Mixtape Messiah 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Very informative article. Really good mixtape, many other articles that should be deleted but definately not this one Dc 0808 (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Against deletion Great mixtape, I thought this was Wikipedia the most informative site out there and you delete your Mixtape Messiah 4 article. The admins on here need to stop being biased and undelete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc 0808 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sustain Delete Might be the best "mixtape" on the planet, there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources for it--therefore it would simply be an original creation... but I see no reason to overturn the AfD. Just being "really good" is not a reason.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin Proper procedure, clear consensus, not that nice response at User_talk:MBisanz#why_did_you_delete_Mixtape_Messiah_4_article. MBisanz ^talk 14:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the obvious and only closure. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Against deletion - This mixtape has MTV.com as a resource and some well-known reviewers plus this is the second most popular mixtape series in hip-hop(next to Da Drought Series by Lil Wayne) I even think that people who have good knowledge of hip-hop as a whole should only be able to evaluate whether articles should be deleted because clearly this MBisanz does not know what6 he is doing as far as this mixtape article goes.Xx1994xx (talk)
• Endorse deletion - closing admin read the AFD just right, and there's no reason given to reverse it. (Note that the "insult the deleting admin" technique doesn't usually work well in getting a deletion reversed.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Against deletion* - it is not an insult it is just my opinion plus the previous mixtapes, mixtape messiah 1,2 and 3 are not deleted and you can't have part a series have an article and delete the other half and dont think you can delete the others because mixtape messiah 1 is a retail album being the best selling mixtape to come out of texas so it is very notable, you have an article about an album/mixtape that is part of a series then you must have the rest of the series.76.101.122.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Against deletion - This article should be kept Mixtape Messiah 4 is part of a popular mixtape series and all parts of it needs to be kept.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse deletion - unanimous in favor of deletion, no procedural errors in the close. For those trying to argue notability here, DRV is not AFD round two. DRV serves to appeal XFD decisions either on the basis of a mis-read by the closing administrator or if there is significant new information that is brought to light after the XFD has closed. Otto4711 (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Against deletion - Mixtape Messiah 1 is the best selling mixtape out of texas and mm3 won mixtpe of the year at o-zone awards so you have to have all parts of a notable series.Xx1994xx (talk)
• Endorse - Since the closer interpreted the debate correctly. Mixtape Messiah 4 is a mixtape from Houston rapper Chamillionaire[1] that follows up Mixtape Messiah/Mixtape Messiah 1, Mixtape Messiah 2, and Mixtape Messiah 3 and preceeds Mixtape Messiah 5. Chamillionaire is a well known rapper for which there is a significant amount of reliable source material. See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. However, the "rapper was dubbed "The Mixtape Messiah" after selling thousands of tapes and copies of his first album, Get Ya Mind Correct." That leads to a problem in Wikipedia. There are article that discuss him by his "Mixtape Messiah" nickname and others that discuss his Mixtape Messiah work product. After a search, I believe there clearly is enought reliable source material for a Mixtape Messiah (recordings) or Mixtape Messiah (series) article and perhaps independent articles on Mixtape Messiah/Mixtape Messiah 1, Mixtape Messiah 2, and Mixtape Messiah 3. There is not enough info to have a separate Mixtape Messiah 4. This all can be resolved by creating Mixtape Messiah (recordings) or Mixtape Messiah (series) and spining off any subtopic as needed rather than insulting volunteers through a lack of understanding on how Wikipedia works. -- Suntag ☼ 20:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Proper procedure followed, no new information given to indicate decision should be reversed. Suntag's suggestion is a good way forward for those wishing to create a new article. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion the deletion discussion was carried out correctly and was unanimous. No reason has been presented to overturn the result. Hut 8.5 19:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and archive this as a classic example of puppetry and citing arguments to avoid. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Against deletion - making an article on the series may work.Xx1994xx (talk)

"nd archive this as a classic example of puppetry" how so? You guys are just haters man...get over yourselves.

