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

They meet several of the qualifications listed in Notability (music). Here is an article from the BBC about their first release. Here's an article from the Manchester Evening News detailing a concert from their UK tour in 2004-2005. Here's a detailed profile from the Nashville Scene that details how they were dropped from their label for refusing to cover All You Need Is Love. Granted, that's not a news magazine, but it is reputable enough to be reliable and outlines the band's history. Their music has also been used as the background for at least one commercial (for CBS) and they do the theme to the ABC TV show Carpoolers. They've also had major US radio airplay with their song "Blow It Out", and while I can't find definitive proof of that, here's their page on MTV. Vcalzone 15:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• I was the deleting admin. I have no objection to re-creation provided the article is clearly sourced to third-party publications. In any case, this was deleted through proposed deletion so technically, there's nothing really standing in the way of re-creation. Pascal.Tesson 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Daniel Geduld (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I deleted this article under WP:CSD#G10. In double-checking my action, I saw that a prior admin had declined a G10 nomination and taken it to AFD. There are a few versions in the history that may not violate WP:BLP, and there are some keep opinions in the now closed AFD. But the article has generally been in a state that does not comply with WP:BLP for much of its existence. Was I correct to delete? Should it be overturned for an AFD? GRBerry 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and undelete at least the 06:40, 6 November 2007 revision, which does not seem to be speedy deletable under BLP. Claims of importance, sourcing... this might be a bit of vanity but this should go through AFD to decide whether he meets WP:BIO. The fact that there are some BLP violations in some revisions is a good reason to revert or delete those revisions, not the whole article. -- W.marsh 15:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This article was speedily deleted by two separate admins, who both then brought it to an AFD (or in this case, a review) because a small number of editors lobbied that the subject met WP:BIO. These are the same editors who want to maintain this article as an attack page for this man so they can continue to defame him. All the editors who want the article kept are members of the SomethingAwful Forums who have a longstanding grudge against Daniel "FlyingSquid" Geduld. This includes the article's creater rubber cat, one of the major editors Dans1120 and most, if not all, of the anonymous address. Dans1120's edits in particular were part of this thread he posted on those forums as an encouragement for others to deface the article further. Rubber cat also posts in that thread extolling Dans1120 for vandalizing the page. This article will not serve any other useful purpose than for those members to continue defaming FlyingSquid as long as they're able to. Cumulus Clouds 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I note that I haven't reversed myself, just brought it for review. It is a debatable action that needs review since I knew there was disagreement among admins as to whether this was the right thing to do. GRBerry 17:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• I apologize for the confusion. I'll retract that. Cumulus Clouds 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• rubber cat (and others) created The Skeletor Show to cross reference the material in Geduld's article, and it has almost entirely the same information as Daniel Geduld's biography. Since Richard Kyanka (the owner of Something Awful) was merged into Something Awful it would make sense to me that the same should be done for Daniel Geduld's information into The Skeletor Show, his major work. While that work may carry some small degree of notability, the author himself is nonnotable and does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Cumulus Clouds 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• Since this is now mostly a discussion on notability and there is in fact a BLP compliant version, I would recommend we send this back to AfD for a full discussion. Protection might be advisable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist - Cumulus Clouds posted on the talk page at 20:15, 5 November 2007: "Daniel Geduld is the user "FlyingSquid" on the Something Awful Forums, and this page has been created by his detractors to attack him on Wikipedia. Editors have attempted to insert controversial and demeaning opinions into the article with misleading references." Admin KieferSkunk reviewed the attack speedy delete request and posted at 23:07, 5 November 2007 "(rm {{db-attack}} - does not appear to be an attack page. Will nominate for AfD.)" Reliable source info Published information about Daniel Geduld doesn't appear until July 2007. (1) This July 20, 2007 article was picked up by many sources and (2) there is an August 11, 2007 detailed interview by National Public Radio. That seems to be about it, but likely is enough to meet WP:N. Conclusion - If there were BLP posting problems, the article could have been protected and blanked while the AfD discussion was going on. -- Jreferee t/ c 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist - I agree with the above discourse, mainly that I do not see clear evidence that the article itself is an attack page against the subject. Any attack elements in the page appear to be minor vandalism rather than the article itself being used as an attack page. Who knows, maybe I'm WP:AGF'ing a little more than I should be, but I see potential for a reasonable article. That said, I do not see that this particular person has enough independent info about him to warrant a Wikipedia article. I believe the article should be deleted because of notability issues (unless proven otherwise), but because it appears to skirt around the speedy-delete criteria, it deserves a formal (and full-term) AfD without a speedy-delete. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Information about Daniel Geduld might be merged to The Skeletor Show. Geduld is not sufficiently notable that it is worth devoting administrators to watch the article to protect it from BLP problems. What is interesting about Geduld is his voiceover work on cartoons, and The Skeletor Show seems to cover that. If there were a constituency of active editors that seemed likely to watch over the article and protect it against vandalism, my !vote could be different. Those participating here seem to be mostly admins concerned about proper procedure, rather than editors eager to maintain the article. EdJohnston 06:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Cold feet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD1| AfD2)

