Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 16

Joe Garagiola, Jr. – No non-vandalized revisions to undelete. Permission to create a sourced article granted (as it usually is). – -- Eluchil404 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This page was deleted in 2006 by administrator Golbez, who is still active. (I could have asked him to undelete, but I prefer to try the formal process so that other opinions can be heard.) There is no explanation in the deletion log, so I don't know whether the page was deleted as a copyright violation or because of notability concerns.

If it's a copyright problem, I'll write the article myself, or I'll ask WP:BASEBALL to do it. If it's a notability issue, you can be certain that Joe Garagiola, Jr., who is the general manager of the Arizona Diamondbacks, is no less notable than Theo Epstein, Mark Shapiro, Jim Hendry, and others in the same profession. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing in the history is page-move vandalism (somebody moved an airport article to that name. The man is clearly notable, but you (or anyone) will need to start fresh. -- Xoloz (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The deleted article was not about the baseball executive, but rather an inexplicable direct copy of Stapleton International Airport. It was probably vandalism. Note that the user who created it is now indef blocked. MLB General managers have never been deleted at AFD as far as I know, and holding the position is a reasonable assertion of notability. So in other words, you can create the article now if you want... but the deleted version is of no use to you. --W.marsh 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close - The Joe Garagiola, Jr. topic was never deleted so there is nothing to review. Just post your Joe Garagiola, Jr. material at Joe Garagiola, Jr. or Joe Garagiola Jr. (whichever one complies with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Jreferee t/c 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The MacCast – Closed, recreation with sources is allowed anyway as the article is not salted – Core desat 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I am writing to request that you re-list the page related to my podcast. I currently have a page listing my bio here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Christianson and the Wiki link to the information on the podcast itself is a dead since this page was removed. Alphachimp de-listed the page citing CSD A7 - Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. My podcast is listened to by over 25,000 people worldwide each week. I would argue that is "significant". The show provides entertainment value on par or equal to that of other radio and video shows that are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please reconsider the decision to remove this content. Thank you. -- Phylaxis (talk · contribs · logs) 17:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - A related article is Adam Christianson. -- Jreferee t/c 18:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permit recreation - The CSD A7 speedy delete was back on 27 December 2006. I did not locate any attempts to recreate the article. Also, Phylaxis notified the deleting admin of this DRV.[1] In addition, I found some reliable source material. The best one I found was The Independent Other information I found was usatoday.com, Advertising Age, Macworld, Johnson, S. (2005) “Navigating the podcast concept" Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, 31 July, p.1, Revolution, Columbus Dispatch , and Macworld. Google books and Google scholar bring up some hits as well. I think we should permit recreation of the article and see where the chips fall. -- Jreferee t/c 18:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation per Jreferee above. The content in the deleted history isn't of great value; the best course is simply to rewrite from the available sources listed. Xoloz (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Latitude Group – Speedy deletion overturned. Content is likely to be merged editorially; if it is not, AfD listing is also at editorial discretion. – Xoloz (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This page was speedy deleted on the basis that they were an advertisment/spam. This may have been the case however I believe that the company in question is in factnotable per WP:NN as it has recieved significant coverage by reliable secondary sources independant of the subject. These include Deloitte [2], The Financial Times [3] and The Daily Telegraph [4] as well as numerous other sources [5], [6], [7], [8] the company and those associated with it have also won several awards [9], [10], [11]. If successful I would also like to nominate Latitude White - a page speedy deleted for similar reasons - which covered a subgroup of the company. If restored some of this content could be merged into the main article. Guest9999 12:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete as the deleted article wasn't purely blatant advertising... the infobox and the 1st/3rd paragraphs for example wouldn't need to be totally gutted to write a decent article on this subject. G11 is really only for pages that contain nothing we'd use in a hypothetical good article on a subject. --W.marsh 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion. Note that the listed page was only a redirect to the former article Latitude Group. The page was about a web advertising and "search engine optimization" firm. AFAIAC businesses such as this need to be scrutinized very closely to make sure that they meet WP:CORP. They do not market consumer products that attract truly independent reviews.
