Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 15

Nikolay Bliznakov – article restored by deleting admin following talk page request. DRV now not needed – Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Article has been speedily deleted for reasons of non-notability. However there are at least indications of notability (author translated to 3 other languages; article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia; wikilinked by another article) meaning that this is no Speedy-candidate. Please undelete temporarily, so we can discuss its notability or non-notability. PanchoS (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Worker Communism Unity Party of Iran – article restored by deleting admin, nothing to do here – Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Article has been speedily deleted for reasons of non-notability. However there are at least indications of notability (> 6000 Google hits) meaning that this is no Speedy-candidate. Please undelete temporarily, so we can discuss its notability or non-notability. PanchoS (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paul Carrigan – Consensus was to restore Cirt's version – NW (Talk) 00:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator with the condition that the article was deleted/userfied. Effectively this was a speedy deletion when all the comments were to keep or withdraw (none was to delete). The admin's decision to delete the article over-rode the consensus view. I recommend that the article is re-created. If necessary, the AfD can run to completion to make sure there is an established consensus to delete/userfy or keep.

Note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Nominating a page for AFD while tagged with construction was raised by user:Cirt which dealt with user:Epbr123's inappropriate timing of the nomination to delete for an article with a construction tag and undergoing active improvement. Both users are admins. This is a separate issue to the article being deleted/userfied.

The userfied version was made available at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan. Ash (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second the request for DRV. I verify that Ash's assessment is factual and correct. The nominator for both Afd's (User:Epbr123) has shown a pattern of nominating at least one gay porn bio a day for deletion and while this may, or may not, be against any written policy, it is unfair toward the whole Wikipedia community as there is little time, or energy to deal with the onslaught of deletion reviews. Editors like Ash and myself who are interested in creating and improving articles are instead spending the majority of our time vainly attempting to keep valuable information from being lost forever. -Stillwaterising (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leave in userspace~~ - The page is currently in userspace, at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan. The article is a WP:BLP, and as a WP:BLP, it should not be simply moved back into article mainspace until sourcing issues are addressed. As for the matter of the page itself, I personally think it is notable enough for an article, and other editors are free to create a different version than the one in Ash (talk · contribs)'s userspace that is well-sourced, but this particular version is not yet and should not be moved back into article mainspace in its form. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that during the AfD no specific BLP concerns were raised for the sources or facts mentioned in the article. The only time BLP was mentioned was by me as an aside. DRV discussions are not intended to pre-empt an adequate AfD (the guidelines state "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question."), these new points raised are why we should have an AfD or alternatives to deletion so that the article can be improved instead of deleted. Ash (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and one of the alternatives to deletion is something called Incubation, much akin to having the article in userspace as long as its quality is poor. Cirt (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Incubation is a suggestion that can be made during AfD. The point here is that the article was deleted when the documented consensus was to keep, you have not addressed that matter. Ash (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you have failed to explain why Wikipedia should selectively choose to go against the policy of WP:BLP in this particular instance and move a poorly sourced page into article mainspace. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Note: Information on incubation can be found at WP:Incubation - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No, I failed to do no such thing; the AfD made no mention of BLP violations. This DRV is not the place to start an AfD discussion. The article was deleted when the documented consensus was to keep. Pointing out my faults does not change that fact. Ash (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leave in userspace until at least the article is properly sourced. In my opinion, the subject doesn't appear to be notable and it is inevitable that someone will begin another AfD if the article is restored without additional evidence to notability. Epbr123 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. I have worked on the page Paul Carrigan, in a subpage of my userspace at User:Cirt/Paul Carrigan. This version is sourced with citations after every single sentence in the page. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
restore Cirt's version. I don't see how there can be objections to it. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
restore Cirt's version. I was the one who originally suggested returning the article to userspace, because it wasn't adequately sourced. Cirt's version is sourced well enough to answer my objections. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Cirt's version and speedy close this unnecessary DRV. This case once again illustrates why filing a DRV over every hypertechnical dispute on where an article should be in the few hours, or days, when it is being sourced before it goes into mainspace is pointless and wasteful. Tim Song (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is Internet Adult Film Database a reliable source? The name suggest similarity with IMDB... Pcap ping 20:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This might be relevant in an AfD, not for a DRV. Try WP:RSN where this was last discussed two years ago with the conclusion that it was okay for non-controversial items, such as credibly confirming films acted in but cannot be assumed to be an exhaustive listing. Hm, I note that Epbr123 asked the same question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Reliability_of_IAFD a very short time before you asked this question here. Ash (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral although consensus does seem to be for restoring Cirt's version. Thanks and apologies to Cirt for commendable work on the article and unwarranted accusations respectively. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment If Cirt's userfied verson is moved to main space then the revision history of the orginal article which is including in Ash's userfied version would be lost. Propose moving Ash's version to main space and applying the final version of Cirt's edits. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That will be done in any regard, to preserve the history of the page. Cirt (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not sure how my above comment could have be misunderstood to mean I prefer Ash's versions over Cirt's. I'm for restoring Cirt's version as long as the original revision history is preserved (which is currently associated with Ash's version). - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave in userspace until the article can be corrected. JBsupreme (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of this DRV is that the AfD never reached any conclusion to userfy in the first place, discussion was halted by a non-consensus deletion. A DRV is not the place to have the AfD discussion that should have been allowed to complete. Ash (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I have no problem with a problematic BLP being expeditiously moved out of mainspace. That's my position if we're going to discuss things in theory. I see now though that the version Cirt has looks promising so perhaps it can be moved back now. JBsupreme (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks very much, Cirt (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - JB, I'm surprised that in theory you think it's okay to close an ongoing AfD where the consensus was to keep, on the basis that in your opinion there may be a BLP problem and yet you would not discuss any issues you identified in the AfD. I would have thought you would propose a userfy in the AfD rather than believing that personal viewpoint carries more weight that anyone else who contributes in an AfD discussion. Ash (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Cirt's version without prejudice for another AfD. It's substantially different in terms of sourcing than the userfied/deleted version. If some editors still think it's improperly sourced, they can open another AfD as there seems to be no consensus on the reliability of IAFD. Pcap ping 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Cirt's version; while I'm no fan of the way this AfD went, Cirt's version is a substantial improvement, meets WP:PORNBIO; and is well-sourced to boot. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This DRV has been open for more than 7 days now and I see that consensus has been reached. Can it be closed now? - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Over You (Girlicious song) – Article restored. – –MuZemike 17:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was originally deleted per discussion from another author stating lack of proper citations,they are an American band but had no American citations and was a non charting single. I agree with why it was ORIGINALLY deleted, HOWEVER i am a new creator and would love to be able to create the page. The song now is currently on the billboard and more information has become available, i have American citations that meet with wiki standards and believe it originally complies with WP:NSONG standards. So i am requesting a chance to undelete the article so i can improve the page. Please share your thoughts. thank you (L-l-CLK-l-l (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The Canadian references thing was a distraction - the editor who raised it was mistaken and later retracted on that point. Notability is notability, whether it be in Canada or the US - but at the time of the AfD there was no real notability anywhere. According to Billboard, "Over You" is currently 62 on the Canadian Hot 100 so that does change the perspective. There is no point recreating the article if it says nothing about the song that is not already covered at Girlicious, but otherwise I would support restoration. I42 (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, without prejudice to another AfD at editorial discretion. There is a significant change in the circumstances, and the song seems to pass WP:NSONGS. Tim Song (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, restore as now it seems to meets our inclusion requirements. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.