Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 30

ChiZine Publications (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted claiming "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." This article is about a publishing company and presents two instances -- producing a book trailer directed by a notable filmaker and putting on an academic conference -- that indicate why it is important.

There are plenty of publishing companies on Wikipedia with less information.

This deletion was done without any discussion I can find. I tried to add whatever content I could, but am new to Wikipedia. If I have been told specifically to add outside sources, or list more details, or something, I would have.

The Admin has refused to undelete the page himself. Eroomtam (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my deletion. So where is the revised draft with outside sources? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It is my understanding that if I reposted the article, even with revisions, it would be deleted again, and I need to go through this undelete process. Are you saying if I repost the article with outside sources, you will NOT delete it again? (I am really trying to understand the process here, so direct and specific directions would be appreciated.) Eroomtam (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Eroomtam[reply]

• A draft of a deleted article belongs in what's called "userspace". There is already such an article in your own userspace here: User:Eroomtam/ChiZine Publications. I think RHaworth expects that version to be revised.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for being specific S Marshall. That version in my user space was a draft I created. However, at that time the drop down arrow in the nav for Move wasn't there (checked in three browsers, three computers, logged in & out and it just wasn't there). So, not knowing what else to do, I copied this draft into the main space, kept editing and published an expanded version. So, please do not judge the page by this very old draft. I'll take the final, deleted text and work from that.Eroomtam (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you mustn't copy-paste on Wikipedia, because it disturbs the article history, which is necessary for attribution. Wikipedia:Moving a page will provide you guidance on how to move a page when the tool to do so yourself isn't available. --Bsherr (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted until actual outside sources are provided. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7 speedy deletion - A7 Indication of importance in the article: ChiZine Publications involved major filmmakers in their projects and "few publishers had previously involved major filmmakers in their projects." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I don't think producing a book trailer is enough to demonstrate significance/importance. Perhaps to the trailer itself, perhaps to the director, but not to the producer. The conference may demonstrate significance/importance of itself, but not its sponsor. The page creator should seek to comply with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) in working on a draft in userspace. --Bsherr (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of self-evidently promotional article by user whose name, "eroomtam", is the name of the subject's marketing manager spelled backwards. Consider me not fooled. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy and list at AFD. Publishing books/works by notable authors is generally how publishers achieve notability, and the article includes credible claims to that effect. Whether those claims are sufficient to establish notability is a determination reserved for the community. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Upton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• I have improved the article, made sure it met the notability standards(distribution by majors labels and independent media coverage) and sourced it. It was userfied here.Cgadbois (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If the article differs substantially from the article that was the subject of the deletion discussion, there is no need to seek review of the deletion discussion. Simply move the new article into the namesapce at the appropriate title by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Moving a page. Do you consent to withdrawing the deletion review? --Bsherr (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just did it myself. As I said, because it's improved, it can't be speedy deleted under criterion G4, but, if there's cause and desire, someone can reconsider it for deletion. Have a nice day. --Bsherr (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore The Christianity today article is a RS and, in connection with the other sources, proves notability DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with DGG--Christianity Today is a major RS, and CBN is reasonable too, pushing him over the threshold into notability, though not by a whole lot. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Close, moved back to mainspace, not liable to G4, no DRV needed. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Close, per Stifle. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Carrera (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Speedy Restore. Passes WP:PORNBIO, because she won an AVN Award. Links: IMBD & AVN Awards site. --Hixteilchen (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion. Subject meets importance/significance standard based on the award. --Bsherr (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A7 but allow recreation The AVN award was not mentioned in the deleted version, so the A7 nominator and deleting admin made a reasonable evaluation based on what was in the article when it was evaluated. Having said that, a future version should include a clear statement of notability, clearly referenced because of the BLP concerns regarding the nature of the notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The cache has expired. I'd like to revise my opinion based on viewing the article. Could an administrator temporarily restore the article for purposes of the deletion review, employing {{TempUndelete}}? --Bsherr (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and keep deleted. Technically passing "PORNBIO" is not sufficient. I can't find any substantive, in-depth sources on her. Especially for a BLP on a potentially controversial issue, but also in general, passing a notability subguideline does not relieve the requirement to pass the primary one, it just indicates it's more likely you might. One weak source ("rabbitsreviews.com") is nowhere near sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There are rules on Wikipedia, she clearly passes WP:PORNBIO (Award), and also you Seraphimblade should accept this! So if I can´t trust in written relevance criteria in what then? I would also write a new article, if you send me the old version on my user site. --Hixteilchen (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  PORNBIO is an additional criteria, the additional criteria sections says:

