel free to tidy this up and submit a proper review on my behalf.

The article was deleted on the 31st of January this year, by four votes to one against (not including the nominator). --90.206.36.142 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

originally posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender[28] ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Appears to have been closed corectly. DRV is not AfD round 2, and we can't overturn without solid, policy-based reasons. Sorry. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• question Do we have any independent sources claiming that it is the first gay bar in Northern Ireland? I couldn't find anyone else making the claim? That would be a claim of notability if it were independently sourced. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. No reasons given to overturn the closure. Some independient sources showing notability would be helpful --Enric Naval (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Lifebaka. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse or Source & relist: If it's the first gay bar in Northern Island, 'relist, else endorse...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That was brought up at the AfD. Unless you've found a source, there's no reason to relist. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion lack of reliable sources for the claim that would give it enough notability to be restored. There are lots of similar baseless claims made by pubs: "First pub opened on xxxx", "First pub to do xxxx", etc --Enric Naval (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

14 May 2008

Mark Hemmings

Mark Hemmings (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON Tomseddon (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please can someone email me the content of this page that was deleted a couple of hours ago. The page was deleted most probably because i did not finnish it quick enough, i intend to finish it in my sandbox and then reinstate it

You need to specify an email address in Special:Preferences to receive email from other users. Hut 8.5 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per deleting admin comment. So, it's totally bad content. I'd suggest contacting DGG directly for a copy of the last version of the page if you want to put it up on a different wiki where this sort of articles is accepted. Userfy unless it was really bad content. I see no problem with letting him finish his article on userspace unless it's clear that it wasn't going anywhere --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I speedied it, & I'd have emailed if I had been contacted. The subject is asserted to be a secondary school physics teacher, claiming to have influenced the "World" and received a "Doughnut award" as he has "only recently fallen into the notable scientist category for his recent studies into electron relaxation." The rest of the article is similar. The law he "discovered" is a very basic textbook equation I did not regard that as a plausible claim to notability. I'm not going to userify this one. I suspect a student prank. DGG (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. General nonsense. Not useful to the encyclopedia. Also, what part of "Before listing a review request