• Endorse deletion and beat User:Xx1994xx with the clue bat; the "just haters" accusation died in the '90s. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna fingers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Proposing for relist. Made request for specific hit context inferring notability rather than 'X many Google hits,' but the only responses were an item that would belong in a trivia section, and "is cited by major media as one of the flagship products." Discussion was closed and article kept without further context being provided. Asked admin about it here and got response here. arimareiji (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• sustain the keep. already listed the full 5 days, and then relisted--whereupon a keep consensus quickly emerged. -- and rightly so,considering the available citations from multiple sources, and the clear indication there could be many more. Consensus can change, but since it seems to be changing if anything in favor of such articles, I would not advise trying again for at least 6 months or so.DGG (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the keep. I'm basing my decision based solely on the AfD in question, and it looks to me that "keep" was the right conclusion based on the points provided by each of the editors. While there are reasons to delete, there are also reasons to keep and the consensus (as I see it) was resolved correctly. I see no reason to change at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DRV should not be used as an AfD do-over. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - not sure if it's incorrectly tagged, but there's no link from Vienna fingers to this discussion. I agree with Arimareiji about there being problems with the validity of arguments at the AFD; the Google News search in particular finds lots of hits, but primarily as trivial passing references in lists, party tips, etc at the level of "Try fruit like strawberries and cherries or pretzels, biscotti, marshmallows, vienna fingers or mini cream puffs. Less work for you, more fun for them". There's very little there that I'd call secondary sources about them. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am putting an "Under Construction" tag on the article and will work on rewriting the article (it is, admittedly, in need of serious input). Hopefully, that will put an end to the grumbling over the merits of this entry. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I fixed the DRV link from the article page, and I redirected the article to Vienna Fingers -- we had the wrong spelling of the product all of this time (there is an uppercase F -- "Vienna fingers" refers to Austrian hands). Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - could someone explain to me what Wikipedia "consensus" is? Above, people refer to the "consensus" that developed in a few hours after relisting in the original AfD, but the "consensus" referred to is three people saying "I agree" - no new arguments, just votes.
  Did I misunderstand what "consensus" means in actual practice because of having read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY ("primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting") and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD ("The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments")? I've only been here since July, and if I misunderstood the meaning in practice - i.e. weight of votes, rather than weight of logic - I want to know so I can stop making incorrect assumptions. arimareiji (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
• New evidence that the discussion itself was flawed - one of the primary arguments in the AfD was "Plus, regarding Neil Simon's mention of the cookie in "The Odd Couple" -- that play was written in 1965. The article clearly needs enhancing, not erasure."
  This is the actual quote, to show how topical it was:

  "Get something to eat first. Like some nice, hot Ovaltine?... How about some Vanilla Wafers or Vienna Fingers or some Mallomars? You like a nice box of chocolate Mallomars?"

Oscar: "How about vanilla wafers? Or Vienna fingers? I got everything."

The Odd Couple: A Comedy in Three Acts, By Neil Simon. Published by Random House, 1966, Original from the University of Michigan. Digitized 3 Mar 2008, 116 pages (provided by another editor in another thread)

-- arimareiji (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quote! I added it, along with proper referencing to a published text of the Neil Simon play, along with several news articles relating to the subject. Please note -- this is strictly a stub and will probably never get to GA (let alone FA). But on its own merits, it has become fairly clear (both in the AfD discussion and in the ongoing editing process) that there is notability here. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't see how nontopical it is to say that Vienna Fingers deserve an article because of one product placement in a 1968 movie? If I were a subscriber to the pernicious WP:POINT school of thought (I'm not), I can think of several thousand product placements that need their own articles now. arimareiji (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edited because it was subsequently shown that the original line in the play didn't include "Mallomars." I don't know about you, but I can only think the subsequent addition was for humor, providing circumstantial evidence that original intent was not product placement. Try saying "Mallomars" three times fast, and you'll see what I mean.) ;-) arimareiji (talk)

Considering that no person argued that the article's survival rested on a single line from a 43-year-old play, I don't follow your argument. In any event, I am in the process of expanding the article, and I've added information that everyone missed the first go-round -- including the documented fact that the Vienna Fingers product line was generating $50 million a year in sales when Keebler purchased Sunshine Biscuits. More fun facts will follow. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can assert no one made that argument. Look at the beginning of this thread, that's a quote from you. arimareiji (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The closer interpreted the discussion consensus correctly. It looks like the AfD was close seven hours early, but given that the relisting resulted in keeps, the AfD substantially completed with no process error. Comment - If there still is a need, a reasonable time before relisting at AfD2 would be around after 30 January 2009 (three months from the close of AfD1). -- Suntag ☼

• Support keep: The closer interpreted the discussion consensus correctly. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I still maintain that there has been a disturbingly high incidence of "votes," and that AFAIK these shouldn't count wrt determining consensus. But the editing that has been drawn to the article demonstrates that it's at least worthy of a stub. Is it appropriate for me to remove the DRV tag from the article? arimareiji (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Significant improvements to article at User:Paulmcdonald/Wally Bullington. Article was originally deleted and deleting admin normally prefers to go to DRV rather than discuss (which is okay). The original deletion review for the article occured during a bulk deletion run on articles and referenced Walter J. West as precedence to delete. This article has subsequently been restored. There is an essay on the subject of West Precedent that may also apply. Paul McDonald (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore to mainspace and optionally relist for afd. But since he was--besides the football coach and athletic director at Abilene Christian, an All-American in 1952 , I think its clear that by current standard the article would be kept. Part of a mass nomination of a sort that has since been strongly discouraged, because it did not give the opportunity to show notability like this. DGG (talk)
• I don't have a problem returning this to mainspace immediately. I'll voice my comment again that wikipedia doesn't operate by Stare decisis. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - AfD would be a pointless exercise as the article in its current form clearly meets WP:V and WP:N. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - Consensus to delete was on 22 September 2008. Rather than openly display the source work such as by using Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web citation templates, the draft article appears to burry the blog and webpage sources used to generate the draft. For there to be a DRV consensus to all recreation of the article, there needs to be a showing in this discussion that enough material for the draft article comes from secondary sources and that the substantially new material was not considered at the 22 September 2008 AfD. -- Suntag ☼ 19:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that's easy enough, just check the history of the page. You'll see a one-paragraph article. The article isn't written to "bury" anything, just that's the way it flowed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Comment The two templates referenced look really handy. I'll experiment with them on my own time... however, I am quite sure that using these templates is not a requirement for articles on Wikipeida.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about my comment "there needs to be a showing in this discussion that enough material for the draft article comes from secondary sources"? For each of the sources used in the draft, please provide a link to the website page that characterizes the site as "a third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Overview) -- Suntag ☼ 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay... Abilene Reporter News,Athens News Courier,WWE News,Abilene Reporter News,Boston Globe,WFAA Channel 8 Dallas/Fort Worth,College Football Data Warehouse,College Football Data Warehouse,NAIA National Football Championship,Lone Star Conference,College Football Data Warehouse,Abilene Reporter-News,Lone Star Confernece,NCAA News. While the article was indeed supplemented with other sources from the school, I'd say that the remainder would qualify... will those do? If not, please explain.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided. Okay, I'm new at contributing to DRV, hence the indecision. I've checked through the draft article and the new sources listed. The majority of the article information comes from just one of the sources, which isn't a great source as it is almost an advert for an event. This information was not in the article that was deleted and could be considered significant enough to be worth recreation even if it then leads to another AfD. The new version of the article would, in my opinion, have a reasonable chance of being kept after a second AfD. If that's a strong enough reason then count me as a Restore. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 00:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. I would've kept it in the first place. ––Bender235 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm only recently back from vacation; I'm neutral on this one. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Protection Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Princess protection program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Princess Protection Program. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

should not be deleted --gdaly7 (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure (keep deleted) and endorse the subsequent redeletions. The AfD consensus seems quite clear. I find no process problems in the discussion nor has any new evidence been presented to justify overturning that decision. Rossami (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This appears to be about Princess protection program and Princess Protection Program., not Princess Protection Program (the deletion of which I would endorse). Those are currently at AfD, so I suggest we just let that play out and close this. lifebaka++ 18:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those links are deleted. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Bout an hour after I posted, yeah. So, generally, I'm afraid I'll have to endorse all deletions here, lacking any good reason to overturn the original AfD or subsequent G4's. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse as I understand it, the movie has not come out yet and is still in production. Wikipedia is not a "upcoming movie review" guide, so I have to stay with endorse (but I tip my hat to the enthusiastic supporters of the article and ask politely that they try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - no policy-based reasons for DRV have actually been given -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as there was no deviation from proper process. The author may want to improve the article in user space until the move is released. Given the star power of the heroines with the pre-teen set, I have little doubt at some point it will be. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - It's not a hoax -- "Princess Protection Program," starring Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato and Tom Verica, is about a teenage princess who must flee and go into a top-secret protection program."10 April 2008. Eventually, there will be a Wikipedia article on the topic. However, per the 5-day AfD, the matter was reviewed and consensus found that the topic was not ready for a Wikipedia article. That makes the topic subject to speedy deletion under G4. Someone might want to review Princess (2008 film) as well. -- Suntag ☼ 18:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation A disney release for Jan 2009 is obviously going to be notable when they do release it. Since it must have completed most oft he production by now, it would pass CRYSTAL also. Not permitting it in November is more than a little over-legalistic. As for process, incorrect or unreasonable application of Wikipedia criteria is a mistake in process. DGG (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Even before they release the movie, there will be verifiable content. I agree that merely because the film release itself is an event in the future does not mean that things are not happening now. If someone found enough reliable source material for the topic (and used that to create the Wikipedia article), I would not object to permitting recreation, too. -- Suntag ☼ 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. An unseemly rush to be the first in the edit history on some item which is entirely premature as far as inclusion in an encyclopaedia goes, with obsessive recreation in the face of obvious consensus - a very bad idea. Virtually nothing can be written on this subject which is not speculative or poorly sourced. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]