Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 24

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 17:51, 5 October 2021 (Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< June 23 Deletion review archives: 2008 June June 25 >

24 June 2008

  • Swivel (band) – Endorse speedy deletion, without prejudice against a recreation which does indicate why its subject is important or significant. Merely having released an EP and had a music video played is not an assertion of importance or significance. – Stormie (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Swivel (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted less than an hour after I created it, with no warning! I created it because I saw the band's video on TV (the LOGO channel) and couldn't believe they didn't have an entry. What more does one need that major TV airplay?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luminifer (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the nom's "What more does one need tha[n] major TV airplay??" Deor (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that things like LOGO and MTV may count as 'radio' networks in some sense... So, being in regular rotation on a music video network probably is no different from being in regular rotation on a radio network, is it?Luminifer (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear to me from An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. (A7) that this should not have been speedily deleted. This has happened to me several times in the past week - an article that pretty clearly asserted importance but did not prove notability was VERY speedily deleted. What do we have to do to (a) get this article undeleted, and (b) stop this from happening, as it's a waste of time and clearly a rampant misapplication of wiki policies. Luminifer (talk) 14:43, 29 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Host.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The following article clearly had a consensus of Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host.net with 9 out of 10 opinions. In addition, secondary and third party sources from creditable – reliable and verifiable sources were provided to establish Notability. I believe the closing administrator allowed personal standards and/or criteria to influence their judgment when closing the Afd as delete. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. ShoesssS Talk 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn At least two of those who contributed to the AFD believed that there were sufficient sources available to meet the WP:CORP notability guideline. I cannot see any consensus against this opinion in the AFD. The nominator seems to have used their belief that the sources were insufficient above that of those who contributed to the AFD. No matter how many of the keep opinions that did not comment on notability you ignore, there is still definitely no consensus for deletion. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to Keep deleted per copyvio found. Davewild (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tricky one, most of the Google news hits linked to by Shoessss do not refer to Host.net, those that do link to this company seem to be press releases mostly. Still, to delete when there was a clear keep opinion, albeit most of the keeps weren't based on policy or guidelines, is dodgy. I'd favour an Overturn & relist at AfD then those editors that believe there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can supply them. RMHED (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a copyvio then keep deleted obviously. RMHED (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I can certainly appreciate the closer's rationale that the keep arguments were, at best, weak - however, even if you discount the keep !votes en masse there is but a single !vote for deletion which can hardly be deemed a reflection of community consensus. Shereth 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist (edit conflict) per RHMED. Most Google (and Google News) hits do not refer to Host.net, but nine keep !votes can't be ignored. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closing admin, I think that a relisting might indeed be the best way to proceed. I understand the opinions expressed here that, even though the "keep" opinions were weak, the two "delete" opinions (including the nomination) were not very plentiful. A relisting might produce a clearer consensus.  Sandstein  22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, especially since the article changed substantially from when the "delete" opinions were made. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist to allow a more in-depth discussion now that the issues have been clearly identified. It is helpful that this action now has the support of the closing admin. Smile a While (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Good catch. Obviously must remain deleted until a non-copyvio version can be produced. Smile a While (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a copyvio of http://www.host.net/index.cfm?id=27, just like the version previously deleted. Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore? (Admittedly, the diff between the December 2005 and June 2008 versions doesn't format well cuzza the infobox stuck in front, but the same text's still all there.) Endorse, and if someone feels motivated to start an encyclopedia article from scratch, instead of a press release, they should go right ahead. —Cryptic 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can repost to my subpage, I'll give a shot at rewritting. As a side note, if this is a copyright violation, I have no problems with a delete, no matter how many Keep opinions were expressed. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the only difference between the cached version and the deleted one (other than formatting) was the Press Releases News section:
* Host.net Acquires WebUnited & Expedient Florida from CBB <ref>Host.net Acquires WebUnited & Expedient Florida from CBB [http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070919006078&newsLang=en]</ref>
* South Florida Biz. Journal Story on the WU Acquisition<ref>South Florida Biz. Journal Story on the WU Acquisition [http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2007/09/17/daily24.html]</ref>
* Host.net Opens Phase III Colo Center <ref>Host.net Opens Phase III Colo Center [http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080515005111&newsLang=en]</ref>
* FiberLight provides Metro Optical Network Solution for Host.net <ref>FiberLight provides Metro Optical Network Solution for Host.net [http://www.host.net/index.cfm?id=142]</ref>
* Palm Beach Post Article on one of Host.net's On-Net Buildings <ref>Palm Beach Post Article on one of Host.net's On-Net Buildings [http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/business/epaper/2008/06/15/sunbiz_thesource_0615.html?imw=Y]</ref> —Cryptic 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor does a single well-reasoned delete constitute "consensus" by any stretch of the imagination. The proper course of action - even discounting all of the keeps - would have been to relist. Shereth 16:22, 25 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Amalgam Digital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Lack of Citations... I understand the reason for speedy deletion, and that was for lack of citations. i guess i did not truely understand that the citations needed posting immediately, for that i apologize. The Record label and the digital store exist and would appreciate another shot to create the page with the proper citations. Thanks. Amaldigi 19:28, June 24, 2008

