Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 30

Charles Augustus Hilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was originally speedy deleted by User:Stifle in the midst of an AfD with the rationale of "A7: No assertion of notability". However, Stifle decided it would be better to let the discussion continue. The article was speedily deleted again by User:Orangemike, citing the same reason. I feel that speedy deletion in this article was inappropriate because the article's assertion of notability was the fact that Hilton, New York was named after this person. In fact, at the time of speedy deletion, this fact was contested as per whether or not it was a sign of notability worthy of inclusion, not whether this was an assertion of notability. The decision that there was no assertion of notability appears to have been made unilaterally by an administrator, thus abruptly ending the AfD discussion. I feel that this article deserves the chance to go through the AfD process and have the community decide its worth. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion poor application of A7. --Rividian (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy, and reopen AFD for a full five days of discussion (no need for another this quickly). Although having a town named for you is a very slim claim to notability (and if you can't see the article -- that's basically all there is), it is sufficient to belay an A7. Note that I had !voted for deletion. (I can't for the life of me understand why there's so much support for this article when I had to source like hell to ensure that James Smith Bush, a contemporary churchman of this fellow who was also a nationally known author, was kept, but that's neither here nor there.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reopen, having a town named after you is a valid indication of notability. Wiehter this person actually does have notability remains to be seen, however. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Not at candidate for A7 speedy deletion. Consensus before the discussion was inappropriately closed seemed to be agreeing. --Oakshade (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - just to set the record straight and put events in order...
  • I looked at the page and thought there was no assertion of notability, so I speedied the page.
  • I noticed that there was some suggestion that the page should be kept, so I restored it.
  • I then tagged the page for speedy deletion so as to get a second opinion on the matter, and "voted" for speedy deletion on the AFD page.
  • Orangemike speedied the page.

  So that leaves us with the page deleted, perhaps not through the proper process, and against some of the consensus. In view of the fact that there were three keep "votes" (with, in my view, very weak rationale) I think the correct action is to relist for the full five days on AFD, in order to get a conclusive result. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 does not have as far as I know have never said "No indication of notability". I sincerely hope it never will. Taemyr (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's been a very long time since you've seen A7. It's said "indicate the importance of significance of" for many months now. I don't know why it was changed, but I think it was because there was too much confusion over what "assert" means. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what it has been saying since before I joined wikipedia. It goes on to say that importance is not the same as notability. It has recently been changed to make this distinction even clearer. Taemyr (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Will not object to an overturn - I read the support for speedy deletion wrong, and apologize to those who felt they got short shrift. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Having a town named after you might not be enough to merit an article, but it is enough for A7 to not apply. Taemyr (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Premature speedy. There's a reason things are at AfD, and it's because they aren't good speedy candidates. If consensus wasn't clear, it should have been allowed to run for the full five days. We're not in a rush to get everything deleted, we can wait five days. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist you have to let the commenters at the AfD see the article (how else they are going to decide) so overturn on well-intentioned but improper procedure caused by misunderstandings --Enric Naval (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Abbadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A lot of the comments on the AFD were of the "just not notable" or "couldn't find any sources type". Regardless, I dug up a lot of stuff that proves notability and verifiability:

• A full biography in the Orlando Sentinel (Orlando fighter finds contest is the ultimate, credited to Hal Boedeker and published April 6, 2006)
• Meets the biographical notability guidelines for athletes, having competed in midcards and undercards for the UFC, which is just below the highest level of professional mixed martial arts. He's also been a contestant on the TV show The Ultimate Fighter, which is by far the highest level of amateur competition in the sport.
• Verifiability shouldn't be a problem, with his matches being extensively reported on in the LA Times (Hughes Claims Victory After a Slow Start and Ultimate fighters ready to stage a rematch of their 2004 bout by Dan Arritt), the Las Vegas Review-Journal (Hughes gets revenge against Penn to retain UFC crown by Kevin Iole), the Orange County Register (Hughes survives, pummels Penn and UFC 63 preview by Carlos Arias), and the Calgary Sun (Starnes gets back up with a win over Abbadi, by Jose Rodriguez). east.718 at 17:19, April 30, 2008
• Endorse deletion until reliable sources are provided. East, if you can show us links, I would probably change my mind, but I did a diligent search through pages of Google hits last time and could only find his name mentioned in reliable sources, nothing to write a bio from. Corvus cornix_talk 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, the standard response to the Factiva defense. ;-) Links for print sources are merely a convenience and their absence should not exclude the citing of them. You can probably Google the titles of the articles to determine that they actually exist; if that's not good enough I can email you the full text to a couple of them. east.718 at 20:12, April 30, 2008

