Fresh Concepts (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I understand that the newspaper and the website are the only two things referencing our organisation as of right now. But we've been existing for over 14 years, and we'd really like to keep this page. How can we fix this? After all, WMCN (our college radio station) and The Mac Weekly are just student organisations, just like us, and there doesn't seem to be a difference between us and them, at least as far as the Wikipedia rules are concerned. Those student organisations aren't any more or less notable than we are. We think that Fresh Concepts deserves a Wikipedia page just as much as WMCN and The Mac Weekly do. Thank you in advance! Oxenbrigg (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse because there was a clear consensus to delete. The way to keep the page if you want to recreate it is to find coverage of the organisation in reliable sources (eg reliable newspaper articles). Unfortunately if that can't be done, the organisation doesn't meet the notability guidelines for inclusion, which generally require "significant coverage in reliable sources" (see WP:GNG and WP:ORG). The coverage that I've dug up on my own crude search here suggests there's not much coverage out there. I've looked at the other two articles you mention and I suspect The Mac Weekly might not survive an articles for deletion discussion either. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure noting that WP:OSE is generally deemed an invalid argument in deletion discussions. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand that WP:OSE is generally an invalid argument in deletion discussions, but I think it's an important one in this case. My reasoning isn't that "because these articles exist, we should have one", but rather "the following articles are not any more 'notable' than ours and yet they have been existing for years, whereas ours was just started, and is referenced at least a couple of times, and it isn't good enough to stay on". I really appreciate your patience and willingness to help in this matter. Oxenbrigg (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly what OSE refers to. If articles about non-notable subjects exist, the way this is resolved is by nominating those articles for deletion (which I've done), not creating more non-notable articles. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per nom. Yes, that's what I mean; Oxenbrigg (inadvertently perhaps) gives two very good reasons why the article should not be undeleted; a WP:WAX and a confirmation that there are no third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for all of your comments - we will try to make our page more notable. In the meantime, is there a way to save our page somewhere, so I could work on it until it's ready again? Again, thank you for your input. Oxenbrigg (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can userfy it for you, would that do? Stifle (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds great! Thank you. Oxenbrigg (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Userfied as requested to User:Oxenbrigg/Fresh Concepts. This can probably be closed. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless Oxenbrigg objects, I agree that this can be closed at this time. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Webb (MP) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Requested article which was protected from creation - individual concerned is notable enough to have at least a stub - in brief, as per Bussgang method &dorno rocks. (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was twice created as an attack page with no useful content about the subject -- pure vandalism. If you want to write a proper articel on this subject, create a user space draft and ask an admin to move it into articel space -- if it is a reasonable articel any admin should be willing to help. Or come back here with a draft. DES ^(talk) 18:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep salted Nothing at all against Adorno rocks, who I'm sure would write a fine biography of Webb, but it's best to keep this salted because the subject would be a living person and attack pages have been created at this title not once but twice. Adorno rocks, you are welcome to write a legitimate article on the subject in your userspace; I'm sure any admin would be willing to move it into the mainspace for you. But until then, let's leave the title salted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for writing it, Adorno rocks. I would support moving that stub draft into the mainspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's a stub version of the article (with an adequate source) I've made as a user-page - see here. If you'd like to move it into the article space, feel free to. I'll expand it once I've found more relevant sources. &dorno rocks. (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stub appears to be of a non-living person and looks to have a reasonable paper source. Restore.Hobit (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bussgang method (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Requested article which has been protected from creation: should be a redirect to Blind_equalization#Bussgang methods in my opinion &dorno rocks. (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to be a uncontroversial request, so I've gone ahead and created the redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks &dorno rocks. (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murder at the Cannes Film Festival (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is unlike most postings at DRV - below are four articles that have been sporting speedy delete tags for at least 10 days. Even if the tags had been removed within the first 24 hours, all four of them would have (likely) been deleted a week ago for being empty via AfD.

Tagged 25 March 2010: Murder at the Cannes Film Festival
Tagged 25 March 2010: Computer University, Pathein
Tagged 25 March 2010: Computer University, Hinthada
Tagged 25 March 2010: Computer University, Maubin

I'm bringing this to DRV as this is actually an appeal of the lack of action on these articles - the only actions have been an attempt by yours truly to alert an admin on recent changes patrol after six days. I still urge the deletion of these as being empty save one external link for the university articles and heading(s) for Murder at the Cannes Film Festival. Should there not be deletion, I'd strongly urge listing at AfD - either way, action is long overdue for these four articles. B.Wind (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well what is an appeal of the lack of action? What's the expected outcome? I doubt this is really a DRV issue. Looking at it, it looks like the template you used ((db-empty)) isn't placing the pages in the speedy category correctly Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion_as_empty_pages, I can't see immediately whats wrong so it might take someone with more knowledge of templates to resolve this. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]