Actually, RHaworth already has SALTed it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See that now, I didn't when I was looking at the logs. My bad TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I think the latest version should have been deleted under WP:CSD#G11 instead of WP:CSD#A7. I see one incarnation was deleted under PROD, but it wouldn't have survived AFD. GRBerry 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting admin. The "citations" in question refer to the fact that the new baseline standard for notability is coverage in multiple reliable sources. So, if you can't reference articles where the subject has gotten coverage, that leads to non-notability (not to mention non-verifiability). That said, I could just have easily deleted it under G11 as A7 - I picked the latter because, even if the language were made less promotional, the article would still fail notability, because there's no evidence of coverage of the label. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But lack of sourcing is not a speedy deletion reason. It is an AFD deletion reason. Speedy deletion under A7 is only for failing to make any claim of importance or significance. GRBerry 12:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, but what are the general criteria of Wikipedia:Significance? "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article failed to claim such coverage. Further, in my judgment, "first genre-specific digital download store specializing in hip hop with a strong focus on independent labels and artists" was not a sufficient claim of specific importance under WP:CORP - especially since "first" could be stricken if it was not verifiable. Nonetheless, G11 was a fallback deletion criterion, as noted in my log entry, which would still get us to the same endpoint. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but assertions of notability are all that's required. There's no requirement to have sources backing them up — if the article says first, but doesn't have a source, you don't get to strike "first" when deciding if it asserts notability or not. Failing Wikipedia:Significance is not a criteria for speedy deletion; it may be a deletion criteria but those aren't the same thing. --Haemo (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, no, no, claims of notability which are not notable despite claims of being so, are not claims of notability. "I am the handsomest man in the universe" is a claim of notability, but would not be proof against speedy deletion. Corvus cornixtalk 02:16, 28 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.
  • Geoffrey Hugo Lampe – Recreation, with actual content, encouraged. Full text of the long-ago speedied article is provided below. I am not restoring the deleted version as in my opinion it is somewhat misleading, it implies that the late Professor Lampe (who died in 1980) is a current Professor at Cambridge. – Stormie (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Geoffrey Hugo Lampe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

academic eminence User:clive sweeting

  • Rewrite Here is the full text of the article, as edited by you only: "Geoffrey Hugo Lampe, Ely Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, edited the Patristic Greek Lexicon." GRBerry 16:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Restore and rewrite-- to say someone is professor of Divinityy at Cambridge Univ. is an unmistakable assertion of significance. its not much of a stub, but its time we stopped deleting articles for being a stub. It does not have to show significance to pass speedy, just say something that indicates it. If sufficient importance doubted, that's why we have PROD and AfD. If not enough is said that's why we have {expand} and {uncited}. DGG (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could restore it, but it seems like a waste of time for a nearly-two-year-old speedy. It'd be quicker for you in the long run if you just recreate the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - As indicated by DGG this didn't meet the A7 criteria. However, an immediate restoration could easily result in a rapid AFD causing unnecessary extra work. I am with the pragmatic approach of lifebaka that the simplest approach is to rewrite it with rather more content and a source. Smile a While (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - A professor at Cambridge Univerity is not a mere lecturer. I appreciate that theology does not enjoy the academci eminence that it once did, but this sounds like a worthwhile potential article, whcih should thus be permitted. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • meh. Go on, just go and recreate the article but please try and add some content if you want it to survive. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 25 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Partners in torah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am confused as to why this page was deleted given that it is an organization parallel to many others within the same field of Jewish Outreach Organizations e.g. Aish HaTorah, Ohr Somayach and more. I had emulated their editorial style and used sources no different than these pages.

