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

UNDELETE_REASON 74.72.119.9 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time writing one of these so please pardon any mistakes.

I would like to see the article "Dead Awaken" in the "Browser-based games" category restored.

This entry was deleted twice in a two day period. One admin sited the site as "irrelevant content", the other said that "Wikipedia is not a web directory". However the "Browser-based games" category continues to exist, and I don't see any of the other entries in that category being deleted. I will specifically note that entry for the competing browser based game "Urban Dead", continues to exist also.

Earlier this month the Dead Awaken site removed a dozen of its most powerful players for sharing accounts and misusing administrator functions to read private e-mail and peek at player's profiles and statistics. I suspect this has something to do with the sudden need to remove information about the game from Wikipedia.

• Overturn. I don't care if it technically qualifies for A7, this should not be speedy deleted. Like I've said before, A7 is for things like "This is a really cool up-and-coming band. Their latest album sold 2 copies." -Amarkov moo! 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking right at WP:CSD#A7, any such web content with no assertion of notability is subject to it. Admittedly, the article was lengthy and seemingly well written, but this is irrelevent. Someguy1221 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd doubt the conspiracy theory at the end of your comment... Wikipedia admins dislike articles like this that seem to be too close to being just game guides, rather than encyclopedia entries. This article was very lengthy, but it didn't cite any published sources, and the closest thing it had to a claim of importance was "There is a strong message board community with many forums devoted to various aspects of the game". If other articles have these same problems, they can be deleted too... with 1.7 million articles, even the most herculean of all admins could barely hope to assess 1% of them even over a span of a few years, so one article's unchecked existence doesn't guarantee retention for another, similar article. Anyway, this article in question was pretty lengthy and I don't see the harm in listing it at AFD, since it only very arguably qualifies for speedy deletion. --W.marsh 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - utter crap - obvious A7.--Doc^g 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Game guide, no third party sources, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 09:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am aware of this review. As one of the admins who deleted this article, I choose to make no further comment, while standing by my original reasons for deletion. I leave the decision to the community to make. If the decision is for deletion, I sincerely hope that the author will not take it personally, and will continue to contribute to the project--Anthony.bradbury 11:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. A7 is for web content that does not assert notability. This did not assert notability. The fact that the content was also unsourced game guide stuff doesn't help, but the fundamental problem was lack of any claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist By speedy deleting the author was not even able to fix the mistakes. And a pretty cursory search under "Dead Awaken game" turned up this review which seems to ascertain notability, at least in October of 2006. We should restore the article, help the author understand what they did wrong, and if they are unable to fix it, then delete it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid Articles-7. No prejudice against creation of a sourced encyclopaedia article in its place. Deleted versions were unsalvagable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello again, I'm the person asking for the undelete. How about relisting the article and allowing thirty days to add sources and address the other concerns listed above? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.119.9 (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • It already had fifteen months. How about not. —Cryptic 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. A7 might be our most-misused speedy-criterion, but in this case, it seems to have applied perfectly correctly. No prejudice against recreation if non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources can be shown. (Yes, it could be sent to AfD with less than that, but what's the point if it only lives for five days. Just find the sources in the first place, and make a keepable article—if you can—rather than forcing us to waste time with bureaucratic tedium.) Create a user account and you'll get some place to start storing sources and working on draft versions. Xtifr _tälk 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion but list at afd - per Zappernapper, and at least to give the author a chance to prove notability. 64.178.96.168 17:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Second AFD seems to have been closed by just doing a head count... the actual discussion was much more important. Arguments for keeping were, and this is all of them: "Obviously those who want it deleting aren't getting any", "A unique Google count of 806,000 can't be ignored", "She genuinely is famous (I'd heard of her)", "such a high alexa ranking should pass the bio notes", "last i checked 809,000 unique google hits was notable" and a "per above" vote. Just to clarify, no guidelines or policies approve inclusion based on Google/Alexa rank. The arguments for deletion were that she doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO and no reliable sources exist at all. The arguments for deletion were not countered, and the arguments for keeping were extremely weak (none of them cited a policy, and only Oakshade bothered to reply to challenges, and he eventually agreed there weren't any reliable sources, but that we should keep because of her supposed popularity). This AFD should have been closed by considering the strength of arguments, not just by counting heads as if it were a simple vote, especially as verifiability problems were the main issue. This article is unverifiable, because no sources exist... there's been plenty of time to find some. Even the closer apparently thinks the article is original research, after I requested he look at it more carefully. The question isn't whether we've heard of this person, it's about if she meets inclusion standards... and in this case, there's no serious argument that she does. We shouldn't just be able to vote to violate WP:V and include original research. --W.marsh 12:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. The AfD made plain that she does not pass WP:BIO. Notability is neither fame nor importance. The consensus among the participants citing policy was to delete. Pan Dan 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Once invalid and misguided !votes are discounted, as they must be, the weight of opinion is clearly to delete. Google and Alexa are especially unreliable in cases of porn subjects, which have a very high cruft multiple. One thousand porn ghits roughly equals one hit for anything else. Just having the word teen in the name is also going to inflate the google and alexa count. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete Policy concerns were never addressed. Even some of the better reasoned keep votes acknowledged that the policy requirements couldn't be met at this time.—Ocatecir ^Talk 16:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - per this very good policy reasoning: [1]. Also, the valid reasoning from the first AFD was not mentioned. Also, give the people another chance to prove her notability, as it does appear she may have it. 64.178.96.168 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the replies to that... the supposed source was about another Tiffany. Trust me, people have had years to find sources... another week isn't going to matter. If reliable sources are found at some point, the article can be undeleted. The reasoning in the first AFD was just more of the same "I've heard of her" arguing with no policies mentioned. --W.marsh 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Google hits, while they may serve as a rough determination of value and notability of an article, makes the article no better than a WP:HOAX.--WaltCip 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the closing admin. After re-reviewing the whole situation and rechecking the article, which is quite terrible, I'm convinced I made the wrong decision. Overturn and delete. --Coredesat 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, no reliable sources provided in the AfD should mean an automatic delete. --86.31.121.57 21:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete - porn with no indication of independent notability. "It gets a lot of g-hits"? Yes, well, that's because it's porn.--Doc^g 00:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. There's no way that this fulfills WP:BIO or even WP:PORNBIO as is stands. Just did a google news search as well as a lexisnexis search, to no avail. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Delete This article is truly dire. Comes nowhere near qualifying under WP:BIO, and as far as I can see does not even qualify for consideration under WP:PORNBIO, assuming that a minimal view of part of a nipple does not qualify as pornography. Certainly, wearing jeans, a top and a suggestive smile does not.--Anthony.bradbury 11:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Delete. The article has no sources and fails WP:BIO. As for the Google hits, Doc made the point well enough above - "Yes, well, that's because it's porn." ♠PMC♠ 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Delete for the various reasons stated above. Eusebeus 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete The persons saying Keepdid not cite policies or guidelines, just "ILIKEIT" or Google hitsd or Alexa rating. On the Delete side the arguments showed that the article fails WP:BIO and WP:A. The closing admin should not just count votes. Edison 15:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that, hence my arguing to overturn and delete above. --Coredesat 07:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. How come people always seem to ignore Wikipedia:Search engine test#Non-applicable in some cases, such as pornography? ergot 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WikiProject Southern California (edit | [[Talk:Template:User WikiProject Southern California|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The reason for deletion was, "New userbox created in template space; should have been created in userspace per WP:GUS". [2] This is a userbox for members of WikiProject Southern California. If this should be in a userspace and not a template space, please instead userfy it, a subpage of mine would be fine... /Template:WP SOCAL or something. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and userfy - invalid deletion by admin. 64.178.96.168 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, I don't care what comes after. "WP:GUS" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Amarkov moo! 17:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmmm, neither of you guys are correct. The correct answer would be "project space", not user space or template space. I've recreated it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Userbox. So just put {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Userbox}} on your userpage and you're good to go. The reason this is better is because the location of the userbox makes it absolutely and immediately clear what it is a part of. All you have to do is follow the up link on it and there you are. Since it is associated with a WikiProject, it doesn't make sense to have it out in the wild of template space (where it cannot be found by a Special:Allpages prefix search on the WikiProject's name, which is a vital way to determine everything falling under the scope of a WikiProject), nor does it make sense to have it under only one user's userspace. This DRV is now moot. --Cyde Weys 17:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion As it has been recreated in the proper namespace CharonX/talk 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was speedied under A7 (no assertion of notability. But iMO it clearly asserets notability, claims of cover positiosn on local magazines, plus multiple TV appearences, pretty clearly claim notability, IMO. And sources are cited for at least soem of this. But the sources are not online, and I have not verified them. The original creator seems to have WP:COI issues, and the origianl version was highly promotional. But the current version (and the version delted) have had the peacock terms removed. I'm not sure if this should be taken to AfD, or what. Notabilitym even assuming that all claims are accurate, is borderline. So i have undelted and brought this here so that people can see what is involved. DES ^(talk) 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has already been undeleted, it should be moved to AfD. --soum (0_o) 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]