A7 Luke mullet (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Page deleted before even finished, I had not even put the refrences in before it was deleted. I feel this band have enough relevance for a Wikipedia page. At least give me time to finish the page before you decided if it has relevance on Wikipedia.[reply]
Overturn I say restore the article and put a Template:Inuse on top of it, give the editor time to work. If it's still not noteworthy, then we can have a discussion on the completed article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, the page history in question is at Rise of raphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and not Rise of Raphia. Looking there, the most recent deletion was in a A3, and given that very little time was given between creation, tagging, and deletion an overturn seems perfectly reasonable. However, I'd like to note that a previous version was deleted under A7 about half an hour before, so please do make sure it passes our relevant notabilitycriterias and that the information you use can be verified in reliable sources, and make sure you cite those sources. This should not at all preclude another possible A7 after Luke mullet has been given a chance to work on it for a while. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the second deleting admin. I removed the article as A3 at 18:43 18 June because it had no context whatsoever. The article consisted only of a {{hangon}} tag. If the author wants to create an article and assert notability I would suggest he works it in a subpage on userspace, or offline until it is somewhat ready, or at least add an Inuse template to it. I did not comment on a previous incarnation of the article, just an A3 for a totally empty one which I see as justified. If another admin feels the original article (which I had nothing to do with) merits restoring, be my guest. -- Alexf4207:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As obvious from the blue links above, this article has been re-recreated even while this discussion was ongoing. Bad form, that. The band has no releases on notable labels, there are minimal references available to indicate notability. Endorse deletion (which, in this case, suggests that the new version be deleted as well). Tony Fox(arf!)16:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The second deletion for A3 was clearly appropriate as there was no content whatsoever. The first speedy for A7 I am not sure about as the article did say that it had a recent review which if there were more would let it meet WP:MUSIC (that is pretty weak however so would probably not support overturning just based on that). However that article has now been recreated so this is moot for deletion review but would strongly suggest the creator work fast to get the article up to meeting the WP:MUSIC notability guideline or it will be redeleted. Davewild (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The original A7 deletion, the A3 and my own subsequent deletion as A7 of the article created while this was raised. Please create a draft in user space - I'll copy across the last version for you if you like, add some independant sources and bring this back for discussion at DRV for approval. Please read WP:MUSIC before you do this so you know the standard the article will be judged by. Also endorse by salting the page to prevent disruptive recreation. SpartazHumbug!17:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Luke_mullet Forgive my ignorance, I am new to this and not really sure how this works, what will it take for the band to be classed as notable for Wikipeida? After looking at the Music page you informed me to visit I fell the band could come under the section for members of the bands in notable other bands. 3 of the 5 members of the band were in bands that have wikipedia pages, the other 2 were in a band that although not featured on wikipedia the label they were released on is. I have seen many other pages that have less notability so I find it strange how the band are not classed as noteable. What will it take me to change to be able to be noteable to wikipedia? Your website is too complicated for me to know how this works, from the last message I received I thought I had to submit a new draft so I am sorry for putting it up there again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke mullet (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article on the organisation Flight Training Europe was deleted because it was a "small company". With respect, Flight Training Europe is a leading flight school in Europe in also well regarded around the world. Moreso, it is one of only four Integrated schools approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. It trains over 120 cadets per year for a fATPL licence, which is a large number in respect of flight schools. To say it is a "small company" is entirely incorrect, since it is prominent in the civil aviation industry. With this in mind, this article should rightfully be restored. Thank you. 82.5.46.104 (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a contested PROD.. No need for DRV, just restore it. I can't do it myself at the moment though, so somebody else can. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
UNDELETE_REASON
This article was speedily deleted, but I believe it has significance because 1) the Chorus is the first (and still the only) performing-arts organization in the State of Connecticut comprised of openly gay men; 2) the Chorus has been mentioned in several publications over the course of its existence as having changed cultural attitudes to the GLBT community; 3) the historical value of the Chorus consists primarily in its having been in existence for over 20 years; 4) the performance style of the Chorus has influenced many other choruses to change from a "stand-and-sing" style to a fully-staged performance style. This page was NOT posted as a source of publicity for the Chorus, but as an actual encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durablescreen (talk • contribs)
