(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 26 - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2006 December 25
2006 December 27 >

26 December 2006[edit]

Genocide Awareness Project — Speedy close, the article is being discussed on AfD — 19:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Genocide Awareness Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The administrator clearly misread the article. The article is about an ongoing pro life project in which pictures of aborted fetuses are posted at university campuses. It is a project that most pro lifers and most pro choicers in North America are aware of it. It is very notable. The pictures rotate from campus to campus. The administrator clearly misread and said the project was temporary, which isn't true. I wrote that the pictures are only posted temporarily at a particular campus. However, the project is ongoing. Therefore, since it is a well recognized on going project, it is notable and should be reinstated onto Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raindreamer (talk • contribs)

  • Possibly, but it's written as if t he article is already deleted. -Amarkov blahedits 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Log shows it was deleted, then restored. Now in AFD. Fan-1967 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. Well then speedy close this, it was already undeleted. -Amarkov blahedits 17:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Serbophobia – Deletion overturned – 03:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Serbophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This is a valid article, which survived three AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (third nomination)) but was recently deleted by User:Duja with comment Delete crap. See WP:IAR. I don't see how deleting an article about a valid, encyclopedic topic, upheld by dozens of users in AfDs is "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Note also that Duja already voted for deletion of the article in second nomination, so now he is using his admin abilities on an article he was already involved with. Nikola 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Overturn Evidently a case where admin powers have been abused under a flimsy WP:IAR figleaf. If there are problems with the article, edit the content or submit it for a third good-faith afd nomination (third existing afd was speedy keep due to bad faith) after a proper grace period. Bwithh 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Bwithh, WP:IAR does not create a license to run amuck. Danny Lilithborne 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn, per nom. --Еstavisti 22:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'll take "Reasons WP:IAR is piss-poor policy" for $200. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I'm a serial endorser of deletions normally, this one I must say should be overturned, and taken to AFD if wanted. AfD trumps CSD, always, with the exception of WP:OFFICE. That aside, the apparent COI related to the contribution of the deleter to the second debate makes this an open-and-shut case. I actually urge speedy overturn and relist, as this was clearly not the best way to go about deleting this article, crap or not. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As per Wikipedia:Use common sense, a legitimate application of WP:IAR is one that nobody notices. Obviously, someone noticed. The fallback is for the rule ignorer to persuade the community that they improved the encyclopedia by deleting this. I've just now dropped the DRVNote flag on the deleting admin's page, but they have declared a wikibreak, so they may not even return to make their case in a timely fashion. I can't conceive of a solid case for deleting this without taking it to AFD, but I remain open to them making a case. GRBerry 03:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following comments were added after the closure of this DRV:

Y'all weren't paying attention to this, then. --Calton | Talk 07:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was announced (and widely acclaimed by the commenters) at AN/I, (see link provided by Calton). A speedy closure of DRV after 4 hours, without a chance of a wider input, and without giving anyone a chance to see a bigger picture. It was an out-of-process deletion indeed, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Oh well, guess I'll have to get rid of this the hard way. Duja► 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings about endorsing the deletion since it was clearly out of process (though I share the WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns of the deleter, but I am rather annoyed about the DRV closing so fast. If process is important (as the overturn "votes" above insist surely it is no less important at DRV. 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs).

