Charazay – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Charazay (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Page was deleted because the admin thinks it doesn't meet the notability criteria. I've tried to explain that it's quite known and that there was still a lot of things to add to the page but after my last reply he didn't reply again. TizianoF 20:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, I meant to reply to you... I just got busy with other things. As closer I give no opinion here other than all evidence provided to me fell short of WP:WEB in my opinion, so a review by the community is the correct next step. I didn't see any evidence that convinced me to self-revert the speedy deletion.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list on AfD This is realy an application that happens to be hosted on the web, rather than web content in the more usual sense. in any case "As of May 2007, the game had over 16,000 users, each with their own team." is IMO an assertion of significance. it wouldn't, alone, be enough to pass an AfD, but I think it is enough that WP:CSD#A7 should not apply. Note that an articel about a web site need not pass WP:WEB to avoid an A7 speedy -- any plausible assertion of significance is enough that prod or afd ought to be used instead. DES ^(talk) 20:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - WP:WEB says "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section." The only links are to the official website and a blog, neither of which is a reliable source in the context of establishing notability (of course, once notability has been established through other sources, then those sites can be used as sources for information). ugen64 10:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] But WP:WEB is the set of standards to be used in an AfD or prod, it simply does not apply in a speedy deletion context. DES ^(talk) 17:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion pretty much a textbook case of A7 / nn web content. User count by itself is not a claim of notability, especially when no sources are offered, and even if it was, the user count is pretty small. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Unsourced attempt to assert notability. Could be taken to AfD alright, but a couple of quick Google/Yahoo! searches tell me that it'd be just a waste of time for everybody.--Hús ö nd 00:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Charazay – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was deleted because the admin thinks it doesn't meet the notability criteria. I've tried to explain that it's quite known and that there was still a lot of things to add to the page but after my last reply he didn't reply again. TizianoF 20:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to reply to you... I just got busy with other things. As closer I give no opinion here other than all evidence provided to me fell short of WP:WEB in my opinion, so a review by the community is the correct next step. I didn't see any evidence that convinced me to self-revert the speedy deletion.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list on AfD This is realy an application that happens to be hosted on the web, rather than web content in the more usual sense. in any case "As of May 2007, the game had over 16,000 users, each with their own team." is IMO an assertion of significance. it wouldn't, alone, be enough to pass an AfD, but I think it is enough that WP:CSD#A7 should not apply. Note that an articel about a web site need not pass WP:WEB to avoid an A7 speedy -- any plausible assertion of significance is enough that prod or afd ought to be used instead. DES ^(talk) 20:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - WP:WEB says "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section." The only links are to the official website and a blog, neither of which is a reliable source in the context of establishing notability (of course, once notability has been established through other sources, then those sites can be used as sources for information). ugen64 10:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:WEB is the set of standards to be used in an AfD or prod, it simply does not apply in a speedy deletion context. DES ^(talk) 17:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion pretty much a textbook case of A7 / nn web content. User count by itself is not a claim of notability, especially when no sources are offered, and even if it was, the user count is pretty small. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Unsourced attempt to assert notability. Could be taken to AfD alright, but a couple of quick Google/Yahoo! searches tell me that it'd be just a waste of time for everybody.--Hús ö nd 00:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gorilla Zoe – Redirect unprotected to permit proposed expansion. – Xoloz 02:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gorilla Zoe (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Currently redirects to his group, Boyz n da Hood. Now I think Big Gee (rapper) and Duke (rapper) should redirect, as they have little to no notability outside the group. Zoe, however, has a solo single out, called "Hood Nigga" which has peaked at #36 on the Billboard R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart (under its amended name, "Hood Figga"), and it is the first single from his upcoming album called "Welcome to the Zoo," set for release on September 25, 2007 on Block Entertainment/Bad Boy South. Not to mention he has collaborated with Yung Joc on his single "Coffee Shop (song)." The Billboard charting is very notable, so my choice is Unmerge and Unprotect, so a quality article can be written. Tom Danson 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Just do it There is no need to come to Deletion reveiw to make or unmake a redirect. If you can write a reasonable article about this person, one tha asserts and establishes notability, passes WP:MUSIC, adn could pass an AfD, feel free. Of course anyone else can change it back toa redirect if that seems beat, this is the same as any other change of contetn in an article. DES ^(talk) 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] This redirect is protected. I cannot do it unless an administrator unprotects the redirect. I'm making a request so the redirect can be unprotected. Tom Danson 19:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Oh Sorry, i didn't check. in that case Unprotect redirect unless soemone has a good reason not to. DES ^(talk) 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Unprotect: a charted single should be enough to pass WP:MUSIC and is certainly enough to overturn an A7. Xtifr _tälk 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] On 20 July Jaranda reduced the redirect Gorilla Zoe to semi-protected, so any established user can edit it. I suggest that this DRV be speedy closed as moot. EdJohnston 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Gorilla Zoe – Redirect unprotected to permit proposed expansion. – Xoloz 02:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currently redirects to his group, Boyz n da Hood. Now I think Big Gee (rapper) and Duke (rapper) should redirect, as they have little to no notability outside the group. Zoe, however, has a solo single out, called "Hood Nigga" which has peaked at #36 on the Billboard R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart (under its amended name, "Hood Figga"), and it is the first single from his upcoming album called "Welcome to the Zoo," set for release on September 25, 2007 on Block Entertainment/Bad Boy South. Not to mention he has collaborated with Yung Joc on his single "Coffee Shop (song)." The Billboard charting is very notable, so my choice is Unmerge and Unprotect, so a quality article can be written. Tom Danson 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just do it There is no need to come to Deletion reveiw to make or unmake a redirect. If you can write a reasonable article about this person, one tha asserts and establishes notability, passes WP:MUSIC, adn could pass an AfD, feel free. Of course anyone else can change it back toa redirect if that seems beat, this is the same as any other change of contetn in an article. DES ^(talk) 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This redirect is protected. I cannot do it unless an administrator unprotects the redirect. I'm making a request so the redirect can be unprotected. Tom Danson 19:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh Sorry, i didn't check. in that case Unprotect redirect unless soemone has a good reason not to. DES ^(talk) 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect: a charted single should be enough to pass WP:MUSIC and is certainly enough to overturn an A7. Xtifr _tälk 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 20 July Jaranda reduced the redirect Gorilla Zoe to semi-protected, so any established user can edit it. I suggest that this DRV be speedy closed as moot. EdJohnston 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Soulja Boy – A reliably sourced recreation is encouraged; however, nothing in the history appears useful, so it remains deleted. – Xoloz 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Soulja Boy (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` It was deleted several times because Soulja Boy wasn't notable yet. However, he has since become notable by signing a major deal with ColliPark Music (Ying Yang Twins' former label)/Interscope Records-do I even need to tell you why Interscope is notable? Plus, his new single Crank That (Soulja Boy), has debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at #47 (pretty high debut if you ask me). Undelete, so I may clean it up and put some notable facts in there. Tom Danson 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation - the earlier version was deleted as 'nonsense' and I am not keen on a bad article being undeleted so it may be improved. Better for a notable article can be written from scratch. Bridgeplayer 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation; debuting at #47 is a solid indication that he's made the step up to where he'll meet notability - but, if the earlier version was garbage, it's definitely best to recreate from scratch and start fresh. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation. The content of the last version before the last deletion was, in full except for section headers: Born Kingston, Jamaica 1993 Many women think Kadeem is very good looking. He was voted best looking man in America on January 20 2007 When Kadeem was 12 years old, his mom signed him up for football. When Kadeem first started it was tough, but after getting fater and stronger, he physicaly dominated the sport and made starting Left Tackle. When he was 13 he again struggle in the beggining because he was now smaller than everyone on his Juniors team. But like always, he came through and started cornerback. In 2006 the Parham Bears won the Metro Bowl. Kadeem contributed with 8 tackles 2 forced fumbles and a game saving, one handed interception! I see nothing of value there. While there might be something useful in some prior version -- I haven't checked all fifty-seven deleted versions -- I suspect that an article created new feom scratch will be better. DES ^(talk) 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation almost a classic example of the "new information surfacing" method by which DRV is supposed to work. However, this definitely needs recreation rather than undeletion, as the last version was pretty much nonsense (not even related to the musician in the title) and previous versions don't look a heck of a lot better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation: the charted single should be enough to meet the notability criteria at WP:BAND. (I should point out, however, for future reference, that merely signing with a label—no matter how notable a label—is not sufficient by itself.) Note that the claim of a charted single should be enough to overturn a speedy deletion for lack of notability (WP:CSD#A7), but it will need cited evidence from reliable source(s) to be kept at WP:AFD. I trust that the quality of the article will be improved this time, or it may face deletion again. Xtifr _tälk 10:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation. The cite is accurate: for the week of 28 July 2007 shows the single ranked at number 47 with a "hot shot". Horologium t-c 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Soulja Boy – A reliably sourced recreation is encouraged; however, nothing in the history appears useful, so it remains deleted. – Xoloz 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It was deleted several times because Soulja Boy wasn't notable yet. However, he has since become notable by signing a major deal with ColliPark Music (Ying Yang Twins' former label)/Interscope Records-do I even need to tell you why Interscope is notable? Plus, his new single Crank That (Soulja Boy), has debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at #47 (pretty high debut if you ask me). Undelete, so I may clean it up and put some notable facts in there. Tom Danson 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation - the earlier version was deleted as 'nonsense' and I am not keen on a bad article being undeleted so it may be improved. Better for a notable article can be written from scratch. Bridgeplayer 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation; debuting at #47 is a solid indication that he's made the step up to where he'll meet notability - but, if the earlier version was garbage, it's definitely best to recreate from scratch and start fresh. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The content of the last version before the last deletion was, in full except for section headers:

Born Kingston, Jamaica 1993

Many women think Kadeem is very good looking. He was voted best looking man in America on January 20 2007

When Kadeem was 12 years old, his mom signed him up for football. When Kadeem first started it was tough, but after getting fater and stronger, he physicaly dominated the sport and made starting Left Tackle.

When he was 13 he again struggle in the beggining because he was now smaller than everyone on his Juniors team. But like always, he came through and started cornerback. In 2006 the Parham Bears won the Metro Bowl. Kadeem contributed with 8 tackles 2 forced fumbles and a game saving, one handed interception!

I see nothing of value there. While there might be something useful in some prior version -- I haven't checked all fifty-seven deleted versions -- I suspect that an article created new feom scratch will be better. DES ^(talk) 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation almost a classic example of the "new information surfacing" method by which DRV is supposed to work. However, this definitely needs recreation rather than undeletion, as the last version was pretty much nonsense (not even related to the musician in the title) and previous versions don't look a heck of a lot better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation: the charted single should be enough to meet the notability criteria at WP:BAND. (I should point out, however, for future reference, that merely signing with a label—no matter how notable a label—is not sufficient by itself.) Note that the claim of a charted single should be enough to overturn a speedy deletion for lack of notability (WP:CSD#A7), but it will need cited evidence from reliable source(s) to be kept at WP:AFD. I trust that the quality of the article will be improved this time, or it may face deletion again. Xtifr _tälk 10:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The cite is accurate: for the week of 28 July 2007 shows the single ranked at number 47 with a "hot shot". Horologium t-c 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dynasty Warriors 6 – Unprotected to permit reliably sourced recreation; however, no useful content appears in the history, so it remains deleted. – Xoloz 02:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dynasty Warriors 6 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` This page is being protected starting from Feb 2007, with the reason "game not yet announced" (because spammers kept on creating this article). But now, as Koei has announced the game will be released in late autumn 2007, can we restore this page now?Lugiadoom 10:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Unprotect - Any info that was there before is baseless speculation anyway. Just unsalt the article. - hahnch e n 17:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] If there are now reliable sources available to support the creation of this article, I have no problem with unsalting it. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Unprotect - to allow recreation. However, decent sources will be needed for the article to survive. Bridgeplayer 23:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Here are the sources.Announcement Game official site (Dynasty Warriors 6 is Shin Sangokumusou 5.) Lugiadoom 12:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Unprotect but do not restore - I was the nominator who first put the article through AFD, but now that the game has been announced I think there should be an article on it. However, the original article was full of crystal-balling and wish lists (some of those were proven false), so just unprotect it. _dk 04:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Unprotect but do not restore - let the wikiuser star from stracth on this one, it deserves to be unprotected, but bringing the old page would be a digression. Let everyone start over with the fact we have. So unprotect but do not restore. --EveryDayJoe45 16:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Dynasty Warriors 6 – Unprotected to permit reliably sourced recreation; however, no useful content appears in the history, so it remains deleted. – Xoloz 02:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is being protected starting from Feb 2007, with the reason "game not yet announced" (because spammers kept on creating this article). But now, as Koei has announced the game will be released in late autumn 2007, can we restore this page now?Lugiadoom 10:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect - Any info that was there before is baseless speculation anyway. Just unsalt the article. - hahnch e n 17:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are now reliable sources available to support the creation of this article, I have no problem with unsalting it. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect - to allow recreation. However, decent sources will be needed for the article to survive. Bridgeplayer 23:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are the sources.Announcement Game official site (Dynasty Warriors 6 is Shin Sangokumusou 5.) Lugiadoom 12:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect but do not restore - I was the nominator who first put the article through AFD, but now that the game has been announced I think there should be an article on it. However, the original article was full of crystal-balling and wish lists (some of those were proven false), so just unprotect it. _dk 04:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect but do not restore - let the wikiuser star from stracth on this one, it deserves to be unprotected, but bringing the old page would be a digression. Let everyone start over with the fact we have. So unprotect but do not restore. --EveryDayJoe45 16:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rush Rush Rally Racing – Deletion endorsed; will userfy upon request, as usual. – Xoloz 02:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rush Rush Rally Racing (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Deleted for "being spam". I (writer of this article) am not related to the product's developer, and there was no advertising