The same is true of the page Jewpiter, which was also deleted. Claudbaker

  • No offence to Orangemike here, but I'm going to have to say overturn because I'm pretty sure that didn't actually make A7. The cached version states that the program "currently has more than 13,000 participants", which makes me want to do a Gsearch to check for notability. A PROD or possibly an AfD would've been more appropriate. It very well may fail an AfD, but it at least deserves the chance. Also, you probably should've taken it up with the deleting admin before bringing it here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support myself. The requesting editor did not raise this deletion with me or the nominator before bringing it here; but I'm not gonna make any procedural whines about it. In a planet of 6.6 billion, 13,000 participants is not an assertion of notability in my book. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn 13,000 for a religion based organisartion is an assertion of significance. In fact, it might be for anything else also--the standard is not "world-wide significance". DGG (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn probably just barely asserts enough significance to escape speedy deletion. RMHED (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD, the assertion of notability is there although I highly doubt the claim will stick when subjected to community discussion. Shereth 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy for improvement. Per WP:ORG, "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." May is permissive, so I endorse the deletion as appropriate and within the guidelines. I think the best approach is to allow the concerned editors to improve the article in userspace; it can be moved to main article space once notability is clearly asserted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list - this was a tight call but I think that there is just enough here to escape an A7. This is a division of Torah Umesorah, a notable organisation. Consequently, if it is determined that there is insufficient notability for a stand-alone page then the solution would be a merge into Torah Umesorah - National Society for Hebrew Day Schools. Smile a While (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD As Shereth says I doubt it will survive AFD (especially after having searched for source myself) but there is some claim to importance in the article so it should go to AFD for a decision. Davewild (talk) 11:19, 29 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Spreadtrum Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unusual procedure of deleting,no warning or adding speedel tag,and didn't examine the deleting policy carefully Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and assume that the cached version was what's deleted since there's only one deletion. The cached version doesn't make A1 because it's pretty easy to tell what the article will be talking about, a fabless semiconductor company. However, there's nothing in there which says why the company is important or significant, and failing to assert that is another criterion for speedy deletion. So, while I don't agree with the CSD used for deletion, I believe the content should stay deleted. Feel free to write a lengthier version which does assert the company's importance, however. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its IPO on the NASDAQ do signify the notability even for a layman reader.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't on the cached version. If it was on the deleted version, it was added after the cached version was taken, and the reason I can't see is I lack access to Special:Undelete. If this is indeed the case, feel free to disregard my !vote. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo Finance NASDAQ:SPRD--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this thread. My thinking was more or less close to Lifebaka's in that I saw it straight off as an A7, then, seeing the nom's A1, for me the single sentence was not enough to give the business context so I let the nom's category stand. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:CSD#A1 doesn't apply because the stub uniquely identified its subject. WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply, in my opinion, because the stub referenced the NASDAQ stock symbol for the article, which is a claim of importance by being a company with a publicly traded stock. GRBerry 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only noting here, I don't find a NASDAQ stock symbol in itself to be an assertion of importance, since it can be more or less purchased. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can find plenty of Category:Companies listed on NASDAQ,so whether to delete most of them is justified by your criteria?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope that most of these would also also have some notability beyond just being listed on Nasdaq. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, Gwen's right. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold deletion (which would not rule out the later creation -- by Ksyrie or anybody else -- of a longer article about this company, an article that asserted notability and presented sources to back this up). -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Actually, I think NASDAQ is an indicator of significance: "NASDAQ lists approximately 3,200 securities, of which 335 are non-U.S. companies from 35 countries representing all industry sectors. To qualify for listing on the exchange, a company must be registered with the SEC, have at least three market makers (financial firms that act as brokers or dealers for specific securities), and meet minimum requirements for assets, capital, public shares, and shareholders." from the WP article. Now, obviously SEC registration is a minimal requirement, but the other conditions are indicators of importance & enough to pass speedy in all cases. As for AfD, there are 3 levels, Global Select, Global, and Capital market. Global Select, which requires essentially $100 Million revenue (or $3 Million profit) for initial listing is I think certainly enough to pass AfD. The next category, Global, requires $15 million stockholders equity & $1 million income for initial listing (or a variety of approximate equivalents) and I would argue that is significant enough for AfD also. The third, Capital Market, requires only $5 million equity. or similar so I can see that some people might want to require other factors, like market share, for AfD.. See [1]. DGG (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was sufficient context to identify it as a NASDAQ-listed company, and being listed on NASDAQ is an assertion of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It seems as though it has now been established that the company is notable, although there really wasn't any assertion of notability in the stub. Still, perhaps AfD would have been better for it then, but given that we now know it's listed on NASDAQ, the deletion should be overturned and the article expanded and sourced. ʝuѕтɛn 22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as certainly not an A1. The version in the cache, which has no indication that this is a NASDAQ-listed company (as a non-admin I have no access to the deleted version), would have qualified as an A7 but now that it has been shown to be NASDAQ-listed a straight overturn is in order. Smile a While (talk) 23:01, 24 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Reaction to Tim Russert's death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