Was redirected to a symptom of a disease which is wrong, the article was considered a dic def till expanded with modern usage and history of use at the end of the vote. NOTE: the cached version doesn't have the additions made before deletion. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Comment History restored for this review, although I'm not sure why the deletion was necessary if the closure was for a redirect. Except in cases of edit wars or unacceptable content we don't usually delete the history behind a redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 07:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and mark as no consensus. I don't see the basis even for a "stronger argument" close here. Sure, it was a valid argument, but it certainly wasn't consensus. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment, I'm not sure we need an article on this topic, but a redirect to Raynaud's phenomenon is odd to say the least. The only people who would be looking for Raynaud's disease or syndrome by typing "cold feet" into Wikipedia's search engine are people who would be better served by WebMD. Most people searching for "cold feet" are looking for information on the idiomatic use of the phrase, and should minimally be directed to Wiktionary. Powers ^T 14:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• Yes, Raynaud's phenomenon is more than just a case of cold feet or cold hands. -- Jreferee t/ c 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• More to the point, "cold feet" is more than just Raynaud's phenomenon. =) Powers ^T 03:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn the deletion; no consensus in the AFD to delete the article. There is also no clear consensus as to where to redirect; multiple posisbilities were suggested and all have some good and bad points. And, at the end, the article was expanded and a source pointed out, so there isn't any clear consensus that redirection at all is appropriate. Whether to expand on the phrase or not, and if not where to redirect can be discussed in other venues that are more appropriate. GRBerry 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn ; no consensus in the AFD to delete.Seemsan adequate stub article. DGG ( talk) 14:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (my) deletion - at deletion, the article remained a dictionary definition, which was the reason for nomination, and was not addressed during the course of the AFD. There was only three arguements for keeping. There were 6 suggesting the article was unsuitable. The consensus that the article shouldn't be here was strong. The fact they could not decide whether it should redirect to Reynaud's phenomenon or Cold Feet shouldn't mean we should keep a validly-deleted dictionary definition in the meantime. Neil  ☎ 16:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Arguments that the redirect is going to an inappropriate article are editorial discussion, and not a procedural issue with the deletion. There is nothing to prevent someone from turning the redirect into a disambiguation page and creating a new, sourced article on the idiomatic use of "cold feet." -- Kesh 13:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • You clearly didn't read the discussion. This is not about the target of the redirect, but that there is no mandate to delete/erase the edit history, especially if the closing admin admits there might be a feasible article on the topic. ~ trialsanderrors 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - if the article was simply a dictionary definition that is fine but going off the AfD there was no consensus on that matter either, let alone to redirect to Raynaud's. In my opinion the article should be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect with a specific listing of the common phrasing "to get cold feet" with the listing connecting the user to wiktionary. The phrase does not need an article but would probably be one of the main reasons someone would search for "Cold feet". –– Lid^{( Talk)} 04:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Wahroonga Public School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The majority of the delete arguments were made prior to a substantial change to the article with seven references being added from a major Sydney newspaper plus a local newspaper. The only response to these references was one user who claimed that the material in the references were trivial, rather than the topic being mentioned trivially (ie. casually). The content of the articles is not material to notability. While the article is not up to scratch, that is not a reason to delete the article. Assize 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn This is among the better primary school articles & there are sources to show its important in its area. DGG ( talk) 14:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (my) deletion. The change was not substantial, and as best I could tell consisted of adding every URL with a passing trivial reference to the school to the article. Also, DGG, this is not AFD II. You are duplicating your "keep" argument. Please explain why you believe the closure was invalid, rather than making the same argument - this will help me to learn if my perception of policy and consensus was amiss, or whether you just don't like anything being deleted. Neil  ☎ 16:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - The arguments to keep were very weak. However, it is Articles for Deletion, not why should the article be kept. When it comes to public schools, there usually is enough reliable source material available for the topic. The delete reasoning should establish why there would not be enough reliable source material available for the topic. In the AfD discussion, the delete reasoning focused on the absence of reliable sources in the article but did not address the likelihood of reliable sources being out there. Since the delete reasoning was not sufficient and the keep reasoning very weak, no consensus seemed to be the consensus. Comment Hornsby Advocate and The North Shore Times have many articles on Wahroonga Public School going back to June 2001. -- Jreferee t/ c 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as per Jreferee. Whenever reliable sourcing is added, previous objections about reliable sourcing are defunct. Noroton 23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per DGG and Jreferee. At the very least this article should have been merged to the suburb article given the information that was in it and several editors asked for that if the consensus was leaning towards delete. Deletion was not an acceptable outcome. JRG 23:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply