Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 21: Difference between revisions

{| width = "100%"

|-

! width=60% align=center | [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive|Deletion review archives]]: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April|2008 April]]

|}

</div></noinclude>

|-

! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''

 

* As the closing admin, I'm not in principle opposed to a relist, if people here think this might yet yield a "delete" consensus – but I think this is not very likely. Could you explain why you think otherwise? (For future reference, it's more polite to ask the closing admin first instead of going straight to DRV.) [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] ([[User talk:Sandstein|talk]]) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

*'''Endorse'''. The close was entirely reasonable from where I stand. Usually, asking to overturn ''no consensus'' closes at DRV doesn't go anywhere, since anyone can just relist it on their own. However, I'd suggest waiting a few weeks, or at least a few days. That way it won't seem to be a rush job, and you'll have more time to think up more reasons to delete it as well. I would also like to note that I'm probably biased towards the article overall, since I used to play Magic, so my opinions on this subject may reflect that. --[[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]] <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|Contribs]])</small> 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

*'''Endorse''' - not an obviously wrong close. If the nominator remains concerned then a relist is the way to go. [[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] ([[User talk:BlueValour|talk]]) 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

|-

! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''

:{{la|Centurion (Scarrow novel)}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Centurion (Scarrow novel)|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Centurion (Scarrow novel)}} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel)|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

 

:Comment from closing admin: it was fairly clear that some of the "keep" votes were [[WP:ILIKEIT]] and thus weren't weighted the same as other comments. I have offered to userfy this article to allow the sourcing to continue, but as it was the article didn't demonstrate notability. - [[User Talk:Philippe|<span style="font-family:Papyrus, sans-serif; color:#775ca8;">Philippe</span>]] 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

:* I was the only person who voted to keep based on my opinion, the others supplied reasons and evidence of notability. So there is still at least 2 voters (Eastmain and Grand Roi) with various evidence of notability, whereas the people wanting to delete just said - no evidence of notability, though it has been proven that it is notable, so they are wrong to delete it. [[User:Rigsy05|Rigsy05]] ([[User talk:Rigsy05|talk]]) 12:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

*'''Overturn'''. I added a book review from the Yorkshire Evening Post at http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/book-reviews/Centurion-.3905940.jp just before the article was deleted, and I was about to add one from the Coventry Telegraph, http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/whats-on-coventry-warwickshire/book-reviews-and-news/2008/04/21/centurion-by-simon-scarrow-headline-12-99-92746-20794309/ , and I think that would have been enough to establish notability. Besides, the book was on the Sunday Times bestseller list (not a notability criterion, but a strong hint that the book might be notable). --[[User:Eastmain|Eastmain]] ([[User talk:Eastmain|talk]]) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

*'''Endorse Deletion'''. The new source still doesn't go far enough to demonstrate notability, but that's beside the point. As I read them, the keep votes generally do not address policy, instead they stay pretty much in the realm of WP:ILIKEIT. [[User:Trusilver|<span style="color:#ADA96E;">Trusilver</span>]] 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

:*What he said ^^ [[User:Rigsy05|Rigsy05]] ([[User talk:Rigsy05|talk]]) 09:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

*'''Relist at AfD''' - One of the sources (the [[Yorkshire Evening Post]] review) was added just five minutes before the AfD was closed, and there is apparently at least one other source. Since neither the arguments for keeping nor those for deleting were especially decisive or overwhelming, relisting the article at AfD to permit evaluation of the new sources would be appropriate, in my opinion. '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' ^{([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])} 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

*'''Relist''' on the basis of the review and the best seller status. That it was a Sunday Times Best seller was present in the article from the beginning, and mentioned in the discussion. The !keep votes were in large part based on that, and that is soundly grounded in policy. The close seems to have been made without proper consideration of either the discussion or the final state of the article. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 15:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

*'''Endorse Deletion''' The "sources" adduced to establish notability per [[WP:BK]] are a canard since the subject itself is not sufficiently meritorious per the [[WP:N]] standard therein elaborated for its own article, whereas the sources address only vague [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] concerns, which are themselves not even at issue. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] ([[User talk:Eusebeus|talk]]) 17:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

*'''Relist'''. I cannot see the article at present so I cannot comment on its merits, however, the AfD looked more like a no consensus to me, especially if, as has been suggested, the article was being changed almost up until the second it was deleted. It may very well turn out to be that deletion is indeed the appropriate action, but I'd feel better about it with a few more eyes on it and a clearer consensus. [[User:OlenWhitaker|<span style="color:black">'''OlenWhitaker'''</span>]] • ^{[[:User talk:OlenWhitaker|<span style="color:black">talk to me</span>]]} or _don't • ♣ <span style="color:red">♥</span> ♠ <span style="color:red">♦</span> 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the [[Myst]] franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review. If approved, please place on my User subpage: [[User:OranL/Saavedro]] -- [[User:OranL|OranL]] ([[User talk:OranL|talk]]) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 

 

:If you feel that there is something salvageable from these articles, I have no problem with giving you access to them. Give me about a half hour, I will put the articles as they existed on your subpages. [[User:Trusilver|<span style="color:#ADA96E;">Trusilver</span>]] 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the [[Myst]] franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review. If approved, please place on my User subpage: [[User:OranL/Bahro (Myst)]] -- [[User:OranL|OranL]] ([[User talk:OranL|talk]]) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 

::I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. [[User:Trusilver|<span style="color:#ADA96E;">Trusilver</span>]] 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)