Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 17

Interdimensional hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Read the article as it stood at the time of the discussion closure, paying particular attention to its references section, then read the discussion contributions, paying particular attention to the rationales of Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Itsmejudith, Hrafn, and Dbachmann, and how they actually applied or not. You may want to join me in reminding MBisanz at User talk:MBisanz#Slipping through the cracks that we administrators are not robots, and that the inevitable consequences of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (7th nomination) in the way that it was are not in any way reasons that administrators should ignore rationales and simply count votes. As the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion says, the rationales are there for us to apply in cases that an article changes in the middle of a discussion. Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist The discussion had a consensus for deletion but many of those commenting for deletion said that the state of the article was in at the time was a major part of the problem and that if someone did some work to the article there might be a valid article here. The article was then completely rewritten with sources, after all other participants had commented. Given that the rewritten article bears no relation to the one originally being discussed and the comments of those arguing for deletion, the AFD should have been relisted (imo) to allow discussion based on the new version of the article to see if that addressed the deletion concerns. Davewild (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist The nomination itself was contrary to policy, saying that "the topic is moderately notable" and this was apparently proven by the rewriting. Deletion is for unsourceable. It was proven to be sourceable, by being rewritten and sourced, which is more than what policy requires.John Z (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Last year, the page Donkpedia was deleted, because their was no source for it to be the biggest poker lexicon in the world. A while ago the german poker portal Pokerolymp published an article, quoting the creator of Donkpedia, who said "Nun gibt es Donkpedia seit einem Jahr und mittlerweile sind wir zum größten Pokerlexikon der Welt aufgestiegen" ("Now that Donkpedia is one year old, we rised to become the world's biggest poker lexicon").

Since Pokerolymp is probably the most important and reputated German-language poker portal, I think that's is a reliable source.
Nintendere 12:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment To address your specific point quoting the creator doesn't become a reliable source independent of the site, since it's a direct quote it still could amount to little more than bragging with no basis in reality... However I douibt it was deleted because there "was no source for it to be the biggest poker lexicon", but because there were no reliable sources on it at all, to be notable doesn't require it to be the biggest. So regardless of if that is a reasonable source to the claim it is the biggest shouldn't be a bar to getting this restored, what you need is non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, it's a direct quotation and carries no more weight than me saying I'm Ireland's foremost expert on company law. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Please read WP:RS. you are looking for multiple, non-trivial secondary sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mixing up verifiability and the general notability guideline. If there is one reliable reference that confirms it's indeed the biggest poker lexicon there is no longer a notability issue that would require multiple sources to establish it. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." - My experience suggests "sources" is truly read as plural and usually/often >2 - Signficant would imply more than just saying "it's the biggest" - "independent of the subject" regardless of the the underlying sources, direct quotes aren't independant... --81.104.39.44 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. There is no point having an article where the content is unverified and unverifiable and that would be a valid deletion reason. Also, the notability has to be recorded by secondary sources somewhere otherwise its just OR that its the biggest whatever. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted And a source from Donald Trump saying he had a "fashionable hairstyle" would be enough to put that in his article... The newfound press on this source isn't enough since it isn't a reliable source. Themfromspace (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]