Jonathan Sammeroff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Closing administrator seemed to overlook the fact that, after editing the original article somewhat, notability requirements had been more than met. This was CLEARLY PROVEN by myself in the debate. Peenapplay (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

• Endorse as closing administrator. Notability requirements were not close to being met and there was a clear consensus to delete as well as a clear consensus that the subject did not meet WP:MUSIC. In addition - and perhaps more importantly - no nontrivial mentions in reliable sources were to be found. It's impossible to meet WP:MUSIC if you can't meet WP:V. --Smashville^BONK! 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This artist looks to have the possibility of a future successful career. When and if that occurs, it will be no problem to find independent, reliable sources that say so. Until that time, the consensus of the deletion discussion was correct, and the deletion of the article was also correct. Youtube videos, scans of pictures in a newspaper, and autobiographical information do not qualify as independent, reliable sources and/or significant coverage.  Frank  |  talk  20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as no consensus. I can't see whether or not Peenapplay or Theresa Knott (who seemed to think there was some chance reliable sources could be found) did in fact improve the references after the initial two delete votes, but in either case 3 delete votes, two of which articulated no argument other than a generic appeal to WP:MUSIC, doesn't blow me away as "clear consensus." TotientDragooned (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD isn't a vote. The fact of the matter is that it didn't meet WP:V or WP:MUSIC. I looked for sources before I made the close and as far as I can gather, the others did too. --Smashville^BONK! 21:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse not!! :o) The DELETE votes were posted BEFORE I edited the article to meet WP:MUSIC. Once I edited it, the wikipedia article referenced newspaper articles in The Sun Newspaper, in the Jewish Telegraph and The Sunday Herald. None of these were trivial as defined by Wikipedia, and trivial is defined as, I quote, "newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories".
These are big publications how can you suggest they are not reliable? That qualifies it for section 1 of notability, "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable" with three reliable, non-trivial articles.
During the debate I also proved that section 4 of notability, "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" had also been met, by linking to photographs of Jono inside numerous BBC Radio Stations with BBC Radio DJs all across the UK.
How can you defend the position that the article did not meet notability requirements when it is only necessary to meet one out of the twelve of them while I demonstrated that the wikipedia article met two of them? It would be of great assistance if you could make reference directly to sections 1 and 4 of WP:MUSIC notability when replying, and explain why you believe the article does not meet them. Thanks from Peenapplay (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

• Here's how I defend it: The Sun article you mention was a jpg scan of an article and the Jewish Telegraph article was a PDF contained on someone else's web site. Only the Sunday Herald citation is a reliable source (at least as sourced in the article).  Frank  |  talk  21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you've summarized it better than I could. Not to mention that the articles themselves essentially aren't necessarily anything more than rewritten PR. (Other than the review, which was pretty harsh) --Smashville^BONK! 22:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse deletion I've read the review in the Sunday Herald, and ... I don't see that as evidence of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources required to meet WP:N, or WP:BIO, or amounting to the coverage required to meet criterion #1 in WP:MUSIC. Equating being photographed in different radio station studios with "received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour" is pretty desperate. I see no evidence of an improperly closed deletion, but I do see lots of lack of familiarity with Wikipedia policies and proceedures on the part of the COI SPA Peenapply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Well thanks a lot Pete... what evidence do you have that I am a COI? Don't you even think I am a good debater? :D You can still see it's articles from those reliable publications, and not meeting wikipedia's definition of "trivial" as I quoted above. Only one criteria must be met for WP:MUSIC and you have not eliminated the article from section4. It might be your personal opinion that he did not do a national tour of the UK appearing at loads of radio stations, but he did. A little bit more proof? I just found this. Have a listen: http://www.meandmyguitar.com/radio_wales.htm http://www.meandmyguitar.com/radio_wm.htm Peenapplay (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

Criteria #4 is "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." The only evidence you've provided is from the artist's own page. You haven't shown any evidence that he does pass criteria 4. --Smashville^BONK! 22:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the BBC radio interviews were not intended for inclusion in the article, but to prove that Jono did in fact tour the UK, as this topic is covered in the actual BBC interviews. An audio recording like this cannot be faked, so regardless of where it is posted it does prove that fact. If this does not satisfy administrators, I shall take this no further, even though it is indisputable evidence. Thanks to everyone again! Peenapplay (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