Endorse - this was not deleted as spam, but as an article about a non-notable organization. Most American cities have such a chorus nowadays, and most of them are around 20 years old by now. There was no assertion of notability in this article, and none in this review request. --Orange Mike | Talk21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOverturn. Suggest temp undeletion for CSD review, or a userspace version for us to peruse. Stating that there are articles about it and that is the "First such organization ... with a 20 year history" is clearly an assertion of notability. MrPrada (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn article makes assertions of importance by saying 'was (and is) Connecticut's only performing-arts organization comprised of openly gay men'. Also notes that it is mentioned in the New York Times offering the possibility of a reliable source saying 'in a 1999 New York Times article, “As is customary with the Gay Men’s Chorus, parody rules'. The article also says that the Mayor of New Haven proclaimed a day 'Connecticut Gay Men’s Chorus Day'. It also say they were nominated for a 'Gay and Lesbian American Music Awards (GLAMA) Award in 1998 in the Cast Recording category'. This is backed up by a google news archive search here which seems to have quite a lot of potential sources. I think there are at least several assertions of significance here making speed deletion invalid. (and with cleanup and sources added I would probably support keeping at AFD as well.) Davewild (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I'm not able to say if there was indeed an assertion of importance/significance as I can't see the deleted version and there is no cache version. So why am I saying overturn? simply because the deleting admin was Orangemike and I have zero confidence in his ability to correctly judge CSD policy. RMHED (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The role of admins in speedy deletion is not to judge if the subject of an article is notable. The role is to judge is something is totally lacking any indication or claim to importance whatsoever. Everything more than that is a question for the community. If a good faith argument can be presented, right or wrong, its a question for the community. Time we had a rule that any established editor could ask for a speedy to be undeleted by any admin as a matter of course without it being considered wheel warring or impolite. DGG (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article Mic Spencer has been deleted by a bot (I've no idea what that is). I can't find anything that explains why this action was taken. I am a professional colleague of Mic Spencer. Surely someone should be accountable for deleting the article. Alas, it seems that someone with the highly appropriate name of "Android Mouse" has done this. Mic Spencer is a young composer of enviable reputation. Perhaps someone has envied his reputation too much, and this may be malicious.Derekbscott (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The delete was not likely malicious. I don't know anything about the article or person in question, but deletions usually do not occur because of envy. A bot in Wikipedia is an automatic program or "robotic" program. In this case, it is likely something that "sniffs out" pages that, under a certain set of logical rules, would consider the page or article to be a candidate for deletion. That's a guess...
No. There is only one bot that has the capability to delete things, User:RedirectCleanupBot, and it only does redirect cleanup (hence the name). To delete things, you need admin powers. Bots don't have admin powers (with the one exception I already mentioned). Try looking in the logs. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is about Mic Spencer as described at University of Leeds School of Music, then the article may indeed be one that Wikipedia should include--or it may not, as I am not an expert in that topic area (but I personally would be in favor of a well-written article on the topic). However, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. If the original article was a copyright violation, that would certainly be cause for deletion. As stated above, feel free to re-start the article using non-copyright violation material.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as it was a copyright violation, but as ever, if someone wants to create an article without violating copyright, they're welcome to. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Closing admin closed as delete after only one day (rather than the customary five) claiming WP:SNOW applied, whereas it absolutely did not. WP:SNOW states that "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." The article in question had a good chance of getting what the closing admin believes to be an "unexpected outcome" (keep), as there clearly was not a consensus to delete after a day of discussions on the AfD. Also many of the "delete" arguments are flawed in that the users only wanted to change or remove the title of the article, not the content. Frank AnchorTalk to me (R-OH) 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I was about to do the DRV myself but Frank beat me to it. The closing admin miss-represented the SNOW policy/guideline. There wasn't any consensus in the discussion. At the very least the page should be temporarily restored and the AfD reopened for further discussion <Baseballfan789 (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, but only because the deletion process wasn't completed last time. I'll be voting delete when it goes back to AfD. – PeeJay15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - even though I am a very strong supporter of deleting this article, it looks very much like proper procedure was not followed. - fchd (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy restore and reopen the AFD to allow a full 5 day discussion. The debate was nowhere near a legitimate WP:SNOW closure. Given that the debate has only been closed for several hours reopening the existing AFD seems sensible if it is done reasonably soon. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had the entry on Reductio deleted for copyright violation from the Reductio website (http://reductiotest.org/). I own the copyright to this website so I simply thought I'd copy some of the informative text to Wikipedia, but after reading around, I learned that I must release this text under the GFDL, which is fine by me and I have done exactly this. This can be confirmed by observing the reference to GFDL on all pages of the website at hand. Please restore the contents of the Reductio article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibblego (talk • contribs) 03:50, June 18, 2008
