List of NBC slogans (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page should be referenced. References might be from encyclopedias and trivia sites. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 20:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm getting a 404 error on the cached copy. Can we please get a temp. undelete of this page? The discussion is hard to follow without it. Thanks Hobit (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've looked at the discussion and the article, and see no reason to overturn the original decision. The article was/is crufty, suffers from a huge lack of references, and in my opinion the subject matter itself does not rise to the level of notability. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Incorrect close. the key reason given for deletion was not that it was unreferenceable, but that it was currently unreferenced. That's contrary to deletion policy, and should not have been closed as a delete. It was also argued that it was trivial and "cruft", but that's a matter of opinion, and with only a few participants , it's insufficient discussion to decide. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Could someone please explain to me in what sense that page was supposed to have encyclopaedic value?—S Marshall T/C 21:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd think someone in marketing might find this to have some pretty significant value. Seeing how marketing and slogans have evolved over many years seems, well, useful. I admit I tend to have a very wide view of what others might find useful, but this honestly seems a lot more useful to me than 90% of our sports coverage and 80% of our place-name coverage... Hobit (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's a good point, well made, but I'm afraid I find myself agreeing with Drmies. I think you'd need better sourcing to justify an overturn.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- The AfD could probably have been closed as no consensus after the first seven days, but the opinions after it was relisted were unanimous in favour of deletion. Of the three keeps the first was just a vote, and the other two were unsupported assertions that there must be sources out there somewhere. The closer did right in ignoring the first altogether, and recognizing that the responsibility of finding the material necessary to support an article lies with those who want it kept. In the fourteen days the AfD was open, not a single source was presented. This is evidence in favour of the arguments that the article fails our verifiability policy. Considering these facts, I think the closer correctly judged consensus in light of the relevant policy. Reyk _YO! 21:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (no consensus). Considering that this was a 7 year old article with 854 edits from 270 users, and that the content was in no way controversial, I'd like to see a stronger measure of consensus before it is deleted. The content seems verifiable. A google search readily reveals that others cover the same subject, including at least one physical book. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book's publishers obviously value Wikipedia material more highly than some editors do! Thincat (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that "publisher" does is indiscriminately sell repackaged Wikipedia content, so that's really not indicative of anything. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it proves to our partners that we're not just wikiing off, that we're doing something useful like getting published. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC if the article had been horrible that would perhaps be enough, but the discussion was a pretty clear NC (leaning perhaps a bit toward delete) and the article itself isn't that bad. I don't see a strong policy-based reason to delete nor do those arguing for deletion make a solid argument. It's sourced in places, could use other sources and is almost certainly soureable for every factoid (even if primary sources are needed in many cases.) Hobit (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – The arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments for retention here, which comprised mostly of "there might be sources out there". –MuZemike 17:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Proper close, but could have done with some narrative to forestall exactly this foreseeable request. Any deletion of a "list of..." article will almost inevitably be challenged, usually by those who painstakingly compiled it from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own close MuZemike's analysis matched my own, a closure I had no memory of making. (Perhaps because this was 14 months ago.) Courcelles 01:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorsw close per MuZemike. The arguments for deletion were based on policy, while the ones for keep on the assumption there must be sources out there (which they never provided). BTW shouldn't temporarily undeleted articles for DRV fully protected? Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - Exactly the way I had been planning on closing it—the delete arguments were per policy whereas the keep arguments had less policy grounds. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Day (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Made some imprvoements to User:Half price/Alex Day and asked for requests for feedback. The editor stated that the page was ready to be moved but Alex Day is protected. The request to move the move the userspace draft has been denied. See Talk:Alex Day and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day for more details. Nominal (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation: I think the article as currently drafted is so long and full of references which don't go to establishing notability (i.e., meeting GNG) that unfortunately most will have trouble assessing. The BBC called Alex Day/Nerimon a youtube "star" way back in 2008 [1], but we have a sort of bad-but-understandable precedent here about youtube notables that keeps out some notable ones in the effort to fight the endless attempts to create articles about nobodies on youtube. I know this as the creator of the The Annoying Orange and Ray William Johnson articles, both of which had been deleted multiple times in the past until someone took the effort to write an article demonstrating their notability. Of course both are extremely popular and well-sourced now. I think Alex Day has enough coverage to pass the notability bar, but a new AfD is likely to occur to test that.