From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gabrielles Wish (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I removed the speedy tag. Having released 2 EPs and 3 albums is a claim of notability. I'm not saying they are notable, but I removed a speedy tag that had been placed on the article because I figured that there was, at least, a claim of notability there. Corvus cornix talk 22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I think this is a good case of snowballing. The claims as made have no chance of passing WP:BAND. enochlau ( talk) 23:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • We don't snow CSDs. There is a clear assertion of producing 3 studio albums which would meet WP:MUSIC if there were released by a mainstream publisher. This clearly needs a discussion and the possibility of some sources appearing. Overturn & List Spartaz Humbug! 23:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I've restored it and prod-ed it. The publisher in question does not appear to be "mainstream". enochlau ( talk) 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jacki-O (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Contesting prod. For whatever reason, nobody bothered to check the US charts before deleting this; she hit #95 with her album. [1] Chubbles ( talk) 21:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Asudem (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

very fast deletion after a apeedy for the first time. the movie is IMHO notable IMDB.COM ... Sure it was bad written, but I've got no time to copyedit something ;-) please consider to undelete it. Thx Sebastian scha. ( talk) 10:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse the closure of the AfD. The AfD was pretty clearcut here, and while I can't see the G4 they (generally) are pretty well handled. The proper solution would most likely be to write up a draft in your userspace (at, say, User:Sebastian scha./Asudem) and make sure that it doesn't have the same failings that the AfD'd version did, then ask some experienced editors of it's ready to be moved into mainspace. We can have the content userfied for you if you want a starting point. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 13:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, the speedy deletion was not out of the blue as the article had been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asudem and deleted per consensus the day before, the recreated version was not much different and still without third party refs. -- Tikiwont ( talk) 14:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, AfD consensus was crystal clear. No new evidence being presented here to support undeletion of this article. I'll second the idea that the author may want to make a version in userspace for review prior to trying to get this back out into article space. Sher eth 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Note It's not my article. I just wanted to coedit a little bit and as I tried to save it, the 2nd deletion happened ;-). But if it is so dificult to undelete it, just let it be. Thanks for your help. Sebastian scha. ( talk) 17:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joel Widzer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I am the speedily-deleting administrator - I deleted it for advertising. There has been a lot of tendentious editing on this page and there is some objection to the deletion saying it was not advertising. I feel it was, but I'd like others to review my actions. Please note that this article has been previously deleted at AfD as well as speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7. Toddst1 ( talk) 02:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I and other creators of this page have worked hard to make it a valuable piece for Wikipedia. I have looked at other bio sites and try to use the format and editing they have used. This seems to be ok until an editor comes along and changes everything. We have worked hard with editors to remove advertising and to make it read within specs. This article contains factual information that has been verifiable. It was deleted and then reword with all the suggestions of editors. It is not the intent to make a ad but to provide noteworthy information about an important American travel writer. I believe that it was deleted today because there was an editing war between an contributor and editor and of course the editor won out. Please help to improve and restore this page. reagan ( talk) 02:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

below read a discussion demonstrating why the page was undeleted. Once more those working on this page have tried to make it fair and non-promotional. Thank you [edit] Widzer Widzer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log) Notability is questioned.... - Philippe | Talk 05:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep This guy seems to be notable per USA Today and a number of other sources. Article may not be NPOV and needs improvement but the guy is notable. --Hdt83 Chat 05:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Keep. This article does nothing but assert notability through the mentioning of coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Someguy1221 05:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC) I see mention of outlets that have "interviewed" him, but.... I'm not sure that's real notability. Is everyone who's interviewed notable? - Philippe | Talk 06:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Comment.I think the key here is having been interviewed by multiple sources. This shows that he is considered notable enough by said sources that more than one person wants to talk to him. Someguy1221 06:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Comment. This is a blatant promo piece the way it's written. It also needs to be blanked per WP:CP pending confirmation of the author's authority to use the text on the subject's website. So if you want to see it for this AfD, look in the history. -- But|seriously|folks 06:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Keep but rewrite as a cited stub. We don't need his PR blurb, which doesn't really even focus on his being a "travel expert". --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Keep the man seems notable because of his media appearances and coverage in USA Today. However the article needs a major re-write (based on the last archived version before the temporary blanking). Pats Sox Princess 13:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reagan ( talk) 03:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn: I am restoring this article per request from kingturtle Toddst1 ( talk) 04:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gabrielles Wish (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I removed the speedy tag. Having released 2 EPs and 3 albums is a claim of notability. I'm not saying they are notable, but I removed a speedy tag that had been placed on the article because I figured that there was, at least, a claim of notability there. Corvus cornix talk 22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I think this is a good case of snowballing. The claims as made have no chance of passing WP:BAND. enochlau ( talk) 23:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • We don't snow CSDs. There is a clear assertion of producing 3 studio albums which would meet WP:MUSIC if there were released by a mainstream publisher. This clearly needs a discussion and the possibility of some sources appearing. Overturn & List Spartaz Humbug! 23:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I've restored it and prod-ed it. The publisher in question does not appear to be "mainstream". enochlau ( talk) 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jacki-O (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Contesting prod. For whatever reason, nobody bothered to check the US charts before deleting this; she hit #95 with her album. [1] Chubbles ( talk) 21:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Asudem (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