admin closed debate stating that the consensus was 'merge' which has stirred up a new debate on the article's talk page. Some additional admin and other opinions on this closing result and the process used would be appreciated. Rtphokie (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The closing admin closed as no consensus and said 'I think that a selective merger of this article to Tim Russert would be an appropriate editorial consequence'. A merger is an editorial decision as he says. I can't see what there is for deletion review to review here. Quite correctly a discussion is taking place in the appropriate place - the talk page of the article - to reach a consensus there. Any discussion of a merger should take place there. Davewild (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure [from AfD nominator]. This closure has been contested on Sandstein's talk page, the talk page of the AfD, the talk page of the article (sort of), ANI, and now here. Interestingly, all of these complaints about the closure are from people who want the article kept... even though the article is still around. That's right; the AfD was closed as "no consensus for deletion, default to keep", but apparently the side note about a future merge was too much for them and apparently so infuriating that it drove one of the most prominent keep !voters to storm off the wiki (ironically after proclaiming four times that I was angry). This is textbook article ownership. If there's any change that should be made to the result, it should be with a more forceful merge; the deletes and merges in the AfD are obviously interchangable, and we have keep !voters saying the equivalent of "keep now, but delete later". But, perhaps even that change is not necessary; on the AfD and on the talk page of the article itself, it's clear, if one can get past the statements of "this article is too long to merge" (more like "we have put too much filler into this article to merge"), that there's a consensus that this article does not belong on Wikipedia. Stop forum-shopping, and accept it. -- tariqabjotu 12:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about this process admin closed debate stating that the consensus was merge which they clarified here. There is NOTHING for this DRV to rule on - A merger discussion is ongoing on the talkpage, the outcome of this administration process will have no basis to influence or inform that editorial process. If at the talkpage, the consensus is that the article should be merged, it will be merged - regardless of what decisions are made here. --Killerofcruft (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong forum. Consensus to merge was not clear. Appropriate place to debate merger is on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Close was no consensus, not merge. A suggestion to merge when explaining the close is prefecly fine. If you oppose a merger, right now the proper place to do so is the talk page of the article, not here. Also, as a note to Killerofcruft, DRV covers XfD closures whether they ended in delete or not. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify the meaning of consensus: we seem to have a majority who favor deleting or merging the article, with a non-trivial minority opposed to it. The closing admin at the AfD appeared to suggest merging, although I'm not clear on the purpose of this statement if it carries no weight. In the absence of unanimity, is the default supposed to be "keep without merging", against the will of the majority? I realize it's not a vote, but it's not minority rule, either. We have discussed the future of the article extensively at the AfD and on the talk page. I believe it's time for there to be some resolution. I was bold and attempted a good faith merge (not simply a redirect), which was reverted and began a brief edit war. The edit warrior on the "keep" side of the argument now claims to have retired from Wikipedia in frustration, which is too bad, despite my disagreement with him. A clear judgment, one way or the other, would be better for the project and less frustrating to editors. Fletcher (talk) 13:41, 24 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.
  • Paul Brunelle – Restored - an assertion of notability was made and thus the article should not have been A7 speedied. Brunelle clearly meets notability criteria of WP:MUSIC through his many recordings (more than 40 with major labels according to The Canadian Encyclopedia [2]) – Stormie (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Brunelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was marked for speedy deletion for non-notability immediately after I posted it and then deleted shortly afterwards without regard to my comments on the talk page.