It appears you've already recreated the page with the text. So there's nothing we can really do here. I'm just going to suggest a speedy close. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This was deleted as a copyright violation of http://www.llywelyn.co.uk The original contributor asserted in the edit summary that he/she had copyright release but provided no evidence. Unless copyright release is confirmed using the process at WP:CP, this can not be restored even to the userspace. (There were no non-infringing versions in the pagehistory.) Rossami(talk)13:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can not. To repost the copyvio content would contaminate the new version and perpetuate the problem. Better to start over with clean content. (If you just want to see what that content was, you can always go back to the source - linked above.) Rossami(talk)
The original contributor and only significant editor to the page was user:BrynLlywelyn. If you can secure evidence of copyright release, the page can be restored by any admin. Of course, I'll also note that the page is not locked. You could just restart the page today with new content that is not at risk of copyvio concerns. Rossami(talk)20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not understanding what to click to see what is not locked. Sorry to be such a newbie *ack* I should have known that restoring the content would have been reinstating the copyvio. Thanks for all your patient assistance. Since I now understand it is ok to start from scratch and create the page again, I will do so. I have found several references that can be used. Kind regards, ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C)01:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to be working on the articles. If the second city of the UK(Birmingham and the surrounding areas) are not alowed to have transport articles, than why should London??? Or any other area. the articles in question also include National Express West Midlands route 82 and 87 Dudleybusplease talkwith the UK Transport Wiki11:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support my own decision. This is one of a myriad articles about non-notable company bus routes. This is the kind of trainspotting fancruft that should be in the UK Transport Wiki, not in Wikipedia. If anything, there should probably be a mass AfD for the entire mess of them; I only deleted the first couple I ran across. It would be absurd to say there shouldn't be an article about transport in Brum; but there shouldn't be an article about route 283, for the same reason there shouldn't be an article about bus route 19 in Milwaukee; all such articles are speediable under A7, to my way of thinking. --Orange Mike | Talk12:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, Okay! The KC Metro bus route redirect example goes to "KC Metro Area" which isn't very helpful, but I don't think anyone has written a KC Metro Bus System article. In this case it might be best to merge the article in question with one on the overall bus routes or systems for the area. That said, it's still not a speedy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I've got no opinion on the value of the article in question, but I'm pretty sure that bus routes aren't speedy-able under A7, as they are not persons, web content, or organizations themselves ({{db-org}} specifically states that while companies are speedy-able, software and products produced by them are not). If Orange Mike would like to see these deleted, I suggest PROD or AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Does not meet any of the A7 speedy categories so should be taken to AFD not speedy deleted. The A7 criteria specifically says "Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion". Davewild (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn As the author of National Express West Midlands article 87, I believe this article has relevance and importance to users, as it gives a break-down of the route, history of the service, areas of interest, vehicles used on route and information on other operators. As already noted, both articles 87 and 283 are about bus ROUTES, not bus COMPANIES. I believe you have interpreted both articles incorrectly and acted in haste. Thanhuk (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (GMT)
Overturn Deletion policy means what it says about what category of things are and are not speedy deletable. DGG (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the reasons for the deletion are not correct, Steve McKeown is engaged to Michelle Bass, He is a Analyst and his book is to be published within the next 8 weeks and is called 'Slimmer Mind'. All this information can be verified and is documented on several search engines. 91.106.42.65 (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article as deleted (via PROD) said the following:
“
Steve McKeown (born November 23, 1978 in St Albans) is a Hypnotist/ Hypnotherapist/ Clinical and Analytical Therapist. Keown attended Townsend C of E School in St Albans, McKeown attended Watford Football Club, School of Excellence pupil as a teenager, he also played for his local county and semi professional football club 'Borehamwood'. He first came into the public eye when featured with new fiance in OK Magazine. Michelle Bass. McKeown met his future Wife at his clinic when she presented herself for confidence issues, and it was reported that the pair dated one year on. His Book is likely to be published in the summer of 2008. He runs his own hypnotherapy practice, The McKeown Clinic, in St Albans, Hertfordshire.
”
The PROD rationale read "'Non notable psychtherapist, as-yet unpublished author, partner of a notable person - doesn't seem to stack up to notability'" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thanks for the clarification. I'd have to support the deletion based on this information, due to non-notability. Lots of people run hypnotherapy clinics--nothing is written that makes this one unique.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
I've noticed that several cure albums are missing cover images. Apparently, the fair use rationals weren't filled out, and it was easier to just delete than to correct the problem. However, the rationales should be fairly obvious (just like every other album), some of these are limited editions which would be difficult to replace, and the replacements would be identical anyway. So I'd like to request these images be undeleted to fix this hole in our coverage:
