Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 7

< January 6	Deletion review archives: 2008 January	January 8 >

7 January 2008

User talk:202.76.162.34

I still want the old comments from this talk page back. Do you realise that the administrator who deleted the archive and all history of the old comments is one of the worst and roguest adminstrators on Wikipedia? Either bring back those comments or delete the damn page altogether! This is as much faith as I can put here! And it's not just me who thinks that adminstrator is bad. Many other people think that as well!138.217.145.45 (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Walker (footballer)

This article was deleted citing CSD A7, which was inapplicable, as the subject of the article was a player on a fully professional football team, and might well be notable. John254 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Lake, Alberta

This article was deleted citing CSD A7, which doesn't apply to geographical features. Moreover, this might well be a notable lake. John254 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the article had context and if the lake is notable then the intro was something we'd want to use. The last sentence of the article might have been spam, but we didn't need to delete it to solve that problem. I dunno if this is a notable lake, but it probably is due to size and proximity to settlements (there also seems to be a settlement called "Ghost Lake"). At any rate that's a question for AFD... this was not a good speedy deletion.--W.marsh 04:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and take to AfD. We can't have entire lakes being deleted speedily. the_undertow ^talk 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Central Victoria (closed)

Rachel Marsden

This article was unilaterally deleted on 07:03, 1 January 2008 citing unarticulated WP:BLP concerns, none of which, in any event, couldn't be remedied editorially and/or via full page protection to prevent editing in violation of WP:BLP. In addition to being involved in the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy, Rachel Marsden is notable as a TV personality, a columnist, and an aide to a politician. Though the deleting administrator asserts that the "article is totally out of proportion to her current importance", notability is not temporary. This deletion is completely unjustified. John254 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Eh nearly all of our articles on civil war figures and any number of other dead historic people are "totally out of proportion to [their] current importance"... I seriously hope this isn't the new standard for deletion. --W.marsh 02:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I agree with what W.marsh said above regarding the most recent deletion. I doubt highly that every revision of the article has had WP:BLP problems, so the protection was probably out of order per the arbcom ruling cited. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, of course, per nom; it is quite clear that whatever problems that may have existed (there were, IMHO, very few) might be dealt with in a more narrowly tailored fashion. Joe 06:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

match_pump

I just translated (and a little summerazed ) from ja.wikipedia.org. Original article is also short. While I was looking for several tags, it was deleted. Reason for dispute follows: This term is often used in Japan, and often is believed to be English. So, I think it is good for non-Japanese wiki has this entry. By definition, it is a "Japanese word" and not commonly used in English speaking world. It may result in confusion during conversation. AIEA (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entry doesn't appear to exist in the Japanese Wikipedia, at least at the title "match pump" -- see [1]. Is the article located at a different title? John254 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation, it appears that the Japanese article is located at "マッチポンプ" -- see [2]. John254 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The article was deleted by WP:CSD#A1, which given the nomination might have been inapropriate. However, it's easier to just write a new version of the article than it is to bring a single speedy here to DRV, so I am endorsing the deletion in order to discourage this sort of nomination here. That said, since it was just a single speedy there shouldn't be any problem if you recreate the article. The japanese version appears long enough to make a decent article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]