I actually thought I was doing a service by translating this article from the French Wikipedia. Why is the article notable enough for inclusion on the French Wikipedia, but not the English? Are we provincial? Is the article notable for French readers, but not for English readers? I think education is global. Anyone wanting to study any global topic anywhere in the world should be able to do so without regard to his or her native reading language.

I also checked the notability guidelines before posting. How can this artist not be notable? He pioneered a whole sub-genre of music and considered its founding father. His music has been recorded by major record labels, has had extensive radio airplay, and he has had his own daily radio program. His discography runs from 1944 to 1962 and includes 49 singles and 14 LPs. Billboard.com also has 7 listings of re-releases in the 2000's.

If anyone wants to check the French Wikipedia article, I can save you a few steps in getting a translation by providing this translated link

Jkolak (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might've been easier to just ask the deleting admin to rethink his decision first, but now that we're here... I'm not sure what the previous version stated, but from what I can see the guy appears to pass WP:MUSIC. I'd suggest, rather than complaining here to have it restored (which will probably take about a week), you should just go ahead and recreate the article. This will probably be the fastest solution. You should also make sure that the article does say why he's important up front, so that it won't be speedied again. If you don't already, try using the "show preview" button before saving. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted this, since their were no independent verifiable references to support what was claimed. I have no objection to recreation, although as indicated above it needs to make clear why he's notable, preferably with references. jimfbleak (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, but there's no provision in A7 for sources. The issue there is separate from that of notability. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I didn't get back to you Jim. I couldn't get back to this right away and your ID is no longer tagged on the recreate/deletion page. Part of my delay was in a computer crash which has kept me offline for a while, and in which I lost my document. If someone could please undelete it, I would be glad to rewrite to better suit your suggestions.Jkolak (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to User:Jkolak/Paul Brunelle. Advice for Jkolak: Add sources in the first edit, or create it in userspace first then move it when your done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - While unsourced, it asserted rather plenty of importance over a 40 year career to avoid a speedy deletion. Actually we have a process that allows for smoother accomodation of interwiki translations: WP:Translation. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn "He is considered the pioneer of country in Quebec and the main source of influence on the artist who would popularize the genre, Willie Lamothe." That is a clear claim of significance, which is all that is needed to escape A7 speedy deletion. Lack of sources is an issue for PROD or AFD, which allow time to demonstrate the existence of sources. GRBerry 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The criterion is no assertion at all, or at least no good faith assertion, and this unmistakably passes. It might need to be improved a little to pass afd, but that's for afd, not here. Contrary to what Jim thinks, "There were no independent verifiable references to support what was claimed" is not one of the reasons for speedy. I notice from his talk page that he has used this reason elsewhere as well. DGG (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC
  • Overturn - Asserted notability. Sources not yet placed in the article is not A7 speedy deletion criteria. --Oakshade (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The article clearly asserted significance and notability and hence did not qualify for CSD A7. The latter explicitly states that the absence of sources is not a valid reason for A7 deletion: "This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources". A clear error by the deleting admin but Lifebaka is correct that it would have been better for Jkolak to contact the deleting admin before bringing the case to DRV. Nsk92 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn — I can't believe we have admins deleting articles who clearly don't understand the criteria. --Haemo (talk) 03:49, 26 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:British occupations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

