Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 25

Unified Gravity Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Business Listing Guidelines Satisfied

Dear Administrators, There is currently an article selected for deletion and being voted on called Unified Gravity Corporation. Currently there has been a lot of editors dinging the page because they feel it is not notable or has unreliable sources. The talk page cites some published information by the patent office and more importantly peer reviewed physics journal. This company is exploring alternative energy which I feel is a big issue these days and considering the area of energy research (nuclear), couldn't it be notable that this company is trying something different (the tests and tests data found in the patents). Despite what happens with the Unified Gravity Corporation page I just find it saddening that the editors who are requesting the deletion do not recognize a credible organization which are the US patent office and a European Physics Journal. While the content of the material the company is using may be hard to accept, do you feel the company satisfies the guidelines for inclusion. (I checked some of the editors own pages created and many do not have published sources or notbaility). Please advise if you feel I am perceiving the guidelines incorrectly. Thank you for your time. Gravityforce (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Privatization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Marriage Privatization Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (added -- Suntag ☼ 08:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Administators, I am writing to request that a deletion be overturned. I have already attempted to work out the matter with the administrator who deleted the article in question. That administrator recommended that I challenge the deletion here. As you will see per the discussion I had with the deleting administrator, the deleted article did not have any discussion before deletion. It was deleted after only two days, and it was never marked for a speedy deletion. I believe the reason for this is that the article was inadvertently confused, or improperly grouped, with a shorter, related article, which was deleted after the appropriate AFD discussion. Both articles were deleted at the same time, though by different deleting administrators. I am only challenging the deletion carried out for Marriage Privatization. As you will see, the deletion discussion referred to for that article actually pertains to a different previous article. The article in question (i.e. the one that I’m asking you to consider for undeletion) is an expanded article that I wrote in order to address some of the concerns being raised during the AFD review of the first article. I let the reviewers of the first article know that the second was in existence, so that they could take a look and challenge it if they thought doing so was appropriate. No challenges to the second article arose. The topic of the article is “Marriage Privatization.” This is a topic that has been discussed by a variety of writers for over a decade and I provide reliable documentation for the different elements of this decade-long discussion. Many of the writers and forums to whom/which I refer in the article are notable, and are already the subject of separate Wikipedia articles. Again, just to be clear, I am not contesting the deletion of the article titled “Marriage Privatization Model.” I am contesting the deletion of the new and more comprehensive article titled “Marriage Privatization.” Despite similar titles they are substantially different articles with some necessary overlap. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Regards, Hermesmessage (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Hermesmessage[reply]

• Seems to me that Marriage Privatization was more or less a copy-paste of Marriage Privatization Model (with some changes) as an attempt to make an end-run around the AFD. Endorse deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion under G4 - Writing an article that over comes the AfD reasons for deletion is a reasonable approach. However, DGG wrote at the AfD:

  "Delete. as essay--the sources are very general, LoZ's reason for keeping--that he wants to reference it in an article he wants to write elsewhere, is about as improper reason for an article here as imaginable, and amounts to a clear declaration that its essentially his own original research."

  I don't see how this can be overcome. The best way to go from here is to write a draft article in your user space at User:Hermesmessage/Marriage Privatization and then return to DRV to request that it be moved to article namespace once you are done with the draft. -- Suntag ☼ 09:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Hermesmessage's request on my talk page,[1] please userfy to User:Hermesmessage/Marriage Privatization so that we can evaluate whether the Marriage Privatization article overcame the reasons for deletion at the Marriage Privatization Model AfD. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 16:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow creation - The "Marriage Privatization Model" article was deleted because it was a promotion of "The model of marriage privatization argued by philosopher Lawrence Torcello in the January 2008 issue of Public Affairs Quarterly."[2] In comparison, User:Hermesmessage/Marriage Privatization is well sourced and balanced with a variety of sources that are spread out between 1997 and 2008. We have so many articles on marriage (see Category:Marriage) that the topic may already be covered in another article. Even if the article is a fork, that is not the reason it was deleted at AfD and thus G4 does not apply to Marriage Privatization. Comment - I cleaned up User:Hermesmessage/Marriage Privatization. Marriage Privatization should be moved to Marriage privatization and the cleaned up version of User:Hermesmessage/Marriage Privatization be added to the new named article. -- Suntag ☼ 18:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Privitizing marriages is mentioned at Same-sex marriage#Debates over terminology attached to footnote 5, "Dershowitz, Alan M. (2003-12-03). "Government Should Quit the Marriage Business"." -- Suntag ☼ 02:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Per DGG in the AFD discussion. Their contribution was the crucial voice. No Objection to a better sourced and cleaned up version being restored to article space and history restoration as required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Dear Administrators, I ask you to refer to the article in question during this review. The cleaned up article has been provided for you User:Hermesmessage/Marriage Privatization. This article was deleted without a discussion. The AFD discussion that is repeatedly being referred to here is for a different article, the deletion of which I am not contesting. Thank you. Hermesmessage (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Hermesmessage[reply]

• Overturn or Restore User:Hermesmessage/Marriage Privatization to Marriage privatization. This article is far better sourced than the one that was deleted by the AfD. This was, I think, a mistaken deletion. I'm not condemning the deleting admin, because I think I could certainly have made the same mistake. But the version that was deleted was substantially different, and could certainly have passed Afd if it had been done separately.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeropolis 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Please consider my request for undeletion Aeropolis 2001. Now, ja:エアロポリス2001(Aeropolis 2001) is submitted AfD ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/エアロポリス2001 in JAWP. Because ja:エアロポリス2001 and de:Aeropolis 2001 ware translated from en:Aeropolis 2001 which was deleted, these articles have a GFDL problem. In my humble opinion, I read the translated text, but I don't think that the article meet definition of WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL #1. The article has worth reading as one of the gigantic construction projects during the period of the japanese economic bubble. Please exuse my poor english. 125.4.73.41 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vulture's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Most of the reviewers said keep, yet the page was deleted 83.240.41.206 (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I see a good deal of discussion, but no consensus about the exact status of the subject of the sufficiency of the references. Maybe another discussion will help. Given some of the doubts expressed, thee should be some effort towards finding a solution, not a non-consensus close. DGG (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Um, did you notice the instruction above to discuss the matter with the deleting admin before raising a full debate? No matter, the article I deleted was unsourced and therefore failed core policies of V & OR and the guidelines N & WEB. I can't see how I can have done anything else but delete the thing but, if you can find multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivail way, I will undelete the article on the spot. Otherwise Endorse own deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, given that, what would have been the point of the discussion--another step, and more hurdles, and then it would be right here anyway. DGG (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse unless further and better particulars of the sources are provided. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Procedurally appropriate, matter within administrative discretion. MBisanz ^talk 17:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article was completely unsourced. WP:V cannot be overridden by consensus.  Sandstein  18:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As background, Vulture's refers to two graphical versions of popular roguelike computer games.[3] See Category:Free, open source roguelikes. -- Suntag ☼ 09:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It is not often the deletes all sing the same tune , "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". The links provided collectively did not amount to significant coverage and the keeps did not sufficiently assert a likelihood of source material. Since delete seemed to be the stronger argument, the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. -- Suntag ☼ 09:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]