  • WP:IAR advocated by Duja works in both ways, not to mention the snowball clause: quite a few persons considered this an uncalled-for violation. `'mikka 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I jumped the gun (I make no illusions about that; my bad), but the article is running through AfD right now, meaning that it will be deleted through the proper process soon. I think I'll just stick to !voting in reviews, rather than closing them. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hammarlund – Deletion overturned – 21:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hammarlund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Historically significant US company, out of business, not advertising, links to amateur radio topics LuckyLouie 19:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Deletion if for no other reason than that a specific criteria wasn't declared. It can't be A7, as there was an assertion ("among the nation's very oldest producers of radio equipment"). G11? Maybe, though that's highly debatable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Even if they had been cited, neither Articles-7 or General-11 apply, IMO - I mean, it explicitly states that it's a defunct company, so it's difficult to make a case for it being blatant advertising, and notability was asserted. Don't know what "no country" means. List on AfD due to lack of independent sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was definitely a well-known company [1]. I think we have too many company-related articles and I favor tightening WP:CORP for COI reasons, but when it's a defunct company it's less of a problem. Anyway someone should write a new article, I suspect what was there before was a useless stub and that's why it looked like an advt. 67.117.130.181 04:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. I don't understand what speedy criteria this is supposed to fall under. -Amarkov blahedits 16:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Northern Irish people – Deletion endorsed – 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Northern Irish people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Objection to POV proposal, or lack of understanding of the subject. Mal 13:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, unanimous AfD, no new evidence. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. What "new evidence" would you like? --Mal 00:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of this missourced, inaccurate sentence. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Which sentence are you refering to? --Mal 00:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 20:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, AfD procedure was proper. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Nevertheless, Northern Irish people continue to exist. --Mal 00:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Deletion review" is not to be confused with "please determine if a racial sub-group exists or not". Nobody here is saying that they don't exist, and their existence is largely irrelevant to the purpose of this section of Wikipedia, which is to determine if deleted items (articles, templates, whatever) were done so improperly. An AfD was opened, discussed, closed, and the article was deleted, all in accordance with Wikipedia policy. As a result, everyone (so far) has endorsed the deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is this not the place to object to deletions? My apologies if I am in error, but I was under the impression that it was. I am not contesting whether proper procedure had taken place - I am objecting to the fact that the article in question was proposed for deletion because it's purpose was misunderstood (and also neglected). The article subject is verifiable, notable and consistant with many other similar articles and therefore, quite obviously, belongs in this encyclopedia. If all this page is for is to clarify whether or not the article in question was deleted properly, then I assume there would be no objections if someone were to re-create it. --Mal 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose. I suggest you read it, since it seems to me that you're just sore that the article was deleted, a perception I wouldn't have if you were to provide any evidence to back up your (rather nebulous) claim at the onset of this review. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, DRV is not AfD II, no new evidence presented, WP:ILIKEIT applicable. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK people - some of you are admins I think. But you haven't been particularly helpful. The following paragraph, from the page Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, is how I came to add this entry on this page. It states:

Articles deleted under this procedure (using the {{prod}} tag) may be undeleted, without further discussion, on a reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, or a request may be made at WP:DRV#Proposed deletions, but such undeleted articles are open to be speedily deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

Perhaps some of you have a problem with the "on a reasonable request" part, and that is why you are suggesting I need "evidence". But I am asking you: evidence of what? That Northern Irish people exist? I can assure you all, most categorically, that we do.

EVula: What is "rather nebulous" about my claim? I don't see that it could be viewed as any more or less nebulous than the claim made at the onset of the deletion process - that claim was that the creation of the article was POV. Indeed, one could take a quick look at the userpage of the person that proposed the deletion of the article, and quickly discover that the user considers his or herself an Irish Republican - a position that is polar opposite to my own stated poitical belief on my user page. One might therefore suggest that this user felt that anything asserting the existance of Northern Irish people is contrary to the stated political idiom of Irish Republicanism which clearly rejects any notion that a separate state could exist on the island of Ireland. Again though, this is irrelevant - we are editors here because we deal in facts. The fact is that Northern Irish people exist. What more evidence do you need?

Don't dare to assume what how I feel about any given matter by the way. I may be "sore", or I may not - that is irrelevant (actually, a rather more appropriate description would be incredulous). Your job is to assume good faith and to be civil. I created the article in good faith, following the examples set by other similar articles already existant in Wikipedia.

Daniel.Bryant: the last part of your comment is hardly very tactful, and I might just as well suggest to you that you don't like it.

The guide for deletion discussions states this: "it's best to base arguments on the policies of no original research, verifiability, use reliable sources and what Wikipedia is not." Northern Irish people, and the existance thereof, is hardly WP:NOR. Nor is it unverifiable. Plenty of sources can be found which prove these peoples exist. It seems to me that anyone who is not familiar with the Northern Irish could be served well by an encyclopedia article on the people who make up that population. Indeed, examples of numerous such articles can be found on Wikipedia and, as I said, I based the creation of this article on some of those.

Finally I would like to say that, as far as I can recall (I can't tell for sure because the discussion took place on the article's talk page, which has also been deleted), the initial discussions with the user who proposed the deletion indicate that s/he had patiently waited for a certain length of time before proposing the deletion, to give me (or others) time to develop the article from its skeletal form. Unfortunately, due to the relative complexity (not least in regard to political sensitivities) and the fact that I became rather more busy in Real Life™, I didn't have the time to improve it. I will have the time in the forthcoming month to get the article up to the standard of similar articles though.

I believe this is a reasonable request for undeletion. If this is not the place to request undeletion, please direct me to the section of Wikipedia that is. Thank you for your time. --Mal 08:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to do the following: (1) get yourself very familiar with wikipedia policies wikipedia:Verifiability, no original research, WP:CITE, reliable sources (2) create a well-sourced draft in User:Setanta747/Draft page (well sourced in the sense or reliable sources that explicitely say that Northen Irish is a separate ethnicity), and (3) come back here well prepared. Easy as 1-2-3 :-) `'mikka 21:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. You seem to be under the impression that it was deleted through WP:PROD. It was not. -Amarkov blahedits 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I don't think you understand what Deletion Review is for, Mal, which is why I provided a link for you above. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ken "Pope" Parry – Deletion endorsed – 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ken "Pope" Parry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Reasons not to delete (especially the subject of notability) are detailed on the Talk page.

Unqualified Speedy Delition Paul McDonald 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion as the deleting admin. Article subject was a Boy Scout volunteer and school administrator. No claim of notability provided so speedied under CSD A7 and author notified with {{nn-notice}} template. Based upon his response on my talk page, I believe his terming this an "Unqualified" speedy deletion is that he believed the General criteria where the only CSD criteria. It should be noted that this article was previously speedy deleted by Zoe & Jimfbleak. -- JLaTondre 16:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per Jimfbleak (note that I was also one of the speedy deleters). User:Zoe|(talk) 16:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per above. Naconkantari 20:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Assuming the deletion is endorsed, shouldn't the talk page then be speedied? -- Kicking222 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if it would be speediable, but I recommend posting the reasoning behind the nomination here and not on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Not sure what the text was when it was speedied, but the talk page of the article contains an assertion of notability that should go to the greater community. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit history is restored now. ~ trialsanderrors 01:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't see an award from a local scout council (per this link, over 50,000 people have received the "Silver Beaver" award from their local councils since 1931, which would mean several hundred a year) as being an assertion of notability. Fan-1967 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Per Fan-1967's link above, the man's only claim to notability is a minor award given to several hundred scoutleaders per year and never covered in media except Scouting internal newsletters and an occasional note in the local-trivia section of local newspapers. I wouldn't speedy-delete this were it my decision, seeing that one editor thinks the claim is notable, but I don't see this as having any chance to survive a new AfD. Barno 16:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you wouldn't speedy, but you endorse the speedy? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but by the criteria that "I wouldn't speedy because badlydrawnjeff thinks the claim is notable", nothing would ever be speedied, which is the way badlydrawnjeff wants it. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really, no. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, yes, if he disagrees with a speedy, it wasn't a valid speedy. Speedy deletion is only supposed to be for cases where any uninvolved observer would agree with deletion. There's a reason that WP:CSD doesn't just say "If it has no chance of passing AfD". -Amarkov blahedits 18:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then we might as well throw WP:CSD away, as badlydrawnjeff will object to all speedies on general principle. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the key is that CSD is for cases where the overwhelming majority of people would agree with a speedy. Theoretically, no article would get 100% agreement. Fan-1967 19:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - valid application of policy, little assertion of notability, not really reliable sources, does not seem at all verified. Having a job and getting a minor award does not make you anywhere near notable. Correct speedy. Moreschi Deletion! 18:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. "The Silver Beaver is the highest award given to those who go quietly about their business implementing the Scouting program and performing community service." We don't write articles about people who go quietly about their business. Also, per Fan-1967, I am seriously worried about the very real prospect of 50,000 people with no other qualification with an encyclopedia article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Being a public school administrator and winning a minor scouting award does not confer notability. Unverified and no assertion of notability. Valid speedy.--Dakota 06:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per lack of notability and verifiability to the point that this would never in a billion years pass an AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 1 Since all the discussion seems to be taking place here, what is the talk page for (see above)?--Paul McDonald 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The talk page is normally for discussing an article. However, in deletion related debates, the discussion is held on the applicable deletion page. This allows folks who might not stumble across the article to easily see the debate and contribute. Placing your comments on the talk page caused no harm as you told everyone above so they would be able to find it. -- JLaTondre 15:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 2 If the Silver Beaver is indeed considered "non-notable" then shouldn't the article on the Silver Buffalo award be modified (see aforementioned "talk" section)?--Paul McDonald 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a significant difference between having an article and being mentioned in an article. Every topic is going to have individual items that are not that notable on their own, but that provide back-ground information of interest. -- JLaTondre 15:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • After all, we have articles on military honors such as (U.S.) the bronze and silver stars. However, our guidelines say that notability is only considered automatic for winners of the highest honors, such as (U.S. again) the Congressional Medal of Honor. Fan-1967 15:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's apples and oranges. For example, we have an article on Eagle scouts, it's a featured article and one of our best, and never going to be deleted. However, nobody would argue that all 1.5 million Eagle scouts should be given their own articles, nor would being an Eagle scout generally be considered a claim of notability in a biography article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Thank you for taking the time to review the article. After reviewing the articles, and as the author, I will also endorse deletion of the article. As a note, it is much easier to understand this way, given that actual discussions and reasons have been given--rather than to come back from lunch and find the article deleted with no real explanation given.--Paul McDonald 16:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MIT Resonance, Resonance (MIT) – Deletion endorsed – 01:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MIT Resonance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Resonance (MIT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The decision was keep on the first discussion, and the second discussion was never listed on the main article's page; only the first one was ever listed. At the very least, there should be another (listed) discussion so people have a chance to speak their minds. 71.247.24.74 07:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's incorrect, the nomination with a link to the first discussion was created at 3:45 by User:Ohconfucius and corrected to the second discussion at 3:48:
03:48, 15 December 2006 . . Ohconfucius (Talk | contribs | block) 
03:45, 15 December 2006 . . Ohconfucius (Talk | contribs | block) (AfD)

Is there anything else you challenge this AfD on? Otherwise I will close it speedily. (PS Correct links added above.) ~ trialsanderrors 07:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For one thing, we thought this whole deletion review was over since the first decision was keep. I guarantee that the link to the later discussion was not posted on the main page. The first one was, originally. And then it was clean. Anyway, we listed reasons in the first discussion as to why the decision should be keep. We've been on Best of College A Cappella 2006, we were voted runner-up for favorite a cappella group by the Contemporary A Cappella Society of America (CASA) and our latest CD, Left On Red, was voted favorite CD. (http://casa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=346&Itemid=149) We toured the Northeast in 2005 and toured Florida in 2006. We were also chosen to be Artist of the Month by WERS 88.9. Interview: http://wers.org/articles/?id=213 I can't find the article choosing us as AOTM, but you can hear a recording here: http://web.mit.edu/resonance/www/media/audio/wersresonance.mp3 There have been plenty of reviews and articles written about us in The Tech, MIT's student newspaper. We sang at Susan Hockfield's inauguration (the current President of MIT). I mean, I could go on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.24.74 (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse closure I see nothing wrong with how this AfD was closed. To the person above... this is not round 2 of AfD and you might want to take a look at WP:COI and WP:AUTO. MartinDK 08:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue of how this AfD was closed is that nobody knew about it! The few people who check AfD knew about it, but the people who regularly visit the Wiki page didn't. Look at the disparity between how many comments there were in the original AfD and in the second one. Clearly something went wrong, no? Sure, I know I'm biased, being in the group, but I'm speaking for everybody I've spoken to (including people outside the group). If this isn't the proper forum to get this undeleted (and possibly relisted in AfD) please tell me what is. Mborohovski 08:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I assume that User:trialsanderrors took a look at that issue since he posted the edit history above. Second, it would be very unusual if someone AfD'ed an article without posting a template since the template on the article is an integral part of the whole AfD'ing process. I know from experience that the link can be messed up when you AfD for the 2. time and I believe this is the exact error that User:Ohconfucius was trying to correct. Also, the number of comments on the first AfD was influenced by the fact that it was relisted. If you can ask an admin to recreate the revision just prior to deletion and thereby prove that the template was missing from the article you got a case. Otherwise not. MartinDK 08:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the proper forum to get this undeleted but the nomination is based on a false factual claim, as I noted above. The nomination on the article page linked to the wrong discussion for all of 3 minutes, and then was changed to the correct (2nd) discussion, after which the article was not edited until it was recreated as a redirect to MIT Resonance on December 22 by User:Mborohovski, as a clear and seemingly uncontested WP:CSD#G4 recreation. ~ trialsanderrors 09:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Regarding the new or revisited references presented above - WERS 88.9 is the radio station of Emerson College[2] and does not represent a major media channel or an authoritative music criticism source (even if it did, I'm not sure if a "Artist of the Month" interview is sufficient recognition for Wikipedia). If the group does indeed tour regionally, then Ohconfucious's statement that they don't was mistaken. However, given the trend observable in the swathe of Collegiate A Capella afds that took place over the last month or so, I think there's been a rough community consensus that groups that go on tours, get recognition for best CD etc from CASA, get published on the annual Best of... CD from CASA, get written up in the student newspaper etc - that this isn't enough to pass WP:MUSIC. So I don't think the contested touring experience is sufficient to overturn this closure. Ideally, article creators should be notified of afd nomination, but that seems to be a minority practice on afd (I always try to do it myself), and I've never seen lack of article creator notification overturn an afd deletion closure (since the main point is to find consensus in the broader community) Bwithh 09:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete We do, in fact, go on tour every year to a different region of the country (and are planning an international tour at some point in the near future). Being relatively new shouldn't make you immediately non-notable. The entire genre of a cappella is new and up-and-coming, compared with other genres of music. This should be reason for it _to_ be on Wikipedia. Like I said, we've recieved plenty of accolades and everything is verifiable. We've been reviewed by the Recorded A Cappella Review Board (RARB) and recieved flying marks (4.7/5). If a radio spot, multiple accolades from CASA, being on BOCA, flying remarks from RARB, touring every year around the country and in the metro-Boston area, etc. isn't enough to be considered notable for a collegiate group, I don't know what is. Oh, I forgot to mention, we also host the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella (ICCA) semifinals every year; it's the largest and most notable a cappella competition in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.24.74 (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse closure, nn musical group, WP:COI violations abound. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AfD correctly closed. Nominator might want to know that having an article on you deleted from Wikipedia is not an adverse judgement on your musical ability. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 20:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're clearly notable within our sphere of influence and our genre. I'm not saying it's an adverse judgment on our musical ability, but it's definitely an ignorant statement to say we're nn just because we're part of a smaller genre (note that I'm not calling anyone ignorant; just that the statement is as such). If we're one of the more notable groups within a cappella (which we are), then we're notable!
    • We're not saying your group is not notable in general, we're saying your group is not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 21:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, DRV is not AfD round II, no new evidence presented, WP:ILIKEIT arguments being thrown around means absolute nothing here, WP:COI apparent. *breathes again* Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daniel: There was clearly new evidence presented as there was NO evidence presented at the second AfD discussion. I'm not saying keep the page because "I like it." I'm saying keep the page because the group _is_ notable, and certainly encyclopedically notable if you're talking about the most notable groups in a cappella. Stop throwing the WP:COI argument at me; just because not all too many people read these AfD pages doesn't mean I have a COI. Not to mention that I'm speaking for multiple people I've spoken to.
  • Endorse deletion; whether or not it's notable, it doesn't have sources. Also, the idea that it should somehow be undeleted because a previous AfD was closed as keep is absurd. -Amarkov blahedits 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete It clearly has sources, as listed above. Furthermore, it's absurd that at any point an article may be deleted within a few days just because people didn't visit it within those few days. One AfD should not throw away an article forever, especially if their have been previous AfDs saying keep. That's absurd...someone could just as easily keep nominating an article for deletion until they get lucky one day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.24.74 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • I don't see sources. And swinging the pendulum so far that a single AfD closed as keep disqualifies deletion forever is just as absurd as anything you're complaining about. -Amarkov blahedits 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at the second bullet point in this thread for the sources I refer to. And that was exactly my point, it _is_ absurd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.24.74 (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • Okay, I meant reliable sources, not just any sources. -Amarkov blahedits 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How are CASA and RARB unreliable? They are valid organizations which deal in a cappella. WERS is a licensed radio station...
    • Being a valid organization does not make you reliable, nor does being a licensed radio station. -Amarkov blahedits 06:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does?
  • Endorse deletion per valid AfD, WP:MUSIC, and the overwhelming amount of precedent that student groups at a single school are almost never notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn and undelete They pass WP:MUSIC as per the first AfD. That precedent is bullshit; you cannot rate say a group isn't notable just because it is a student group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.24.74 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I'm having some difficulty seeing what the alleged problem with this process was, it looks perfectly proper to me - and the result also seems to be in keeping with precedent, policy and guidelines. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_26&oldid=1083193569"