More importantly, their business involves gaming the Internet for promotional purposes. The former text was quite bad and reeked of conflict of interest, neutrality issues, and puffery: Latitude’s stated aim is to help companies achieve the best possible position on search engines’ results pages and obtain high click through rates and ROI from online marketing. Latitude’s services are underpinned by COBRA, a unique bespoke bidding, reporting and tracking software product that has Microsoft Gold Accreditation . . (Do we need the barbarous word bespoke?)
Recognition within internet advertising industry publications and awards is not really enough to get this one over the hump; and, like I said, businesses like this need to be scrutinized very strictly and don't get the benefit of a doubt. Suggest that the result of an AfD on this article would be a foregone conclusion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CORP - which you mentioned - states "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The company has been written about extensively by Deloitte [12], The Financial Times [13] and The Daily Telegraph [14] - how do these not count as reliable secondary sources, independant of the subject. Are you suggesting that a non-notable company managed to "game" two major national newspapers and a big four financial services firm. The former text may have had COI and NPOV issues but with the curent number of reliable sources available it could be cleaned up and made into a decent article. [[-- Guest9999 (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Endorse speedy deletion absolutely correct application of WP:CSD. Carlossuarez46 16:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I have speedily deleted an article about a subsidiary, Latitude White, and nominated an article about the CEO for AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites. If somebody unaffiliated with the company would like to start a properly sourced article, I have no objection. The former articles were utterly unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If an editor would like me to retrieve a copy of the old article into their userspace so they can copy the infobox, I would be happy to do that. Also, there should just be one article, not separate articles on the company, its subsidiaries, and its CEO. There isn't enough to say right now for more than one article. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The intro from the deleted article "The Latitude Group is a UK search engine marketing agency that specialises in pay-per-click advertising and search engine optimisation. It was founded in 2001 by Dylan Thwaites and is headquartered in London with offices in Cheshire, with more than 100 employees." it really wasn't that bad, and if sourced, would be a fine intro. Also the infobox was good. There was stuff in there that wasn't just spam... blatant advertising is just that: there's nothing in there we'd actually want to keep in a decent article. --W.marsh 18:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - CSD G11 requires that the advertising be blatant. The deleted article wasn't blatant advertising. The article had chronology, an infobox, useful information such as the awards it won - things you ordinarily would see in such an article. -- Jreferee t/c 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete for the reason give by Jreferee. Possibly one problematic sentence. Certainly needs sources. Neither is a reason for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. But the article on the subsidiary has no real justification & can best be merged into the main article. DGG (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per W. Marsh and Jreferee, in that the idea behind G11 is to rid ourselves easily of spam for unnotable companies and there was enough to say notability might be met here, meaning AFD would be warranted at best. It's counterproductive, though, for editors to treat every dodgy article about a company as if it were "blatant" advertising. No, it doesn't need to go so far as "click here to buy" to be promotional but we have templates such as {{advert}} that should be tried first, especially if there are indicators of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 10:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Labour India Publications – speedy closed, nothing to do - non-spammy, appropriately-toned article was created before DRV took place and there's nothing to undelete as previous versions (at Labour India) were deleted by AfD consensus. – Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 23:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Labour India is a notable ISO_9000:2000 International Organization certified by American Quality Assessors, because the activities are national and international. This org is associated with education (national and international schools), publications, educational journals, newspaper and currently ventured into the arena of tourism. Associated articles are: Labour India Gurukulam Public School, Bluefield International Academy, Santhosh George Kulangara, Sancharam etc. and there are also more ref I can furnish such as news articles and all. (search for "Labour India Publications" in google, more than 600 results So I request for retrieval of deleted article. Avinesh Jose 08:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this user is abusing the process by simultaneously running this DRV and recreating the material in blatant disregard to what the outcome of the review s/he initiated here may be. This appears to be a WP:GAME violation. Carlossuarez46 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy take appropriate action - One who comes into equity must come with clean hands. -- Jreferee t/c 17:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
