Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 21

< April 20	Deletion review archives: 2008 April	April 22 >

21 April 2008

Mark Mullen

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.

M4+2 engine

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. Banyan Tree 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]

Note: Fix't AfD link above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering rules

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 Citrouilles^Tally-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]

Centurion (Scarrow novel)

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)[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 Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

Releeshahn

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]

Saavedro

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 Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bahro (Myst)

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 Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terahnee

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]

Garternay

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]

D'ni kings

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]