very fast deletion after a apeedy for the first time. the movie is IMHO notable IMDB.COM ... Sure it was bad written, but I've got no time to copyedit something ;-) please consider to undelete it. Thx Sebastian scha. ( talk) 10:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse the closure of the AfD. The AfD was pretty clearcut here, and while I can't see the G4 they (generally) are pretty well handled. The proper solution would most likely be to write up a draft in your userspace (at, say, User:Sebastian scha./Asudem) and make sure that it doesn't have the same failings that the AfD'd version did, then ask some experienced editors of it's ready to be moved into mainspace. We can have the content userfied for you if you want a starting point. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 13:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, the speedy deletion was not out of the blue as the article had been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asudem and deleted per consensus the day before, the recreated version was not much different and still without third party refs. -- Tikiwont ( talk) 14:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, AfD consensus was crystal clear. No new evidence being presented here to support undeletion of this article. I'll second the idea that the author may want to make a version in userspace for review prior to trying to get this back out into article space. Sher eth 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Note It's not my article. I just wanted to coedit a little bit and as I tried to save it, the 2nd deletion happened ;-). But if it is so dificult to undelete it, just let it be. Thanks for your help. Sebastian scha. ( talk) 17:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joel Widzer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I am the speedily-deleting administrator - I deleted it for advertising. There has been a lot of tendentious editing on this page and there is some objection to the deletion saying it was not advertising. I feel it was, but I'd like others to review my actions. Please note that this article has been previously deleted at AfD as well as speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7. Toddst1 ( talk) 02:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I and other creators of this page have worked hard to make it a valuable piece for Wikipedia. I have looked at other bio sites and try to use the format and editing they have used. This seems to be ok until an editor comes along and changes everything. We have worked hard with editors to remove advertising and to make it read within specs. This article contains factual information that has been verifiable. It was deleted and then reword with all the suggestions of editors. It is not the intent to make a ad but to provide noteworthy information about an important American travel writer. I believe that it was deleted today because there was an editing war between an contributor and editor and of course the editor won out. Please help to improve and restore this page. reagan ( talk) 02:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

below read a discussion demonstrating why the page was undeleted. Once more those working on this page have tried to make it fair and non-promotional. Thank you [edit] Widzer Widzer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log) Notability is questioned.... - Philippe | Talk 05:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep This guy seems to be notable per USA Today and a number of other sources. Article may not be NPOV and needs improvement but the guy is notable. --Hdt83 Chat 05:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Keep. This article does nothing but assert notability through the mentioning of coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Someguy1221 05:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC) I see mention of outlets that have "interviewed" him, but.... I'm not sure that's real notability. Is everyone who's interviewed notable? - Philippe | Talk 06:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Comment.I think the key here is having been interviewed by multiple sources. This shows that he is considered notable enough by said sources that more than one person wants to talk to him. Someguy1221 06:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Comment. This is a blatant promo piece the way it's written. It also needs to be blanked per WP:CP pending confirmation of the author's authority to use the text on the subject's website. So if you want to see it for this AfD, look in the history. -- But|seriously|folks 06:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Keep but rewrite as a cited stub. We don't need his PR blurb, which doesn't really even focus on his being a "travel expert". --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Keep the man seems notable because of his media appearances and coverage in USA Today. However the article needs a major re-write (based on the last archived version before the temporary blanking). Pats Sox Princess 13:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reagan ( talk) 03:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn: I am restoring this article per request from kingturtle Toddst1 ( talk) 04:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook