Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 March 12

The Dating Guy – There is limited precedent here so other cases are not always binding. I see no need to debate this for a week as its basically a very reasonable request and I can/have full protected the redirect to prevent the article being recreated over the top. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a request to create a redirect (to marblemedia), not a request to restore the article. This redirect should be created for the following reasons:

WP:CON has previously been established in an extremely similar case at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 25#Futz!. In that case, the WP:CON in the deletion discussion was far stronger, with multiple requests for WP:SALT, yet the community decided that the redirect should stay. A different decision here would be inconsistent with that one.
This is the only Teletoon Original Production (currently out of 83!) with a WP:RED. This is also inconsistent.
Per WP:DRV: "1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" - the protecting administrator (after the deletion discussion) misinterprets the delete outcome to also preclude the creation of a redirect. In this particular case, the article was deleted per WP:N, which does not apply to redirects.
Per WP:DRV: "3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" - the information that has come to light in this case is that the option of a redirect was unfortunately not mentioned in the deletion discussion at all, so the community likely did not even consider it.

As a side note, this option was in fact mentioned by another user at the first deletion discussion for this article. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note as closer - the point re: DRV #1 is incorrect. I did not interpret the deletion outcome to preclude the creation of a redirect; I did not WP:SALT the article. User:Toddst1 did. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected my mistake. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

NKIA – Speedy Deletion Overturned. Can be listed at AfD at editorial discretion. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think this article qualifies for Speedy Deletion A7, as it had numerous references to nation-wide, albeit non-English, newspaper articles that featured the company, rather than simply mentioning it in passing. Please note the (proposed) revised page content at User:Cheolsoo/sandbox/NKIA. Cheolsoo (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The article appears to have been sufficiently sourced that speedy deletion was not the preferable way to deal with the article. If notability is in doubt, the article can be taken to WP:AFD to allow a full discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have temporarily undeleted this for the purposes of DRV Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with no bar on a new attempt at the article, the version nominated made no claim to any significance other than a list of clients and products sold. LGA _talk^edits 07:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Deleting an article whose sources show it plausibly meets WP:N as an A7 is never, ever appropriate. Wily D 09:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I have no prediction on how AfD will turn out, but having sources that might possibly show notability is one way of showing plausible importance. Perhaps we need to actually say this at WP:CSD. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem so, given the discussion below, and how often this error in understanding occurs with inexperienced Wikipedians. Wily D 10:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - While the claim of significance probably needs to be in prose, there is no requirement that the A7 indication of why its subject is important or significant needs to be in prose. Reliable sources deciding to write about NKIA indicates why NKIA is important or significant and citing those sources in the article makes it an article that indicates why its subject is important or significant. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Metropolitan90, DGG, Jreferee, and Wily I ask you to again view the the article that was nominated there were no claims to anything, it was one line on the history of the company, one line giving a list of clients and a list of Products and Services, as for the sources listed did anyone visit them ? because if you did you will see that none of them are in English. Coming on to the CSD criteria and I quote "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" so yes as nominated (and as deleted) the article was correctly deleted the article made no such claims. If I had seen the article linked to above which does meet the criteria and I would not have nominated it and I doubt any admin would have deleted it but to say that the original deletion was in any way wrong is a total misrepresentation. LGA _talk^edits 07:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, viewing the version that was nominated as A7, the only possible correct admin action would be to decline the request. The references section is sufficient to establish a claim of significance. The sources aren't in English, mais il y a beaucoup de persons qui parle les autre langues, aussi, on peut utiliser http://translate.google.co.uk/ - or any other translation service - to get a handle on the gist of the sources. Which is fine for the purposes of speedy deletion - if a deletion decision requires a lot of nuance, that's why we have WP:AFD. WilyD 10:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, "indicate" means "indicate", not "prove", About one-third of what passes speedy will be deleted rightfully by Prod or AfD, most often for insufficient evidence of notability--but they need the opportunity for discussion and improvement. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Seems to have been a judgement call on the A7, but there's no harm in letting this one have its day at AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Bad A7. Go to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at Afd. I can understand the A7 call given that it lists products and clients yet does not explicitly explain why it is significant within the article. Sourcewise, three of them link to the same PR release and the other two my browser thinks is held on an attack site (etnews.com?). I don't think either version meets WP:NCORP but that's not for A7 to decide. Funny ^Pika! 17:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Simply not eligible for A&, particularly per DGG's points. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to FunnyPika: etnews (aka 전자신문 or Electronic Times) has been printed on dead trees in South Korea since 1982 ko:전자신문 Cheolsoo (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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