Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 21

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< April 20 Deletion review archives: 2008 April April 22 >

21 April 2008

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Mullen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Subject is clearly notable NewsGuru (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think saying that the subject of this article is not notable is simply wrong. I mean I saw a page for Curt Young, the assistant hitting coach for the Oakland A's the other day. Mark Mullen is the current China Correspondent for NBC News and is on television at least three or four times a week. If Curt Young, some random hitting coach who is rarely in the news, is notable, the China correspondent for the number one newscast in the country is certainly notable.

I cited four different sources including links to NBC video of stories he has done from Beijing. He is also NBC's point man for their Olympic news coverage this August, an event that will be watched by more than three billion people worldwide. If that isn't notable I don't know what is. I mean the guy has won an Emmy.

Here's a link to the NBC Nightly News article that lists him as a correspondent and here's a profile of him by PBS from a show he works on there: http://www.pbs.org/kcet/globalwatch/about.html.

NewsGuru (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)NewsGuru[reply]

  • Restore - While the article did not indicate the importance/significance of its subject all too clearly, I don't think that an article with 4 sources should be speedy deleted under criterion A7, especially when some of the sources are reliable. In any case, an article about a chief correspondent for NBC News and winner of an Emmy Award needs more consideration (i.e. AfD) – if it should be deleted at all, that is. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Black Falcon. Hut 8.5 06:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore a very poor speedy. Asserting a national correspondent for major networks is assertion of importance enough to pass speedy, referenced or unreferenced. with the references, it should be enough to pass AfD as well. I notice the deleting admin has deleted 81 articles in the last 24 hours; Fellow admins may want to review them. I have notified him of this discussion. DGG (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • M4+2 engine – Closing with no action. The article has been userfied and has been subsequently merged with other content and substantially modified from the deleted version. Therefore there is nothing further for DRV to consider. The user is encouraged to seek further review from others to determine if there is any question as to the new article's notability, and if appropriate, to move the improved article to mainspace under the appropriate title. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
M4+2 engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The reasons for deletion given by nominator no longer exist. At least 4 out of 5 references are valid sources according to WP:N, and after they were added there were no more votes. So I don't understand the ruling of the closing administrator. I was sure the AfD procedure is not a majority vote, otherwise any attempt to improve the article during such procedure would be just pure waste of time. Please reconsider relisting it one more time. greg park avenue (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From closing admin, copied from User talk:BanyanTree#M4+2 engine: "Later AFD participants had a chance to evaluate the journal article, which appears to be the strongest support for notability, and still thought it merited deletion. I looked over the web-based articles and none appeared to have the weight of a journal article. (The cosmetic changes obviously don't establish notability, neither does the patent link as nobody is disputing that it exists.) I am satisfied that this is an accurate reading of the consensus." Note that I suggested DRV if the user remained unsatisfied. BanyanTree 22:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what participants in the AfD discussion later think? You must just be a mindreader, are you?. And it is not true what you suspect or speculate; for example: User:JeremyMcCracken acknowledged in the AfD discussion that he was not for deletion (forgetting that he was the first one to vote for it) but for notability or its lack, but he suspected that notability has been reached after the article had been significantly improved (not just cosmetic changes you have implied), still he can't handle Polish. Can you? Yet you sound like you can handle this but I don't think you can handle this, having been an expert in the field of engineering notwithstanding. That's why I tagged this article with the "expert" template hoping the participitants in the discussion and closing admin will have at least BA in this area of expertise or something close, but obviously those are in demand here in Wikipedia. That should answer your question why no one took part in this discussion after proper references were added. If it was an obvious hoax or advertisement or autobiography, many Polish-American Wikipedians who are active here would cry wolf and vote for deletion. But they kept their distance since they're mostly historians and just would not like to interfere. And I just asked for another re-listing after which one new faces always appear, not for argument who is right or who is not. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciated for your help - you made my day. Added 2 more independent references - one from Germany, one from Spain - about this invention. From some fair or exposition I guess. Both in English this time. Also 2 links related to this concept - 2/4 engine from UK and US. I think it's enough to relist this article one more time. I think a note to list of Technology-related deletion discussions should be included this time to speed up the process. Besides, what the big deal about re-listing? The AfD nom didn't even bother to ask for an expert opinion. Cheers! greg park avenue (talk) 21:01, 22 April 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.
Magic: The Gathering rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This AFD was closed as no-consensus, the discussion concerning whether this fell under WP:GAMEGUIDE was somewhat controversial. I'm not arguing against the decision that this didn't fufil the criteria to be deleted under GAMEGUIDE, but that considering the nature of the AfD, I'm requesting that it be re-opened and re-listed to garner additional discussion. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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.) Sandstein (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. No consensus was a reasonable call. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - not an obviously wrong close. If the nominator remains concerned then a relist is the way to go. BlueValour (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally just felt that the discussion wasn't as through as it could be, I'm still sort of new here, but now I know next time that a relist in a few weeks would have been more appropriate. Sorry for wasting your time guys, I'm perfectly fine with withdrawing this! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:50, 22 April 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.
Centurion (Scarrow novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

6 argued for keep versus 3 for delete and just before the AfD was closed even more sources were added thereby indicating that any sourcing issues were actively being addressed. Thus, the discussion was if not a keep, then at least a no consensus. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Philippe 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deletes were mostly of the repetitive WP:JNN argument to avoid variety, whereas those advocating keep found multiple sources and improved the article during the course of the discussion and were still in the process of doing so as the discussion ended. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Rigsy05 (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. DGG (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per DGG. Over the course of the AfD discussion the article was improved from a near-speedy candidate to an article that was reasonably worth keeping. --Finngall talk 15:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist If I didn't offer other evidences of notability this time, it's because I honestly thought that notability were established, I didn't !vote based on WP:ILIKEIT. If the neutrality is still disputed, then relist. CenariumTalk 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Eusebeus (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:57, 22 April 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.
Releeshahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

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/Releeshahn -- OranL (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. Trusilver 00:39, 22 April 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.
Saavedro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

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 -- OranL (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a reasonable request. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Trusilver 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. Trusilver 00:39, 22 April 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.
Bahro (Myst) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

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) -- OranL (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable request. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. Trusilver 00:39, 22 April 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.
Terahnee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

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/Terahnee -- OranL (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. Trusilver 00:39, 22 April 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.
Garternay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

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/Garternay -- OranL (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. Trusilver 00:39, 22 April 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.
D'ni kings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

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/D'ni kings -- OranL (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. Trusilver 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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_April_21&oldid=1140406206"