I am concerned that the decision that no consensus to delete had been reached (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 8#Category:British Occupations) did not reflect the debate concerning this category. My interpretation of the deletion debate is there was a consensus to delete. This category was created by User:DonaldDuck as an attack category and originally included wildly inappropriate articles such as the BAOR and the Falkland War, I reverted many of those changes resulting in a category that was watered down compared with its original formula. In addition to creating the category, he has also been deleting a similar category from articles related to the Soviet Army; namely Soviet Occupations. Its clear that he is acting with a POV agenda and the creation of this category is part of that. Of its own right, it doesn't seem worthy of categorisation since it contains very few articles. Its vague and ill-defined, could I for instance legitimately add Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy? On several policy grounds its worthy of deletion, there was a consensus to do so even if you ignored at least one comment which was for a weak delete, there was several arguments why it should be deleted, there was no real argument for it to be kept - at best it should be renamed. I can accept, with qualifications, that if properly used it could become a legitimate category but not in its current form Justin talk 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my closure. Here's what I put on Justin's talk page: "...consensus isn't about numbers, it's about arguments. Clearly this wasn't an easy one, which is why no other admin had closed it earlier and it was 10 days overdue. There seemed a genuine division of opinion on whether the category could ever be used properly, at whatever name was chosen, which is why I called it as no consensus. Narson was a "weak delete" saying that it had potential if used correctly: that's an argument about use, not existence, of the category, and I gave that delete call less weight. There were some calls for a rename, which counted in favour of retention of the category in some form, but no consensus that this was the way forward. Hence, overall, no consensus but with closing comments that I thought we'd be back here again in due course - because I'm sure someone will initiate a wider discussion at some point." BencherliteTalk 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other participants in the discussion now notified with the same message. BencherliteTalk 23:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read through the CfD, and there isn't any sort of consensus there. It's pretty evenly split between delete !votes and keep/rename !votes (both of which do mean overall retention). I endorse the no consensus closure. I'd say that the solution here would be to properly use it instead of deleting it. Work at it for a month or so, and if it's no working go back to CfD. And please keep in mind that a no consensus close doesn't preclude future CfDs on the cat. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it certainly should be renamed and, as I said, it has potential if it is used correctly and there are enough articles there. I still have my doubts how many articles there are that are suitable for the article. Occupations are a relativly modern idea as a term (I think the 'legal' definition is from the late 1800s or early 1900s?). Though yes, as I said at the deletion, it could be given a chance. However, if it remains an attempt by an editor to forward an agenda, it should definatly be deleted until such time as someone is willing to acctually do it properly. Narson (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a participant, voting to delete, endorse closure as votes to delete or keep/rename exactly matched each other numerically, and there were perfectly reasonable arguments for keeping it in an altered form (which it now is). Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to remind everyone what the comments etc in the review said:

Myself: Delete, Narson: Weak-Delete, Pfainuk: Delete, Johnbod: Delete, Berks911: Delete

DonaldDuck: Keep

Peterkingiron:Rename to British Military Occupations, LapsedPacficist:Rename

Comments about the category being vague and ill-defined: roundhouse0, Otto4711, Cgingold

