UEFA Cup 2007-08 first round (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Similar articles were kept whereas this one was deleted due to "vanity" and "unencyclopedic" and while the article was still at its infancy. Supporters of the original nomination quoted another argument - that the contents should be merged to UEFA Cup 2007-08. But seeing the breadth and depth of this main article and the importance of its subject, it follows that such details deserve a child article. The original editor tried to recreate the article, but was sd-tagged by the original deletion (as CSD-G4 apparently) by the original nominator before much further additions could be made to address the changes. Informed by the major editor of this article, I feel that there is a need to address the concern. I hope that the deletion decision could be overturn, or otherwise I'll nominate all relevant articles for deletion. Der yck C. 19:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Making threats will get you nowhere. I've made it into a redirect; do as you will in the main article following the usual consensus-building processes, where the AfD forms part of that formulation. I would dispute the "breadth and depth" of the main article which contains a minimal qauntity of prose from which I, a non-specialist encyclopedia reader, can learn anything. It could stand to be significantly improved, and I would hope that the process of agreeing how and whether to include first round information into the article will improve it greatly in that respect. (I would further observe that the article in question was also little more than a collection of tables.) Splash - tk 22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not making threats here: I'm just demanding parallel ruling between similar cases. -- Der yck C. 11:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close The articles that were kept were for the subsequent (and I would think very obviously more notable) stages of the competition, and the group of closes was therefore consistent. It might have been clearer for the same admin to have closed all three, but still it was done consistently and reasonably. DGG ( talk) 17:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close (as closer of the other two) It sounds like the requester of this review regrets that the three articles were not bundled into one AfD nomination. Failing that, he probably regrets that the same people who participated in the one did not necessarily also participate in the others, and if they did, he probably wishes that their recommendations would have been consistent across the 3 articles. While it is likely that it would be easier to discern how consensus was applied if this was the case, it did not happen that way. The participants in the later-stage competition article AfDs felt that these subjects met the notability and sourcing requirements. The participants in this AfD did not feel that way. Perhaps this is because like most series competetions, there is a point in the process where it becomes notable. Junior Miss America competitions come to mind... some schools have their own competition, then cities and towns have one, then the district has one, then the county, then the region, then the semi-finals, then the big one with all the states. The little school ones are not notable, ordinarily... it has to be determned at what point these are notable. Demanding WP:ALLORNOTHING or (NOTHINGORALL) are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Alex Rhodes (footballer born 1988) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Now has an implication of notablity as he has played for a professional club in a national league, meaning he passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. [1] Mattythewhite ( talk) 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per nom, but suggest doing them in one go rather than one-by-one. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Provisional keep deleted, since the WikiProject has arbitrarily invented new criteria making this article notable when an evidently-large number of AfDs have reached exactly the opposite conclusion. The WikiProject lacks the authority to overrule the community. Note that it is stated below that all that has changed is that the WikiProject has changed (for which read: invented) the rules regarding which articles should be deleted. Nothing has changed about the subjects of the articles, other than that the WikiProject came up with some handy rules meaning they can claim a large number of articles ought to be undeleted despite the repeated, consistent, contrary decision of the community. Splash - tk 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• You are overloading DRV. Please stop it, and find a better way. If you continue, I will start removing the nominations to allow DRV to function as a place other than a football playing field. Also see my comment below. Splash - tk 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per WP:BIO, the guideline that has community consensus. It is not appropriate for a project to attempt to define different standards among itself. GRBerry 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but the way to decide this issue is a wider discussion. It it not clear whether WP:N general criteria overrides the special criteria, but it is certainly unclear whether players at this level of a competition in a sport would be regarded as notable by the wider community. Within reason it is good that people use DRV when they feel aggrieved by an AfD--it is the proper channel. I suppose there is a level where it might be abusive and obstructive, but I don't think it has reached that point. DGG ( talk) 17:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion In my opinion, if a particular person's notability has changed, it is better to re-create the article including and emphasizing the information that asserts this notability. -- Avi ( talk) 02:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - it is not appropriate for projects to introduce standards lower than WP:BIO for particular sports. We have a clear standard "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." that provides for consistency across all sports. If this project wants a relaxation then they should propose an amendment to WP:BIO. BlueValour ( talk) 23:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels (  | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| MfD)