there; it was merely a listing of the currently available info. Also, given the developer's past releases, it is definitely notable. Ergo, it was as valid as any article about games currently under developement. Stormwatch 03:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Okay, the article wasn't spam, but it was still a speedy candidate (A7 in WP:CSD - you must assert its notability using reliable sources). A game that hasn't come out, no matter how notable it may seem, will be deleted unless you provide reliable sources (for example, Starcraft 2). For example, I recently redirected articles about Diablo III and Tales of Symphonia 2, despite the fact that they are sequels of very successful franchises - because the articles had no reliable sources. ugen64 06:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] A7 is that you must assert the notability. You do not have to do so with reliable sources, or any sources at all. You will of course have to do so if the article is to be kept at AfD, but wedo not speedy articles for not having RSs. Okay, perhaps I didn't word that very well. If you look at the article (assuming you are an admin), there is absolutely no assertion of notability other than "this game, which might or might not be notable, might exist in the future". If there was a reliable source that said "this game is coming out soon and it is a notable game", then of course a speedy would be out of line. ugen64 10:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Possibly endorse deletion because in fact this article didn't assert notability altogether: "Rush Rush Rally Racing is a top-down perspective racing video game that is under developement by the GOAT Store for the Sega Dreamcast console." However, perhaps any game being developed by that company is likely to be notable, so the company name alone would be sufficient.--I don't know one way or another on that part.) DGG (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Actually, it is being developed by Senile Team, to be published by The GOAT Store. It is the same team behind Beats of Rage, possibly the most popular Dreamcast homebrew game. - Stormwatch 00:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Userfy to nominator - This was not a G11 but I agree that the article probably fails A7. This is a game from a notable developer that will be launched on a notable platform so it shouldn't be hard to assert some notability! Userfy will allow the nominator to produce an acceptable rewrite. Bridgeplayer 00:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per ugen64. Realistically, an article with no sources, about a homebrew game not even released yet (!!) has no reasonable chance whatsoever at passing AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Rush Rush Rally Racing – Deletion endorsed; will userfy upon request, as usual. – Xoloz 02:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted for "being spam". I (writer of this article) am not related to the product's developer, and there was no advertising there; it was merely a listing of the currently available info. Also, given the developer's past releases, it is definitely notable. Ergo, it was as valid as any article about games currently under developement. Stormwatch 03:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Okay, the article wasn't spam, but it was still a speedy candidate (A7 in WP:CSD - you must assert its notability using reliable sources). A game that hasn't come out, no matter how notable it may seem, will be deleted unless you provide reliable sources (for example, Starcraft 2). For example, I recently redirected articles about Diablo III and Tales of Symphonia 2, despite the fact that they are sequels of very successful franchises - because the articles had no reliable sources. ugen64 06:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A7 is that you must assert the notability. You do not have to do so with reliable sources, or any sources at all. You will of course have to do so if the article is to be kept at AfD, but wedo not speedy articles for not having RSs.

Okay, perhaps I didn't word that very well. If you look at the article (assuming you are an admin), there is absolutely no assertion of notability other than "this game, which might or might not be notable, might exist in the future". If there was a reliable source that said "this game is coming out soon and it is a notable game", then of course a speedy would be out of line. ugen64 10:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly endorse deletion because in fact this article didn't assert notability altogether: "Rush Rush Rally Racing is a top-down perspective racing video game that is under developement by the GOAT Store for the Sega Dreamcast console." However, perhaps any game being developed by that company is likely to be notable, so the company name alone would be sufficient.--I don't know one way or another on that part.) DGG (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is being developed by Senile Team, to be published by The GOAT Store. It is the same team behind Beats of Rage, possibly the most popular Dreamcast homebrew game. - Stormwatch 00:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to nominator - This was not a G11 but I agree that the article probably fails A7. This is a game from a notable developer that will be launched on a notable platform so it shouldn't be hard to assert some notability! Userfy will allow the nominator to produce an acceptable rewrite. Bridgeplayer 00:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per ugen64. Realistically, an article with no sources, about a homebrew game not even released yet (!!) has no reasonable chance whatsoever at passing AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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