close discussion as there's no action necessary here--the article has been recreated. It makes some show of notability, and is not a blatant advertisement, so I do not see how it can be a speedy. It would have been better to do one thing or another, but I AGF about not realizing that. Anyone who thinks the article unjustifiable can take it to AfD, which is the place for a discussion. DGG (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Patrick A. Reid – Overturned. Though there is some notability here, there is not enough to overcome the original AfD, nor is there a change in circumstances or in content, and thus this must be considered a WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of deleted content. – Chick Bowen 23:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick A. Reid as a pretty obvious keep. It has since been brought to my attention that the content is very similar to Patrick Alexander (cartoonist), an article deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Alexander (cartoonist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5, and this fact was not mentioned in the original discussion. I'm bringing it here to decide what to do with it. Hut 8.5 07:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The stealth recreation of this article under a different title has done nothing to address the arguments that have now been done to death numerous times. The same concerns still apply which led to the article's deletion and the subsequent endorsement in the review, even given the fact it's been sat there for well over a month now. If anything, given that the name of the subject is apparently so unimportant that it can be swapped and changed around at will, the claim to notability now appears even more flimsy. It may be worth noting the user responsible for the stealth rehash of this article was made aware of the procedure of resubmition in the deletion discussion, so one starts to question the motives at play here. Hen Features 08:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Further comment: it appears worth pointing out that this is precise reproduction of the material which was deleted and then subsequently failed a deletion review. There has been no new information brought to light to justify yet another deletion review debate, and so is clear G4. -- Hen Features (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4, another WP:GAME violation of which we're seeing many in DRV land lately. Carlossuarez46 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn AfD/Speedy delete - The failure to address at AfD the prior activity for this topic made the AfD out of process. The use of multiple names for the article to game the system should not be encouraged. Without a valid keep AfD, G4 applies. Disclosure: I was promoted by this post to address the matter. -- Jreferee t/c 17:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm bothered by the AfD in that it seems legitimate and only is illegitimate if you bring in outside information such as the name change and the failure to list prior AfDs. We normally don't import outside information into a close AfD and we take the consensus as we find it. Here, the AfD was open for five days and all who wanted to comment did comment. And those who did comment did to the extent they saw fit. One of the participants, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, now is an admin. The closer did interpreted the debate correctly. I don't want to encourage gaming the system, but it appears that the AfD system was used correctly. And if we missed the five day AfD window to bring out problems, then we missed it. I'll leave my mixed message for the closer of this DRV to take into account as he/she sees fit. -- Jreferee t/c 07:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain or Relist The keep in the latest discussion seems to represent the present consensus. It's no more abusive than repeatedly renominaion an a kept article--the exact same idea. The latest determination holds. DGG (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not comparable. When an article is repeatedly brought back to afd, previous participants who expressed their continuing interest in the article by watchlisting it are able to find the new discussion by virtue of it being the same article. Repeatedly recreating a deleted article at varying page titles until our inherently inconsistent afd process results in a keep makes a mockery of consensus. —Cryptic 22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist One of the sections of WP:CONSENSUS that I consider a true gem of wisdom is Wikipedia:Consensus#"Asking the other parent". Because no participant in the AFD knew of the prior history of the article, the arguments of the prior discussion were not engaged, and the participants in prior discussion didn't participate, we don't actually have a consensus. Send it back to form a consensus, notifying both the participants in the October DRV and this AFD, and link all prior discussions in the new AFD. Whatever that comes up with is the consensus. Right now, we don't have one. -- GRBerry (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I modified my !vote above--as it would