This abuse documentation page was deleted a while back on the grounds that the vandal was gone from Wikipedia and that keeping the page was unnecessary glorification. However, recent evidence on WP:AN and WP:ANI calls this into question. According to this statement, there appears to be some suspicion that Solumeiras and/or Sunholm are actually WoW sockpuppets. (They have apparently now been blocked.) If that weren't enough, a blatant Willy account ( User:Tom on Tires — see page move history) has shown up. (See this AN thread). Given all this, I think we need to resurrect the WoW LTA page, at least for a while. *** Crotalus *** 15:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• A few socks now and again are to be expected from attention-seeking types. They are not to be encouraged by the reconstruction of glorifying edifices, however. Keep deleted, revert, block and ignore as usual. Splash - tk 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion These new accounts may or may not be the original Willy, but it really doesn't matter. By now the technique is obvious and WP has built-in safeguards, so as a result the damage is extremely minimal. More importantly, there's no evidence that dredging up years-old junk would help in the least... if anything, building shrines to vandals just serves as encouragement. As one of the world's most-visited websites, WP will always be a target of vandalism, mostly from bored kids, but the kind of massive "campaign" vandailsm from years ago has almost entirely stopped since we got rid of pages like this that provide incentive for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undelete. WP:DENY is not a deletion guideline and it is relevant and important to have this page. Stifle ( talk) 16:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Why? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse deletion Stiffle is correct that DENY is not a deletion guideline. And there may be vandals where keeping pages such as this will be useful to actually combat vandalism. I do not however see any gain that would come from undeleting this particular page. I'm willing to change my mind if someone can point to any sort of evidence that this page will actually help us catch this vandal more quickly in the future. JoshuaZ ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment somewhat ironic that one of the socks of User:Sunholm - User:TheM62Manchester was one of the few users who wanted to keep this. Indeed various other of the socks have asked for it to be undeleted, sent to them etc. Not to mention the drawing to attention of page move vandalism to admin notice boards etc. The page in question was little more than shrine to the vandal and no use in stopping the vandalism, someone moves a page to xxxx on wheels, block them you don't need an LTA page to tell you to do that. Indeed the account mentioned in the nom here was blocked within a minute of starting the pagemove vandalism, not sure having a page would have made that process any quicker. -- 81.104.39.63 ( talk) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

  Another of his socks asking for the content to be restored here (The user identified as the same user on wikinews, the userpage of TheM62Manchester identified as being the same user as Gold-Horn on wikinews...) -- 81.104.39.63 ( talk) 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted. WoW is not a current concern anymore. Even if one or two sockpuppets creep up now and again, we don't need a page for coordinating efforts to combat him. WP:DENY is an important principle, and the reasons given above to circumvent the prior decision don't cut it for me. Mango juice ^talk 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. Quite aside from showing the children where to find the WP:BEANS, Willy vandalism is so easy to spot and the fix so obvious that it's hard to see what purpose this LTA page might serve. Guy ( Help!) 23:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Deleted. WP:BEANS, etc. The information is available if needed, but it doesn't need to be visible. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted Does anybody REALLY need this proof in order to take care of Willy? Really? I see no need to let this page exist, it has already been determined Willy is a persona non grata and undeleting the page will not make that any more so.-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. This isn't actually needed for anything - if someone moves a bunch of pages to silly titles, don't get distracted investigating them, just block them. Further, there's copious evidence that one or more vandals wants this page back as a "hall of fame" type of page, and there's absolutely no need to have such things. — Gavia immer ( talk) 15:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn As someone who has joined WP after these events, and seen them frequently referred to, and heard others also ask questions about this part of the history, this merits a renewed and wider discussion. It's been around for a while, & nobody has repeated it,so I think BEANS is irrelevant; I do not see how DENY applies to history. There seems a tendency to write the persona non grata out of wiki memory, and I think that unfortunate. DGG ( talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted, because what page-move vandalism is is covered adequately at Wikipedia:Vandalism and this page would only serve to glorify it.- h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted', pages like that is probably part of the reason there are so many copycats emulating him in the first place. If it had not been created in the first place this whole "on wheels" meme would probably have fizzled out years ago. Besides this kind of vandalism is blatantly obvious, these long term abuse pages are better used to track the MO of more subtle vandals who don't nessesarily stand out like a sore thumb right away. -- Sherool (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Standard treatment for vandals is to just block them on sight, and revert any damage they may have caused. Willy on Wheels was never a particularly sneaky or subtle vandal which required a lot of investigation to uncover. In fact, it was a loud attention seeker, and removing these pages took away the attention it so much desired. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

Ben Watson (football player) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