  People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

  so no meeting that criteria isn't an inclusion guarantee. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  But winning an award is no exclusion criteria, too. So it should be possible to write a new article. --Hixteilchen (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't tend to have exclusion criteria and I'm making no judgement as to if an article meeting all the required standards is possible, the point is as User:Seraphimblade said the secondary criteria are and indication they may meet the standards, not a promise that they do. Therefore it's not unreasonable to look at substantive issue such as WP:BLP to determine if an article is appropriate or not. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Nominator does not challenge correctness of original deletion. Article subject has not won a notable award. Subject was one of fifteen performers appearing in a scene which received an awarded, which the awarding agency explicitly characterizes as not being an award for performers. Seraphimblade's point is also quite sound. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna have to pull out a ^{[citation needed]} tag on that statement. According to AVN Award the award is "awarded to performer(s) in a scene." Do you have a source that "explicitly characterizes" otherwise? -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• That doesn´t count. The AVN Award is a notable award. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz we all know you want no porn in wikipedia as you have shown often. Even if it´s a Group Scene, every actor gets an award! --Hixteilchen (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ark (Transformers) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

• The book "Totally Tubular 80's Toys" by Mark Bellomo has a page 112 talking about the Autobot ship Ark and how it got the Autobots to earth in the classic series.
• It's talked about in: "Transformers: an adult primer // Here's help understanding toy robots, the latest rage", Chicago Sun-Times; December 16, 1986; by Patricia Smith. The author gets parents up to date on the story of the Transformers, including what the Ark is.
• 'Transformers' coming to save planet Earth, summer cinema University Wire; July 2, 2007; by Michelle Castillo, the author complains about how they left the Ark out of the 2007 Transformers movie.

This clearly helps establish notability in three reliable sources. Mathewignash (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. Such information can be added to List of Transformers spacecraft, which is where Ark (Transformers) redirects. Abductive (reasoning) 08:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not really the point. ANY source I mention COULD be added to the list article. The question here is about the Ark (Transformers) article that was deleted because it lacked any reliable third party sources. I produced three reliable third party sources. Therefore I would like to have the article restored. Mathewignash (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close." Isn't there some kind of time limit in which to contest an AFD? This was closed on 1 September 2010...almost three months ago. Roadie4MarshallTuckerBand (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) - This user is a banned sock puppeteer. Mathewignash (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No such limit and why we would we have? We are in the business of writing and encyclopedia, if viable articles can be written that furthers our goal. Deletion never prohibits topics from ever being covered, merely that a current incarnation of an article doesn't meet the standards and possibly no article could currently be written, in the future of course things change - be that future 1 day or 100 years. I wouldn't take this so much as an appeal of the original decision more that new information has come to light since then. Personally It doesn't seem these sources are upto much. The second sounds likely to be fairly trivial coverage and the third likely not a great source. The current redirect to a subsection describing it seems more than adequate given the level of coverage. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not "contesting" the closing from September. It was closed because it lacked sources at the time. I now have produced reliable third party sources. If this is enough to prove the subject is notable, I want the article restored so I can add them. If it's not enough, I need people to tell what they would need to consider this notable, so I can keep my eyes open for more sources. So PLEASE, if you vote against restoring the article, I'd love some exact reasons and what you would need to be proven it's notable. Mathewignash (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no limit, although perhaps there should be; there have been deletion reviews posted here more than a year after the disputed decision in the past. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  A deletion review might still be appropriate after a year or so if, for example, the page is salted or was highly controversial, so we'd need to think carefully about the wording of any change.—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As above I agree, I think the question is about challenging the actual close of the debate, not about the other times in which DRV maybe appropriate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just reiterating Mathewignash's point that this is a restoration request, which is in-scope per the last paragraph of WP:Deletion review#Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Surely the best approach here would be to add the reliably sourced content into List of Transformers spacecraft#Ark before requesting restoration so we can see just how much decent content a new article would have? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A suggestion. Why doesn't someone just re-write the article with these new sources and see how it fares? If it doesn't get AFD'd then the article proponents have a point. Sounds a lot easier to do it that way than doing it this way. Kiki Rebeouf (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I allowed to just write a new article with sources and put it there without getting in trouble? Mathewignash (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As stated to you above, add the reliably-sourced content to the list article first, and see how much there can be. It sounds like the sources you've got aren't about this, and just mention it pretty tangentially. That probably makes it more suitable for a list than a full article. But put your material in the list article first, and if it does turn out you really can write a great deal from those sources, it may turn out to be appropriate for a full article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]