clearly br brought to AfD again, Sustain is the same as Relist in practical effect . DGG (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User_talk:203.220.106.157 has a copy on his/her talk page. -- Jreferee t/c 23:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's another copy at User talk:203.220.105.66/patrick a reid. Hut 8.5 11:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and speedy delete, a recreation is a recreation. Delete the version on the IP's user talk page, as well. --Core desat 02:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the AFD and speedy-delete. The edit history clearly shows by the timing and nature of the repost that this was created by a sockpuppet in direct response to the prior discussions and in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the results. Between the bad-faith nature of the repost and the fact that two of the "keep" voters have since been banned/blocked, I do not see nearly enough to suggest that consensus has truly changed. By the way, kudos to the closer for finding the problem and bringing the issue for review him/herself. Rossami (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take back to AfD - the article may have been recreated but the recent AfD suggests that there may be a concensus to keep it, it has been over a month since the failed eletion review and it is possible that the consensus has changed. [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep Closed AfD forms a new consensus. The instigator of this review [15], Hen Features, is the sockpuppet of an enemy of Patrick A. Reid in real life and almost all of her edits relate to him, as can be seen from the very first edit of the puppet [16] 203.220.105.66 (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, the whole situation is messed up, since the most recent consensus was formed without all available information. The best you can do now is to put it up for a new discussion to gauge the real consensus, when provided with all the relevant information, including the previous deletions. - Bobet (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: article has been improved upon, and IMO with the new information, it no longer reaches the notability requirements. Relisting would form a shiny new consensus. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist

-

Coment Thank you for inviting me back into the debate. I was neutual in the 1st AfD. I felt there is some notability here. I resent that someone is trying to scam the editors/adninistrators, but there is still some (albeit marginal) notability. Maybe delete all the duplicates, but keep one that is proper. Tiptopper (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "DollyeffingD" was not me, although I have a fair idea who it might be. I don't really care what happens to this article. I have a much better newly sourced article on the artist which I might put in userspace and bring to DRV for discussion some day. Not for some time though. I really have no interest in edit warring with "Hen Features" and its puppets again anytime soon. Credit must go to "Hen Features" for diligently patrolling Wikipedia to make sure that unnotable cartoonist Patrick Alexander is kept off. You're doing God's work. DollyD (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say it's a relief to see you renouncing edit warring. Your behavior during the previous deletion debates often left something to be desired. If you have an improved article which, unlike all those which have repeatedly been deleted thus far, is able to withstand an AfD, then we can finally put this issue to bed. Sure I wouldn't be alone is being happy to see a resolution to this issue! In working together to that end, you really don't have to come across so sarcastic and provocative. This is only Wikipedia after all, and if you take a step back you'll see it really doesn't need to be taken so seriously! In relation to your accusation on my talk page, I am not DollyeffingD. Hen Features (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hen Features, I do not enjoy edit wars. They are bad. Which one of your puppets did I have the Patrick Alexander edit war against? I forget. I am glad to hear that "DollyeffingD" is not one of your puppets. I was just asking and did not accuse. I sincerely apologise for any offence. I do indeed take this very, very seriously. The debate over whether Patrick Alexander should be included on the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit™ is quite possibly the most crucial issue facing the world today. DollyD (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn most recent AfD; speedy delete as CSD G4. Given the sparse participation at the latest AfD, and its failure to understand the underlying circumstances of the article's history, I think overturning its decision is the best result. On the merits, this article doesn't seem substantially different from that which was originally deleted at a much more thorough AfD. I don't a relisting in light of all information will yield a "keep" on the merits, and I do worry about the possibility of rewarding parties who circumvent the deletion process through reposting. If the article were different, or there was real evidence of the subject's circumstances having changed, I would support relisting, but it doesn't appear to me that either of those possibilities applies at present. Xoloz (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Manuela Darling-Gansser – Overturn and list at AfD. – Xoloz (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Contribution deleted by Sandstein because of CSDA7. Reason unjustified as Darling-Gansser is renowned author of cook and travel books in Australia, has written numerous articles for major australian newspapers and weekly magazines (incl. Womans Day), artciles for Swiss magazines, is a repeat guest on Australian lifestyle TV shows and has been a guest speaker to cancer charities. her books have been translated into dutch and she has a strong following in Switzerland, Canada, South Africa, Italy and an even stronger one in Australia. She has a long history of famous cooks in her family. I'm one of many passionate amature cooks in Australia who are taken aback by the fact that such a person can not be included in your user orientated encyclopedia. If there are changes that have to be made to the content then i'll be happy to edit the page but to delete it all together with no notification is unjustifiable. thank you. -- Birri85 (talk · contribs · logs) 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 11 by Aecis (talk · contribs)

I found one at November 17. -- Jreferee t/c 02:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: some of the claims to notability in the article are quite vague. Could you explain which television shows she has appeared in? And could you give us some more information on for instance sales figures of her books? Has she worked for any important restaurants? Such information could establish her notability. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Contributor to lifestyle magazines and appeared as a repeat guest on Australian television shows is enough to get it past CSD A7 importance/significance indication requirement. -- Jreferee t/c 02:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"'Reply'": I can tell you what i know, but as i;m not her business manager etc i don't know the exact extent or the figures of her success, but i'll be revising the article with further information and am confident that others will add their knowledge on the subject. Darling-Gansser has been a repeat guest on channel 9 popular TV show 'FRESH', she has written for Vogue Entertaining and Travel, Voi Tutti and Womans Day (plus others that i can't recall), has been the guest speaker on ABC and Adelaide Radio, she has guest lectured at the italian school Dante Aligherie, has been the celebrity cook for charity fundraisers (ie. cancer and homeless youth). Yet it is her 3 books (soon to be a 4th and then kids cookbooks) that sell in over 15 countries that are the most notable attributes. please don't deny her thousands of supporters around the world the right to this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birri85 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Jreferee thanks for your input. You agree with me that CSDA7 is unjustified and since you are an administrator could you please restore my entry. i'll be sure to refernence it and add citations where appropriate. Thanks.--Birri85 04:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once a consensus discussion is started as you did with this one, participating admins and non-admins are in the same boat and usually have to wait for the outcome of the consensus to take any action. Your best option is to start a draft article in your use space here to reference it and add citations where appropriate. Once you have completed the draft, present it to DRV and ask that the Manuela Darling-Gansser article be restored using your draft as its next post. -- Jreferee t/c 17:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin's comment: Writing articles and being on TV is not an assertion of one of WP:BIO's factors of notability. I'll restore the article myself if references to multiple substantial coverage of this person by reliable sources are provided. Sandstein 06:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking on CSD A7 importance/significance was that it was a quick way to gauge the likelihood of available source material sufficient to potentially raise at least mixed keep/delete opinions at AfD. Using WP:BIO's factors of notability seems an interesting CSD A7 approach and actually might be better than my approach because your approach does not rely on the subjective opinion of the deleting admin to determine what is important and what isn't. WP:BIO is good for CSD A7 because what is and is not important has been predetermined by consensus. Food for thought. -- Jreferee t/c 17:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion no assertion of notability, vague comments are not enough: what you need to do is assert notability (see WP:BIO, which doesn't say being on TV makes you notable for example or writing a book makes you notable). Carlossuarez46 16:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the speedy and permit re-creation. asserting the authorship of multiple books is an assertion of importance. If an admin think it insufficient they should take it to Afd. I see a very disturbing trend here to permit admins to delete articles on the basis that they think it non-notable. That is not the criterion for speedy, but rather a good way to get into a free-for-all, here we each use our own standards. No admin has no right to require sources for restoring an incorrectly deleted speedy, since unsourced simply is not one of the speedy criteria. "My thinking on CSD A7 importance/significance was that it was a quick way to gauge the likelihood of available source material sufficient to potentially raise at least