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

Plays for a full-time club, same as rest. Jimbo ^[online] 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Now has an implication of notablity as he has played for a professional club in a national league, meaning he passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Jimbo ^[online] 14:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• I have merged the 'bulk mailing' of football plauyers into one nomination. Nominator: please prove your claim, or it doesn't lend itself to useful consideration. I'm beginning to wonder if the guidelines at WP:FOOTBALL might need a little 'help'. (And lord, but someone needs to make-sane the horror of wikicode that results from a DRV nomination. I'm considering taking the easy option and reduing it to a single link to the AfD.) Splash - tk 14:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• See http://www.graysathletic.co.uk/about for evidence - as of 2004/05 the club went full-time and are now competiting in the Conference National and have done so for the last few seasons. All the players (except Daniel Rose) have played for the club since then in a professional match. Daniel Rose plays for Oxford United who are too full-time and compete at a national level. Evidence here Jimbo ^[online] 14:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per nom. Players now meet notability criteria accepted by the project. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Would someone please provide an estimate of how many more of these bulk overturn requests are brewing? I would also be pleased to hear an explanation of why they are all occurring so suddenly. What has changed so abruptly that something like 10 AfDs are being questioned in the space of 24 hours? Also, I don't understand the self-inflated jargon given in the external link above, but it stops the history around 2003-2005, so I don't see how that can have provided new evidence since the AfD in 2007. Splash - tk 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • No idea how many there may be, but basically WikiProject Football finally got around to defining some notability criteria; the new criteria mean that anyone who has played for a fully professional team in the Football Conference is now defined as notable, whereas in the past they were deleted as they hadn't played in a fully pro league. If it might save tens of articles being brought here, I don't mind people bringing examples to me first to check on their fitness for undeletion (which I could do as an admin). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Then I am minded to say endorse deletion since the WikiProject has awarded itself an exception to the repeatedly-expressed consensus of a large number of AfDs that run counter to its notability criteria. No WikiProject may simply declare all their would-be articles notable when the community has repeatedly declared otherwise. Splash - tk 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
      • This is certainly not a case of WP:Football declaring "all their would-be articles notable"; it came about through trying to clarify the problematic WP:BIO definition of "played in a fully-professional league", as some notable leagues (e.g. Belgium) are not fully professional, and thus WP:BIO as it is would not allow Anderlecht players an article, even though they regularly play in the Champions League. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Then I would suggest that the articles which slipped through a genuine specialist gap at AfD are sought out and brought to DRV with a meaningful nomination statement. The zero-effort mass-nomination campaign presently underway to restore single-sentence sub-stubs will not do, and I would repeat that the WikiProject having invented some convenient goalposts for itself does not alter that fact. An example of the above list of articles is Craig McAllister, of which the entire content was "Craig McAllister is a footballer and currently plays for Grays Athletic", along with stubs and categories. Requesting its undeletion is a spurious exercise. Splash - tk 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Mattythewhite ( talk) 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion The football project does not have the ability to override the consensus of many AFDs and all editors, and their supposed criteria are thus meaningless. WP:BIO is the guideline with community consensus, and no argument is being made that these players meet this standard. GRBerry 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

*endorse deletion per GRBerry. We have general criteria for athletes that these people don't meet. If they want to change WP:BIO they can get consensus to do that but unilateral notability standards aren't good. JoshuaZ ( talk) 17:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Changing to overturn per explanation from Number 57. JoshuaZ ( talk) 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• 'Endorse for now I do think special notability standards have their place, but they must be accepted as least tacitly by the general community, and it is fairly clear that this one has met significant resistance. The only good way to settle it is a general discussion. DGG ( talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment if WP:BIO needs clarification the place to do so is within WP:BIO via community wide discussion, not via some page on some wikiproject. -- 81.104.39.63 ( talk) 15:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - it is not appropriate for projects to introduce standards lower than WP:BIO for particular sports. We have a clear standard "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." that provides for consistency across all sports. If this project wants a relaxation then they should propose an amendment to WP:BIO. BlueValour ( talk) 23:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

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

I would ask to restore the last version of Sonopia page. Sonopia article was moved to "speedy" deletion because it has failed AfD due to the not-proper content. The last version of Sonopia had different content from the previous versions. I have read wikipedia policies already and I have tried to edit page according to all policies, so can it be restored? I will appreciate any help, thanks! Sonopia Guru ( talk) 13:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted. The nom is correct that G4 doesn't apply, as this version was not "substantially identical" to the article that was deleted. However, it is blatant advertising, and as such qualifies for WP:CSD#G11. A ecis ^Brievenbus 14:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted Hopeless spam + obvious and blatant COI case. Subject would not pass WP:WEB even if cleaned up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

File:Image:Inuteropromo.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Image was speedy deleted for the reason: "reasonable to assume a free image exists", which is not a justifiable criteria for speedy deletion. Admin should have used template:rfu so that a discussion could have taken place as to the availability of a free image of a band that hasn't existed in fourteen years. ChrisB ( talk) 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• The image was tagged with {{di-replaceable fair use|old image=yes|date=February 6 2008}}. However, non-existence would seem to get around the FU free replacement rules. I attempted to fathom what was going on in the rather arcane history of this image, but failed, so have restored it in full. Splash - tk 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply