Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 21

21 April 2008

Mark Mullen

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)

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

• 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)
• Restore per Black Falcon. Hut 8.5 06:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

M4+2 engine

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)

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)

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)

• Note: Fix't AfD link above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - to nominator: If you believe that the article deserves to be here, you might want to try recreating it. Assuming, of course, that you can write it so that it won't qualify for WP:CSD#G4 while you're at it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just saved it by pure premonition it would be deleted. Now I am recreating it in unabridged version M4+2 engine/Temporary. Hope, didn't break any rules. Subject to speedy deletion after this review is resolved. greg park avenue (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've deleted the temporary page for now; since it doesn't preserve the edit history of the original article, it violates the GFDL license. If you'd like to work on the article, its content (and page history) could be restored and moved to a subpage of your user page... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I have created a subpage on my User:Greg park avenue page titled "M4+2 engine/Temp" ([1] and I would like to restore this article here together with its history, don't know how to do it though. Hope you can help. Sorry for violating GFDL, didn't mean that. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• No worries. :) I've moved the article's content and history to User:Greg park avenue/M4+2 engine (basically, I undeleted the article and moved it to a subpage of your user page). Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Centurion (Scarrow novel)

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 Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 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. 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). --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. Trusilver 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• The keep arguments address policy by providing multiple sources to demonstrate notability. The delete votes rather tend to be more WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• What he said ^^ 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. 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. DGG (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• 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)