mixed keep/delete opinions at AfD." is a proposal to overthrow the deletion policy for speedy. Thats simply not what it says there, and we do not proceed according to what we think the policy ought to be. Discuss it there if you want to change it.DGG (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the article because I thought the subject was not notable. She may well be, although we don't know that due to the lack of sources. I deleted the article because it did not assert the notability (as established in WP:BIO) of its subject. -- Sandstein (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, then, on the basis that ~~you~~ an editor personally did not think there would be "the likelihood of available source material ". DGG (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that quote is not by me, but by Jreferee. I do not know or care whether there are likely to be sources about this person. I deleted the article because it did not provide any sources, it did not assert that there were any sources, and it did not assert that the subject had any other characteristic that meets the notability criteria of WP:BIO. Sandstein (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC) (sorry about that, I fixed the comment above)DGG (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. WP:CSD#A7 does not require an assertion that the subject meets WP:BIO. It requires an indication that the subject is important or significant, and makes clear that this is "distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources". In this case the fact that she's a published author with appearances on many TV programmes should be more than enough to overcome that hurdle. A7 was intended to deal with "vanity" articles for obviously non-notable people. It should not be extended to delete articles on people who are quite likely to be notable simply because the unfortunate newbie who wrote it hasn't learned about citing sources yet. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editors Sources Thank you to those admins who've added to this debate. I've gathered a whole bunch of secondary sources on Manuela Darling-Gansser that will surely put this matter to an end and reinstate the article. I just want to add that i will add citations to the re-established article as i'm sure the editors to follow will do also. Here are the published sources (note that her 3 published books sold internationally are not included):

Darling-Gansser has written for Vogue Entertaining + Travel (Australia) May 2004, Nov 2004, Feb/March 2007, Fashion Capital 'Chadstone Launch Issue 2003', Vive Dec 2003, Jan 2004, Voi Tutti Issue7 2007, Issue 8 2007, Issue 9 2007, Sydney Morning Herald: Good Living Nov 14, 2006. Darling-Gansser has revieced reviews and been interviewed in Gourmet Traveller (AUS) Nov 2003, Feb 2006, May 2007, Vogue Entertaining + Travel Dec 2005, Jan 2006, July 2007, Hoofs & Horns Summer 2005, Woman's Weekly March 2007, Voi Tutti Issue 3 2005, The Weekend Australian Dec 17-18 2005, March 24th & 31st 2007, Wentworth Courier 2nd & 16th May 2007, The Age 22 Nov 2005, NW 18 July 2007, Australian Table July 2007, Hobart Mercury 28 March 2007, Good Reading May 2007, Courier Mail 10 April 2007, Weekender 16 Dec 2005, The Australian 17 Dec 2005, Sydney Weekly 3 May 2006, Eatdrink.com.au Nov 2005, Vive Dec 2003. Darling-Gansser's book Under the olive tree (2003) won 'The Ligare book printers best designed cookbook' prize at the The Australian Publishers Association 52nd Annual Book Design Awards 2003. Celebrity cook on Channel 9 Fresh TV program on 16 march 2007, 14 march 2007, 20 march 2007. Interview on 102.3fm July 2007.
NB: There are numerous other radio, magazine, newspaper interviews and articles, as well as many lecture appearences and guest chef appearences that occured but that i can not find sources for (future editors will help in adding to this field).--Birri85 (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, send to AfD Published author who seems to have appeared on tv for her books makes this a case for community investigation. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

N-Dubz – Ordinarily this would need the full 5 day DRV to overturn the previous AFD but in this case it would be process for process' sake. The AFD in April noted that they were not notable and reportedly on the verge of signing for Polydor. They seem to have just won a major music award. Ergo the AFD is no longer relevant and the group are clearly notable. Articles unsalted. Please drop me a note on my talk when you have recreated and I'll undelete the history for you. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Created and deleted an enormous number of times, accumulating an AfD and a salting along the way. It's since been re-created 4 times as n-dubz (which is also salted) and 3 times as N Dubz as well. Why would so many different people recreate an article on a non-notable band? Simple; the band isn't non-notable. They've clocked two chart hits in the UK this year, including one that peaked at #26 this month. I'd like to have this Unsalted (along with n-dubz) so I can establish a decent article for the group. Chubbles 00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt - Chubbles hasn't let us down yet. In addition, there is reliable source material avaiable and their coverage by news sources seems to be increasing: BBC news, here's a bunch. 'da gonna blow up so we might as well be ready. -- Jreferee t/c 02:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.