A mere mention in an audio recording is not a non-trivial mention in a reliable secondary source. --Smashville^BONK! 02:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, correct interpretation of policy basis of debate, equally correct de-weighting of WP:SPA / WP:COI accounts but as it happened even if those arguments had been made by Jimbo himself they would still have failed as the sources turn out to be trivial or to lack independence. This all reminds me very strongly of Robbie Glover. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per JzG. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The cached version seems to lack sufficient independent secondry sourcing to demonstrate notability. Perhaps the interested editor would like to consider userfication, where he can work on the article, ensuring that all content is already written about in third party sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
  

A mere mention? You didn't even listen to the evidence. It's most of the half hour interview he did on BBC WALES that broadcasts across the entire country!! (WP:MUSIC #12) Peenapplay (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

You clearly misunderstand what a national broadcast is. The fact that the UK is small enough that a radio signal from BBC Wales can reach across the country does not make it a national broadcast. And again, a mere mention of a tour on a radio show is not a non trivial mention of the tour in a reliable secondary source. --Smashville^BONK! 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you wouldn't mind, would you read WP:TALK so that we can follow your comments better? It's a little harder to read when you don't post below the thing you are responding to. --Smashville^BONK! 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smashville, have a look at BBC Radio Wales#Transmission - I think your confusion stems from not realizing that Wales is a country. However, for the purposes of WP:MUSIC a UK-wide broadcast would probably be required. PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - as a participant in the AFD, I endorse deletion to indicate that I don't personally feel an article being rewritten increases the notability of its subject at all. So if "Jono" was not notable before the SPA rewrote it, he was still not notable after the SPA rewrote it. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - competently closed. PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasilla Bible Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This page seems to have been the subject of a premature closure, perhaps for bad faith political reasons connected with the Vice-Presidential candidature of Sarah Palin. The rightness of this decision is is being actively discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God, an improper forum for it. In my view the right answer for NN churches, Bible and AoG churches proabbly are is for them, to be mereged with the article on theri town. This issue regularly comes up on articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity, and is in my view normally the best answer. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close due to bad faith nomination. I also don't see where you notified the deleting admin is as required in the DRV process. Corvus cornix_talk 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I dislike the suggestion that the motivation might be "bad faith political reasons...blah...blah", which to me shows more about the motivation for this deletion review than anything. It may well be true, but what happened to assuming good faith? I have already expressed a delete opinion at the AfD referenced above, and as such will not render any opinion on the merits of this DRV, but my comment here stands. (Also, I understand there is some question as to whether or not the two refer to the same topic.)  Frank  |  talk  20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the two are definitely different churches. One is of the Assemblies of God denomination (a large Pentecostal denomination), the other is non-denominational. Unfortuantely, some sources, such as this one, that are really about Palin, talk about both churches in a way that requires very close reading to sort out what lines are about which church. In this case, from the last paragraph of the first page to the end of the second page is generally about the church still at AFD while the first, second and fourth paragraph are generally about this church. GRBerry 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist at AfD. There is absolutely no reason this AfD shouldn't have lasted the full 5 days. Similiar AfDs have lasted 5 days in the past. Perhaps the closing Admin can explain whatever possessed him to close early? Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Yeh, it could have stuck around for a while and it might have been the safer choice to hold off on closing it just yet, but I can't see any alternative outcome and thus cannot justify overturning the closure for any reason other than blind obedience to procedure. Shereth 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse, while it would have been more ideal to hold it open for the full duration, this is generating BLP issues. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The outcome was probably correct, but the application of WP:SNOW was wrong here. This is a topic currently in the news in the US. It's not unrealistic to expect that something that indicates notability could surface during the full five days an AfD normally runs. Generally, AfDs should only be closed early in exceptional cases. If any BLP issues surface during the AfD, the article can be protected as necessary.  Sandstein  09:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as redirect to Sarah Palin, as already done. At the subject was noted as only being notable for a single person (Palin), there is an obvious merge or redirect target, which means that deletion is not the preferred action. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, restore, and keep. It may well be that the fact that a US vice-presidential candidate's membership is the event that promoted a church that would not have been otherwise notable into the subject of intense nationwide attention. So what? It nevertheless means that this particular church and its teaching are going to receive extended attention in third party reliable sources, and that it easily meets all notability guidelines now even if it would have failed them last year. Nor should this simply be redirected to Sarah Palin, as it currently stands; her article is quite long enough, and does not benefit from the history of the church she now attends. That belongs in its own article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/relist just a poor application of WP:SNOW and consensus-building in general. We don't only keep articles if there is a clear consensus to keep, rather, AFD only deletes them if there is a clear consensus to delete. The closer seems to have concluded since a "keep" closure was unlikely, that deletion was necessary, after under 2 days no less. This just isn't how deletion policy is supposed to work at all. I accept that it was a good faith mistake but it still was a mistake. --Rividian (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen AfD multiple users gave reasonable reasons as to why the article should be kept so I don't think snowing it after a day was appropriate. Guest9999 (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Bad close-- "It has a snowball's chance in hell of keeping with any clear consensus" is a total misunderstanding of deletion criteria. It doesn't need a consensus for keeping. It just needs the absence of a consensus for deletion. Let alone whatever may be meant by a clear consensus--the implication is that if there had been a consensus for keeping, but not an overwhelming one, the admin would nonetheless have closed as delete! DGG (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Gomez (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

72.191.15.133 (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC) The page on Rolando Gomez, a noted author, speaker, photographer and instructor in various genres of photography is based on a bonafide photographer and he was not informed on why his page was deleted, hence he and others could not contribute to the discussion to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies were met. The page went through extensive review, and passed, during it's original creation. Simply doing a "Google" under Rolando Gomez, brings up over 900,000 results, including other pages on Wikipedia. There are numerous photographers on Wikipedia, including Jerry Avenaim, David Mecey, Joe Martinez, etc., who have not authored photography books. Gomez is the author of three photography books, carried by every major book seller on line and is featured in two other books, by Amherst Media. Gomez is the contributing editor to Studio Photography magazine, a noted speaker at national events including Photo Plus Expo, Photo Imaging and Design Expo, FotoFusion, Julia Dean Photo School, Samy's Digital Photography Institute, and has taught over 300 photography workshops worldwide, including a 3-country tour for Calumet Photographic in 2007. This page should be undeleted and discussed if necessary.[reply]

• Restore and AfD. This should be a quick one. I'm fairly certain that the deleting admin was probably unaware that this had survived an AfD and therefore A7 ineligible. --Smashville^BONK! 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted: The subject of the article authored much of it himself and there were no claims that I could see of notability. And I bet that there are plenty of other Ronaldo Gomez's out there that are pushing up those Google results.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Articles which have survived AFD should not be speedy deleted for A7, take it back to AFD to see if there is consensus to delete if you feel that it necessary. Also the list of places where it is claimed his work has appeared in seems to be an assertion of importance to me. Davewild (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a two year old AFD discussion which wasn't closed properly back then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sort of agree that it was, but that would have been a matter for DRV or another AfD, not speedy deletion. Which is why the proper thing to do would be to send it back through AfD and do it right this time. --Smashville^BONK! 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've restored and I'm sending it back to AFD for its proper burial.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kinston Indians roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache) The Baseball WikiProject was not informed these were up for deletion and could not contribute to the discussion on ideas on how to replace them. These should be recreated and then discussed, we now have articles without rosters because of this deletion. Link to discussion. —Borgarde^talk 08:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Also included in review: Template:Winston-Salem Warthogs roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache) Template:Myrtle Beach Pelicans roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache) Template:Salem Avalanche roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)[reply]

• Endorse deletions. WikiProjects do not have veto rights. If you need the roster details I can place the tables into those teams' articles, which are the only places they seem to have been used anyway. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletions for now. They are still filled with red links. The WP:BASEBALL minor league folks (of which there are many) should assemble some quality articles for these minor leaguers and then the templates wouldn't be so silly. Or, better yet, they could try to improve some of the articles we already have. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, ok, then can someone that can view them please move the information into the article, it deserves to be in there at least. —Borgarde^talk 12:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the rosters into Salem Avalanche, Myrtle Beach Pelicans and ‎Kinston Indians (Winston-Salem Warthogs already has a roster which I thought might be more up-to-date so I left it alone). --Stormie (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Stormie. I guess this can be closed whenever now. —Borgarde^talk

List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1960s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) The Afd closed as a unanimous Delete. Since then however several sister articles have also been to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s and closed as Keep. The creator is understandably upset and would like to reinstate the said 1960s list for further work as a set. As the arguments are identical, I propose that the 1960s article be reinstated per consensus can change. Moondyne 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection as closing administrator. If there is a consensus to overturn the deletion, that would resolve this anomaly. PhilKnight (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the consensus seems quite clear, merely declaring consensus can change as a reason for overturning when the consensus was only reached a week ago somehow seems wrong, we always know that AfD discussions can produce inconsistent results and it's not WP:DRVs purpose to try and resolve that. Nor is the author being upset a particularly strong reason we'd never delete anything. The other AfD is perhaps worth considering, I'd quite possibly see this as a no-consensus anyway, with many of the keep opinions being WP:NOHARM and WP:USEFUL. Perhaps the better outcome of this would be a relist of all 4 articles in a single nomination. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would a 3rd discussion achieve that a second one didn't? Which consensus applies? No consensus to delete is still a consensus. This is making a mountain out of a molehill. Moondyne 07:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No consensus is just that, it isn't a consensus to keep it's just not a consensus to do anything else. It could be argued that the stronger consensus was on the deleted one and so we should "to be fair" apply that stronger consensus across all of them... I'm not advocating that and this is why I don't see it as a useful function of DRV to try and directly push a consistency, since it then becomes about what is the consistent result, not always clear cut. Take the strongest consensus (which I'm sure would be argued about anyway) or something else? The point about a subsequent nom would be that all 4 would hopefully be treated evenly. If a consensus to keep or delete is made, then great the consistency desired will be met, if the result is no-consensus then maybe there will be someone happy that this one was "rescued", but it will again mean they are treated evenly which may help in gaining a real consensus at some point in the future. And finally what if we relist just this one and again the consensus is to delete, where would that leave us? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You make good sense, well said. Thanks for expanding on that. Moondyne 02:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It was a good close and DRV is seemingly the wrong place to deal with this. However there really isn't anyplace else to go. If the article is recreated, it can (and likely will) be speedied. It's not like a new article can be an improvement over the old one. So due to a lack of other options, I think DRV is where this has to go and the right result here is to be consistant. Hobit (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and relist. IT's tim we had some reasonable degree of consistency. Different closings on essentially identical articles are a defect of our system. Though we do not actually follow precedent, that does not mean we should glorify random error. Random=the people who happen to show up and the administrator who happens to close. A system with a voluntary jury and a voluntary judge, who can each pick their own cases, is about the least coherent way for deciding cases that I can imagine. I know of no RW system that works this way. DGG (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not intending to perpetuate the debate, just a side thought. I also don't know of any RW system which allows for a different random group (with the same inconsitency issues, same random participants same random closing) to force a retrial. In this case it's pretty clear that the article are so similar that consistency is "good", others many of the issues about DRV randomly deciding these 2 (or more) articles should have been treated consistently, whilst these others needn't. If they had been a set of 4 unconnected in any way other than being arguably marginally notable companies, how do we weigh that the 4 truly are similar and need consistency (and vice versa)? Maybe my example is poor and we all say that's totally different to this situation and we're only interested in ones like this where it's so crystal clear, same thing though the clarity is not easily definable and different random participants here would things quite differently. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and Relist without prejudice to the original closing administrator, who clearly made the correct decision given the arguments and information presented in the AfD discussion. However, the two decisions seem to be inconsistent, and having a second look at this couldn't hurt. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Restore and list all in one AfD as suggested above. The argument that "no consensus to delete is still a consensus" strikes me as not quite true. "No consensus" means "institute the default action", which is to keep an article. That is not the same as achieving consensus. To that end, relisting might well have the impact of actually gaining consensus where none was achieved before. Also, a subsequent discussion will have a broader scope, as it will apply to ALL the articles, not individual ones. That would have the de facto result of causing a uniform decision across the articles, which is ultimately the result we would (should?) want.  Frank  |  talk  16:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think restoring, and then relisting all of them, as Frank suggests, is probably the best approach. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Hobit (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]