  I Googled for reliable sources and found none. I resent your claim that I was apparently too lazy to look. BTW, do those articles actually say anything about him other than that he fought those fights? None of the articles I could find said anything more. Corvus cornix_talk 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I just went to the Los Angeles Times, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Orange Country Register and Calgary Sun websites (the Calgary Sun defaults to canoe.ca) and found one reference to Danny Abbadi. The OC Register had this:

  Non-televised undercard: Lightweight Roger Huerta (14-1-1) vs. Jason Dent (12-6); heavyweight Mario Neto (9-3) vs. Eddie Sanchez (7-0); lightweight Danny Abbadi (2-2) vs. Jorge Gurgel (12-1); and lightweight David Lee (5-1) vs. Tyson Griffin (7-0).. That's the sum of all information the four papers contain. Corvus cornix_talk 22:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize deeply if you found any offensiveness in my comments, I didn't mean them like that. I've uploaded the Orlando Sentinel piece which I'll build most of the article on here. Here's a relevant snippet for the purposes of verifying other bits of data from the OC Register piece: "Abbadi competed at 185 pounds when he was on TUF 3, but he has dropped down to the 155-pound division where he hopes to take advantage of his Muay Thai skills." There's also a bit more information available on an unrelated MMA Weekly article. I can get match descriptions etc. from the usual sources such as Sherdog or those print pieces which I mentioned earlier. east.718 at 23:25, April 30, 2008

• Overturn based on sources being provided above. This guy is clearly notable and meets all relevant guidelines for inclusion. Was a star of The Ultimate Fighter and has faught in the UFC, that alone is enough notability for a Wikipedia page per WP:ATHLETE. Extremely limited participation in the AfD, I'd imagine most people familiar with MMA know who this guy is, and would have been snowball kept had WP:MMA been notified. VegaDark (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The AFD outcome was correct, but permit recreation based on sources now available. I'm sure east718 is well aware of BLP anyway. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit Recreation Sources don't have to be online and I trust East718. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In light of the new offline references and concerns that related wiki projects have not been duly informed of the delete discussion, (also considering that improving an existing article is easier than creating a new one from scratch), closing admin is willing to suggest that the AfD be overturned and relisted, so as to allow more proper discussion that might result in reversing the original verdict. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick comment since I support allowing recreation but I personally object to the idea that a wikiproject needs to be notified before an AFD can be considered valid. That's not only instruction creep but putting the views of one group of editors over that of the general community (well the part of it that bothers to watch AFD anyway). Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Plenty of sources provided by east. Delete !voters should have performed due diligence in their searching before submitting their !votes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, it's the responsibility of those wanting content included to come up with sources for them, not of those wanting content removed to prove their nonexistence (which is impossible anyway). Stifle (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you not read what I wrote above? I did tons of due diligence, and still have not found any reliable sources that anybody can write a bio from. The best that could be done would be a list of his fights, period. Corvus cornix_talk 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy for recreation. If there's sources, that's great, but I perfer "Here's a citation" to "Trust me, it's there, and here's a copy of it I uploaded, now go do a search yourself to prove it exists". It's the author's responsibility to source the article properly. If the sources are there, making a userfied version good enough for inclusion should be easy. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn we are still accepting paper sources here at this place, right? :D I suggest that the author profusely documents every appeareance on paper sources, for verifiability purposes, explaining what was exactly said on each source, and appeasing claims of lack of WP:GOOGLEHITS (sorry, corvus, but there is still important stuff that does not appear on google) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did I ever say anything to the contrary? Corvus cornix_talk 17:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I apologize if I misinterpreted your comments. I didn't make myself clear I mean that there are many news articles that are never uploaded to the internet, or they get taken out of newspaper websites after a few days. So you can have someone who is notable by mentions in paper sources, but is not notable by looking only at google hits because only a few non-notable mentions appear there. East718 says that the paper sources assert notability, and the fact that google gives nothing can be misleading. I didn't want to make any comment on your ideas --Enric Naval (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problem is that the sources are offline (in fact, most newspaper articles are online nowadays). It's that all that has been given is descriptions on how to find them. "Find them yourself" and "trust me" don't cut it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. PeaceNT closed that AFD correctly, but new sources have come to light after the AFD. He appeared on The Ultimate Fighter 3, fought in UFC 63[1] (not a Fight Night as is typical for TUF contestants), and has been covered by the Orlando Sentinel. And I think the Calgary Sun ref is pretty good as well. He's been covered in MMAWeekly[2]. I would think UFC.com[3] would count as an acceptable source as well. He's notable per WP:ATHLETE, having competed in a high-level, fully professional league. --Pixelface (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CarDomain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

Article survived two separate AFD debates, and per WP:CSD "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." The website's notability has been debated, but it has received some coverage. The article was not blatant advertising either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion. Page meets WP:CSD#G11 criteria. Two failed consensus debates, is not a survival, ie. Keep. Particularly when the articles creator (Jmcdoggy) inappropriately created two sock puppets (Go2Fast (talk · contribs) - Grseattle (talk · contribs)), which infiltrated the debate and voted Keep. Jmcdoggy also created Www.cardomain.com).

related - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.cardomain.com (which DR nominator Sjakkalle participated in)

See also - User_talk:216.254.9.2#CarDomain spam on Wikipedia traceroutes back to cdhq1a.cardomain.com

See also - 24.18.188.16

See also - 216.254.9.2
Long term spamming of cardomain. It needs to meet the guidelines laid out in WP:WEB which it does not. Its nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT.--Hu12 (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn survived 2 AFDs... speedy deletion is like giving the middle finger to consensus. --Rividian (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The use of Sock puppetry for the purpose of deception, and to create the illusion of broader support than actually existed, for a article that clearly fails WP:WEB, consensus that does not make. Any Consensus achieved through this method is not Reasonable consensus-building.--Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then send it to AFD again. WP:WEB is not a criteria for speedy deletion. --Rividian (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:WEB determines the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia, attempting to un-delete content which fails this fundemental inclusion criteria, by Policy shopping a CSD loophole does not make the content suitable for re-inclusion. Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is removed. --Hu12 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't see the article, but at least two admins says it isn't blatant advertising. You don't appear to have consensus. It's not "policy shopping" to say we should actually follow CSD policy. If he didn't want to follow CSD he shouldn't have used CSD as the rationale. --Rividian (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:IAR.--WaltCip (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WaltCip. A no consensus result is not a keep. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A no consensus to delete means it survived which is the exact term WP:CSD uses. --Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm striking my participation because I am working on revising that policy. However I would say that a no consensus result just means nothing was decided, not that the community endorsed the article. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion until reliable sources are provided. The previous AFDs did not come up with any. Corvus cornix_talk 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The New York Times source cited in the 2nd AfD is not a reliable source? --Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's one. Very minimally. Corvus cornix_talk 22:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn It does not say kept, it says survived. if there has been found no consensus to delete, the article needs consensus, not arbitrary action. Two different admins found no consensus--it's not an accident or an inadvertent error. There is at least some plausible evidence that the site is important, and the spam in the article can be reduced. That doesnt mean I'll support it at afd, but it needs discussion there. If anyone wants to change WP:CSD they should propose the change and see if there is consensus for it, not violate it. Personally, I dont think they'll find consensus there either. DGG (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. To me, "survived" means "kept". Failing to reach consensus doesn't mean it survived. --Kbdank71 18:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why did we keep the article, if it didn't survive? "no consensus" has meant "survived" in the parlance of AFD closers for a long time. This is just revisionist history. I bet if you look at the edit summary of the deleted talk page log it says "Article survived AfD with no consensus". --Rividian (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for two reasons, firstly the article survived 2 afds so should not have been speedy deleted, the article was still around after the AFDs so clearly 'survived' whether it was by keep or by no consensus does not matter. Secondly the instructions on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Procedure for administrators clearly say to check the history of the article for any reasonable versions. Looking back to the version on the 31 January 2007 (after the second AFD) it had two reliable sources 1 and 2. Personally I regard these as sufficient for notability, but regardless of whether they are regarded as sufficient or not, speedy deletion was not the right action. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - This survived 2 AfDs, and both of those were after the delete-ending AfD that Hu12 linked to. This was deleted in direct contradiction to WP:CSD. --Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy, take to AfD - I may not feel that the two cites given add up to substantial coverage, but the misinterpretation of the word "survived" here is appalling. This was not a case for a speedy, and clearly a prod would not survive the week. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - A "no consensus" outcome at AfD translates to "no consensus to delete, default keep", which implies two things: (1) the article was nominated for deletion, (2) the article survived the deletion attempt. While it's possible to interpret the term "survived", as used in the CSD policy, differently than the "survived" in the previous sentence, I think that would go against the spirit of the speedy deletion policy, which is intended only for uncontroversial deletions. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn CSD is only for non-controversial deletions. Two AFDs say this was controversial.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Suprised no one has noticed its been Over a year since AfD2.--Hu12 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps because the clause in CSD says nothing about how long ago the last AFD must have been? Consensus can change, but consensus was not sought here. --Rividian (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The speedy deletion process is designed to be a relief valve for AFD, not a way around it, and this deletion circumvented the previous consensus. If consensus has indeed changed, demonstrate so by sending it to AFD again. Also note that the semantics of "keep" versus "survived" are being discussed at WT:CSD. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and AfD again a spammed website can still be notable. This should have gone to AfD, where notability can properly be addressed, and this time more care can be taken with socks. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adeyto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article on Adeyto (French actress and artist active mainly in Japan, see the nation-wide published newspaper Yukan Fuji few days ago: http://www.zakzak.co.jp/gei/2008_04/g2008041605_all.html also see IMDb for reference http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1717886/ ) was a couple of years old and built up by the contribution/edits of many people. The article used unfree images that were taken down couple of times. Recently new images were provided by the creators of those images and proof was submitted to the Wiki Commons and the pictures were made free for public use. Because of that some editor that didn't really look into it, had the impression that the article was spam and deleted it without prior notice. Please have other admins and editors look into this thing, thank you. Since I am in Japan I might know more about this person so I joined Wikipedia today to help clearing this and hopefully many other Wikipedia entries. I am not looking forward to any "newbie bashing", thank you.Tsurugaoka (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — Tsurugaoka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Overturn and list at AfD, slap deleting admin with a trout. Not a candidate for speedy under any reasonable interpretation. Subject seems to be quite notable, and the fact that some non-free images were used in the article is hardly a reason to delete the whole article, especially if permission was/is being made available. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think a listing at AfD is necessary; besides the non-free image issues, there wasn't really a reason to delete. A quick overview of the deletions of the admin in question reveal that he's a tad overzealous, and his AfDs have a history of getting kept without many delete arguments, and his DRVs against consensus almost always fail; I don't know what his rationale was for deleting this article, but given his deletion history, it isn't very surprising.. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For a fact, all images that were available before the article was erased were personally donated by the creators to Wiki Commons (ask admins Bernard Leroy / Mike Ingram of Commons), in order to improve Wikipedia. It's strange how people would negatively react to donations and how an article that was available for many years and revised/kept by many admins/editors can suddenly get erased because of addition of a donation. I am an inclusionist because the more verifiable information an encyclopedia has the better it fulfills its goal. And even if I should not be interested in a topic now, my children might be one day and it's our duty to give them the chance to know as much as possible.

One last comment to the over-discussed pictures, they aren't simple pictures of that person, they all are artworks as in self-portraits and as far as I understood self-designed (costumes, paintings) therefore I support keeping as many as needed, just like we would keep Van Gogh's self-portrait on his Wikipedia article, please excuse my comparison and no need to attack me for this. See the article as it was before deletion, it's now on my talk page for anyone that wants to check it and I will delete it as soon as requested.Tsurugaoka (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because, of course, van Gogh's self portrait is no less well known than the work of... whatever her name was. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Per request I have userfied this page to User:I Write Stuff/Adeyto so the article history will be there, not at Adeyto. If it is decided to restore the article I am sure that the user in question will not object to a move back to the mainspace. James086^{Talk | Email} 12:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD per Celarnor. (For clarity, User:I Write Stuff had requested that the article be userfied to his user space, but he later changed his mind.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and optionally list at AfD. I'm not convinced there is even any reason to list it there. DGG (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per DGG. --Kbdank71 18:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and either cleanup or relist. I originally requested the page undeleted to my userspace as I was able to find a lot of mentions of Adeyto/Laura Windrath on IMDB and other movie sites. However due to a previous dispute with the deleting admin I felt it would be better not to pursue the road I was on. Oddly I know that if I could read Japanese, I would have an easier time sourcing this article, however I can not, and so I could not even possibly assist in fixing it. I gave some suggestions however to the requester that will hopefully assist them in fixing up the article, especially since it lists quite a bit of minor parts and extra work. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This was a spammy article (WP:CSD#G11, not A7)) clearly written by the webmaster of the subject under a succession of single-purpose accounts. It contained numerous images from the "official calendar", each lovingly linked to the Cafepress merchandising site for the "convenience" of our readers. Guess what? The spamming single purpose account webmaster has re-created it in its entirety on his talk page, so you can see it in all its "glory". Clearly nothing is more important to our encyclopaedia than allowing this webmaster to spam his products and his idol, so do what you like. If I am giving the impression that I hate vanity spamming single purpose accounts, then I would have to acknowledge that this is a true and accurate impression. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The calendar pictures they donated to Wikipedia are in such a high quality, nobody needs to even BUY the calendar and this was probably the point of that donation. I looked into the Adeyto official site and actually they offer her creations for FREE even the music videos she produced and created are for FREE uploaded by them in YouTube! Also I looked into CafePress and it appears that they Adeyto make NO PROFIT AT ALL on the calendars, they are sold to Cafepress's basic printing costs. I understand that you need to soothe your ego with accusing others but here is not the place to do that. Tsurugaoka (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume that the actress in question meets notability criteria and that therefore we should have an article about her. That doesn't mean we should have this article about her, however. DS (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy of your own nomintaions, we can no longer link to cafepress within articles as it is now on the local blacklist, so it couldn't have been userfied with that content in it, which you should well know. In the future, a better course of action would have be to improve the article to be less promotional and more encyclopedic. Deleting is only a good solution when no other solution will work, otherwise we risk unnecessary loss of material. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Guy, if the subject was notable (as she appears) but the content/nature of the article was wrong, why did you delete it instead of fixing it? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. People forget about the rest of the internet. A lot of stuff really belongs elsewhere on the web, for one reason or another, and there's nothing wrong with leaving it elsewhere.--Hu12 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD. There seems to be nothing to overturn, since JzG voluntarily restored this userfied article to main space. When nominated at AfD, I have the impression that it will have trouble meeting WP:MUSIC. Since I could find no information at all about her record label, it may not be a major label, and hints at the possibility that her work is self-published. IMDB shows some screen credits but those could be much less than meets the eye unless they can be confirmed from official cast lists on the web sites of the film producers. Since there is so little reliable info provided in the article, the impression that it is spam is understandable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Her film and TV appearances plus her music work combined appears to be enough for notability, and at the least to surpass any CSD thoughts. It may or may not survive AFD, but it should go that route if it goes anywhere. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]