There was only one real comment for keeping it unaltered and that was DonaldDuck who created it. All of the other participants noted that it was ill-defined and that it should be either renamed or deleted. If it were renamed or deleted I would have no problem with that, since that was the consensus. Keeping it unaltered is what I have an issue with. Justin talk 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closure doesn't preclude either of those things. And I'd like to point out that a rename can be done editorially without the need for a CfD. You are still free to persue one if you wish, just as you are free to alter the category within editorial limits (basically I mean not deleting it without another CfD, which is difficult to do without the mop). I still suggest that you work on making the cat NPOV for a month or two before considering deletion again. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused I thought an editor couldn't rename a category, looking at renaming takes me to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I suppose I could create a new category from scratch and move the articles to that, then nominate it for deletion when its empty, is that what you mean? If it can simply be renamed I'd happily withdraw this nomination. Justin talk 11:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming categories is an admin power. Editors have to go through CFD or speedy renaming. Pfainuk talk 12:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, just shows my ignorance of the advanced workings of categories. Fix't above, but I still suggest you try working on it before another CfD. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can certainly see where "no consensus" came from based on the discussion - I still think it should be deleted, but there are legitimate arguments to keep (as I said at CFD). If it is retained here and continues to be used for POV purposes - as it certainly has been previously ([3]) - then it should be relisted and deleted. One thing that seems abundantly clear at this point is that if the category isn't deleted there is a consensus for renaming. Pfainuk talk 10:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the category is ill-defined, and only has two entries at present. However, I think it could be converted into a useful category. "Occupation" is potentially a POV category, since it could be applied to any colony (or other territory) seeking independence, something that I would deplore. On the other hand, any succesful military invasion (even temporary) involvesd the occupation of the area behind the front line, but such articles would be better descriebd as "invasions" than as occupations, which suggests something more enduring. The term could however properly be applied to the occupations Iraq for some years after WWI; of Palestine (1918-48) under League of Nations Mandate; of the Caucasus under a British general called Thompson after WWI; and of the British military governement in the British zone of Germany after WWII, in the period before the British army of the Rhine became a mere garrison there. In none of these cases was there any real attemtp to establish a colony. This is not my period of history, so that I am reluctant to start making the requisite adjustments, quite apart from considerations of time. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it had about 8 entries when I commented, all I would say uncontroversial as being "British occupations". It should not really be mutilated in this way during this review. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to suggest that the Falklands War and British Forces Germany and similar articles are put back simply because there is a deletion review then I will object most strenuously. The category was created by the originator to make a point and many of the articles included in it showed that clearly; the same editor who at the time was merrily removing Soviet Occupations from other articles. There were legitimate reasons for removing the articles that have been removed. Some may have had article titles that sounded legitimate but if you looked at the article itself, it was in fact inappropriate. For information I have removed 2 articles, the other articles in there were the two deletion reviews added accidentally by muself which I believe were removed by BencherliteTalk when he kindly corrected my formatting. I suggest you check before bandying accusation of mutilating the category about. Justin talk 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Falklands were not there - as I remember it had articles on Japan & Germany post WWII. You should take your own advice! Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Bizone and Allied Occupation Zones in Germany yesterday. The Bizone refers to the amalgamation of British and American zones following the post-war period. The other article defines how Germany was divided up. Neither fit the category other than tangentially. Both are already heavily categorised and the category Allied occupation of Germany seemed perfectly adequate to me. I believe Narson removed one article, British Commonwealth Occupation Force, which describes a unit not an occupation. You are perfectly welcome to check my contribution history to verify all of this and indeed could have done so before making your last remark. Were you to do so you'll find I also removed the Falklands War from this category as well. 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I also removed the occupation of Japan. It is commonly referred to as a US occupation, British deployment was negligable and token. There are some pretty good British occupations in history, the problem would be finding an article that concentrates on them. There was an occupation of Gibraltar, but that is only covered on wikipedia as part of the larger Gibraltar article (And is quite an early use of Occupation, hence why it is interesting). Then there was the British forces at Murmansk/Archangel near Karelia (IIRC) after WW1, but I'm not sure we have an article on that. Also the Icelandic occupation during WW2, where there is a stub about Icelandic history in WW2 but nothing much on the occupation. Narson (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment if I may. The forces in Iraq and Palestine were there under a League of Nations mandate, the purpose of which was to to administer parts of the recently defunct Ottoman Empire..."until such time as they are able to stand alone.", occupation implies the seizure and holding of territory by military force and doesn't seem appropriate in this case. Also we already have the category "Allied occupation of Germany" for the post-war occupation of Germany, adding yet more to a topic that is already over-categorised seems inappropriate to me. Your comment that the category is ill-defined at present hits the nail on the head for me, leaving it open to the potential of its abuse for POV reasons - the reason for its creation in the first place. This is why I believe leaving it unaltered is a mistake and ignored the consensus that it needed attention. Justin talk

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_24&oldid=1048381302"