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think I can evaluate this without seeing the pre-deletion version of Talk:Alex Day and examining the sources that, according to the AfD, were listed therein.—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• all versions in the talk p history temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (the earlier versions of the article itself are in place in the history behind the redirect) DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, DGG. The matter is exactly as I thought. This source and this source suffice for the GNG, and so would this one if we can verify that Alex Day and Nerimon are one and the same person. The AfD correctly found that subject passes the GNG but fails WP:ENT. It incorrectly found that WP:ENT overrode the GNG. IN fact, when in doubt the GNG should prevail, so overturn to keep.—S Marshall T/C 21:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation, allow immediate testing at AfD. I'm less convinced than S Marshall. A lot of work, and new references have been added, and that is enough to at least see it re-tested at AfD. The sources are not so impressive. There are too many YouTube references for comfort. Of the three references that S Marshall points to, the first and third do not do much to satisfy the GNG for me, but the second does somewhat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't object to a subsequent AfD.—S Marshall T/C 10:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When policies appear to conflict, only the community can decide the proper interpretation, and the place would be a second AfD.Not my subject exactly, so I'm not at all sure what my opinion thee would be if i even had one. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation, with no objection to a new AfD if anyone thinks he's still not notable. The draft isn't perfect by any means, but there are enough new sources that weren't present when the original AfD was (correctly) closed as delete to justify further discussion. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Could someone please point out to the fans of this vacuous nonentity that "talked about on youtube (source: comments on youtube)" is not acceptable referencing? Guy (Help!) 21:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"vacuous nonentity" - only on wikipedia can you pick up gems like this. :-) --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointedly insulting terms do no good. No good for the subject, editors, or the project. If you think promotion is the underlying problem, please simply point the authors to WP:COI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually curious how calling the subject of an article something like that isn't a BLP issue. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest_Emerson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I disagree with the decision to keep that page. It's a blatant advertising of the business owned by the person. The claims that you can't buy his products anymore are false. On his website http://www.emersonknives.com/ you can buy knives and many more items. There isn't a single reliable reference or a source that indicates the worthiness of this person to have a wikipedia page. The references point to magazine articles known to post paid advertising articles or pages that no more exist. Powermugu (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Close Close fits consensus. Subsequent FAR review confirmed FAR status. Agathoclea (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Close any concerns with the article can be addressed at the article's talk page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All this is four years old, why did you come here rather than start a new deletion discussion? At a glance I also think that page focuses way too much on his knifes for a biography and believe it could do with a new featured article review. Yoenit (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Any new AfD will just look back and say notability has been established. Featured article review is a different matter and article changes since the last review and changing standards will have a bearing. Odd as well is the long contribution break of the nominator. Agathoclea (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I am well aware an AFD on this article will be closed as keep, but this DRV has even less chance of succeeding. As the nominator also so placed an AFD template on the article it appears he is confused by the deletion processes, which answers my original question. Yoenit (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - This is completely absurd. The article is a Featured Article and has gone through FAC and FAR. Subject is notable, article is properly sourced. Whatever happened to raising concerns on an article's talk page?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an advertisement, but it's clearly fixable and should therefore be fixed rather than deleted. No, this material is not of an appropriate quality for a featured article, and in my view a FAR is unnecessary: I think it can be summarily demoted per WP:SNOW.—S Marshall T/C 16:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt that the WP:SNOW argument would stick with a WP:FAR. I checked the diff comparing the current state of the article with the state at the last review and there is no substantial change. Anyway this DRV is going the way of the original AFD using the discussion as a vehicle for a out of process FAR discussion. Last time there was a FAR following the AFD. That can happen again if someone requests it. The question now is was the AFD closed correctly. Agathoclea (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]